"Wet Goddess" Can bestiality Ever Be OK?

[Beerina]

I read about orangutangs who have raped human women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan A woman who was studying these creatures wrote about her cook being violated by one. I doubt if the orang was thinking he was doing anything wrong.

What about the female apes? You know, the ones who put the tang in orangutang?

 

[Beerina]

The comparison with pedophilia does not hold.

Yes it does. You are having sex with a being incapable of giving informed consent.

This is an issue with intelligent beings because it can seriously mess them up.

The same cannot be said of an animal.

 

[sadhatter]

What makes sex with animals inherently inhumane? What distinguishes sex from any of the other uses animals are put to?

Physical differences, and the lack of self control are huge parts of why it is wrong, from a more skeptical view.

Despite what promoters would have one believe, humans and animals are not very sexually compatible. And animals sure as hell cannot understand the dangers associated with sex with a person. Horses and dogs routinely go through rather traumatic injuries during this pursuit, if you have a strong stomach look up the term "horse ripping".

And what distinguishes this from other uses we put them to, is there is no reason for it. There is absolutely no reason to place an animal in a situation where it may have to be put down due to a rather nasty injury, because someone couldn't go buy a dildo. There is a reason to eat meat, we are omnivores, there is a reason to hook up a horse to a plow, it makes food production happen quickly. But there is no legitimate reason to make your favorite pet roll a dice, where 1, involves them dying, or living with a terrible mutilation, soley for sex.

In short it is an act that is dangerous for both parties involved, and provides no benefit, despite what those who would try and promote the idea would say. Promoters may want to anthropomorphize the thought patterns of animals, to try and justify satisfying an animal's need, but that is no more care for the animal than it would be to feed a child nothing but gummy bears because they really liked them.

 

[sadhatter]

Animals can't consent? Really?

So then every single act of mating is rape?

We study animal behavior, communication, and their biological needs. Cats purr and dogs wag their tails. I can tell if either animal likes the way I pet it.

Dogs hump your legs, cats in heat make it obvious they want sex, etc. I think humans are capable of knowing if an animal likes the action the human is performing. Either as harmless petting or as some form of sexual pleasure.

I have yet to see a legitimate reason why beastiality is immoral other than icky.

Do me a favor then, tell me, ( and tell me how you came to this conclusion.) if your male dog is okay with the premise that by having sex with you he could kill you, or kill or mutilate himself.

Consent requites knowledge, and unfortunately knowledge of the likely effects of banging a human, isn't something an animal can attain.

 

[sadhatter]

Decent arguments all around, generally.

I'm stuck. I can "feel" that it is wrong to use an animal for sexual gratification. I can also see that we use animals in other fashions that are more damaging to the animal.

So - does it come down to whether we confer animals actual rights? it seems we do not, at present.

It comes down to need, think of it this way.

If you are in dire financial straights, and you need your 16 year old son to contribute to the family funds , via money from his part time job, that is morally justified. But if you are a very well off family, and just make your kid work 8 hour shifts after school, and take the cash to the casino, your morals are wildly out of place.

We are evolved to eat meat, so there is a need to do so, we are omnivores, there is no 2 ways about it. We are not evolved to bang animals, there is no need to, and it generally ends up in some kind of harm for both parties involved.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Do me a favor then, tell me, ( and tell me how you came to this conclusion.) if your male dog is okay with the premise that by having sex with you he could kill you, or kill or mutilate himself.

Consent requites knowledge, and unfortunately knowledge of the likely effects of banging a human, isn't something an animal can attain.

I assume you meant to type "requires", not "requites".


A dog requires nobody's consent to bite them, or even to pee on their carpet. He is not making a moral decision.
Should he choose to copulate with a human, he will not give a doggie damn whether the human dies of it, because caring is not part of his neural process any more than morality is. Same applies if he bites the guy's throat out. The dog is reacting to instinct.

Whether or not a dog or a dolphin humps someone is not a moral issue. It's about wiring.

A man, choosing to kill a fly, bite a dog or bonk a horse IS making a moral decision. The effect on the dog or horse is not the issue. The effect on the man is.

Bestiality is immoral if the majority of people think it is.
It will always be icky, even if only to me, but if the legally constituted courts of the land, Her Maj. Teh Queen, the Arch Bish of Canterbury and 50.1% of the British electorate tell me it's not immoral, then it won't be. In Britain.
Because morality is about decision making and nothing else.

 

[sadhatter]

I assume you meant to type "requires", not "requites".


A dog requires nobody's consent to bite them, or even to pee on their carpet. He is not making a moral decision.
Should he choose to copulate with a human, he will not give a doggie damn whether the human dies of it, because caring is not part of his neural process any more than morality is. Same applies if he bites the guy's throat out. The dog is reacting to instinct.

Whether or not a dog or a dolphin humps someone is not a moral issue. It's about wiring.

A man, choosing to kill a fly, bite a dog or bonk a horse IS making a moral decision. The effect on the dog or horse is not the issue. The effect on the man is.

Bestiality is immoral if the majority of people think it is.
It will always be icky, even if only to me, but if the legally constituted courts of the land, Her Maj. Teh Queen, the Arch Bish of Canterbury and 50.1% of the British electorate tell me it's not immoral, then it won't be. In Britain.
Because morality is about decision making and nothing else.

What on earth does this have to do with morals, this has to do with intellect, and the ability to understand risks.

Your dog, cannot, simply via virtue of its wiring understand that the sexual encounter can, and often does lead to harm for one or both parties, you as a human can, so taking advantage of the fact that the animal cannot, is simply that, taking advantage of the animal.

And the bit about a dog not caring if it bites someone, that is some pretty odd logic. It is like your saying " So dog, you want to play the getting away with harm game , eh?".

If all of that is too esoteric for you think of the following analogy.

A gent at the bar asks for a cigarette, you give it to him, you both understand the risks of smoking, and the effect it would have, no one has done anything wrong. This is analogous to sex with an informed creature. It wants something, it understands the risks, and it gets something, even though harm is possible, it is understood.

Now, lets say this same gent asks you for a cigarette, you give him one laced with meth. Your still giving him what he believes he wants, but you are doing something totally immoral due to the fact that he has no idea that it is going to have a negative effect ( being high on meth.).

The dog is capable of asking for sex, but it has zero clue what it is asking for in regards to a human. It has no idea of the harm that can come to it, and beyond that, no mechanism for understanding this.

There is no ick factor here, i would have just as much of an issue with a dog fighter saying , " Well, dogs like to fight, so i let dogs fight.". Yes dogs do like to claim their territory, and keep it, but that doesn't mean it is okay to take advantage of this natural trait for our own enjoyment.

 

[truethat]

Animals kept in cages and slaughtered for food have a first-person point of view, have a mental life, can form memories, have personalities, have experiences. Animals kept in cages are harmed in the exact same way, to the exact same extent, feel the same suffering, and experience death in the exact same way as a child would if they were put in the animals place.

We're both skeptics here, we both realize that there's no magical property about being a member of one species or another, the suffering and pain a being experiences for being harmed and killed depends only on its mental capacities and not its taxonomic classification. If there's an obvious moral distinction in the harm they suffer, you need to account for it somewhere, instead of just asserting so without without argument. Why do you think my comment is BS?

The first part of your statement, while I don't necessarily disagree with you, is not founded on any sort of education or study whatsoever. And excuse me Dessi, I'm a bit older and have tolerated many young uns that try equating children to animals. I'm not being patronizing, you know I respect your intelligence, but you have absolutely no clue what you are on about. I've listened to the same BS about this forever from my friends who wished not to have kids and had dogs and cats and ferrets instead. Out of respect for them and their choices, and their inability to have children, I bit my tongue for DECADES only to have them eventually have children of their own and realize what a raging moron they were in the past. If I may, you don't have children and are probably being treated delicately due to your inability or choice not to. But comparing children to pets is one of may major (excuse the pun) pet peeves. People generally do not call people out on this because they don't want to be viewed as jamming their "breeder" status down "non breeders" throats. But you are so incredibly wrong in this observation that I have no idea how to convey it to you.

Additionally we are not herbivores versus carnivores. Humans are omnivores which means they eat both meat and non meat. And I sure wish I could commit to being a vegetarian. But I have not. I have nothing but respect for people who do not slaughter animals and choose instead to sustain themselves on foods not coming from other animals. Bravo to you for your sophistication.

That doesn't mean eating meat is wrong. Humans want to eat meat. The unfortunate reality is that slaughter houses are down right disgusting with this mass production of slaughtered animals for human consumption. Creepy. I get it.

That still doesn't make children like animals. So stop pretending it does.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Physical differences, and the lack of self control are huge parts of why it is wrong, from a more skeptical view.

Despite what promoters would have one believe, humans and animals are not very sexually compatible. And animals sure as hell cannot understand the dangers associated with sex with a person. Horses and dogs routinely go through rather traumatic injuries during this pursuit, if you have a strong stomach look up the term "horse ripping".

Did google it and have no idea what you're on about. Some psychos cut open horses, presumably for sexual gratification. What's the point? Some psychos cut up humans for sexual gratification, too.

And what distinguishes this from other uses we put them to, is there is no reason for it. There is absolutely no reason to place an animal in a situation where it may have to be put down due to a rather nasty injury, because someone couldn't go buy a dildo.

Does that mean you oppose horse riding, dog racing, circuses, etc?
I respect that, but the fact is society as a whole embraces these.

There is a reason to eat meat, we are omnivores, there is a reason to hook up a horse to a plow, it makes food production happen quickly.

Why is the desire to eat meat an acceptable justification for animal cruelty but not other desires? Is it how widespread the desire is?
Not sure where you're going with the horse-drawn plow thing. Are you Amish?
Surely you realize that their horse-drawn plows or buggies are religiously justified and not necessary for food or transportation.

But there is no legitimate reason to make your favorite pet roll a dice, where 1, involves them dying, or living with a terrible mutilation, soley for sex.

The topic is not animal cruelty laws but bestiality laws.

In short it is an act that is dangerous for both parties involved, and provides no benefit, despite what those who would try and promote the idea would say. Promoters may want to anthropomorphize the thought patterns of animals, to try and justify satisfying an animal's need, but that is no more care for the animal than it would be to feed a child nothing but gummy bears because they really liked them.

No one has appointed you judge of what constitutes a benefit.

The main part of your argument seems to be that sex with a human is necessarily or normally dangerous for an animal. Can you provide any evidence for that?
Whenever I think of bestiality my mind jumps to this case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The first part of your statement, while I don't necessarily disagree with you, is not founded on any sort of education or study whatsoever. And excuse me Dessi, I'm a bit older and have tolerated many young uns that try equating children to animals.

Appeals to authority are a canonical fallacy. That said, you'd have to be an authority for this to even qualify as an instance of the appeal to authority fallacy.

That doesn't mean eating meat is wrong. Humans want to eat meat. The unfortunate reality is that slaughter houses are down right disgusting with this mass production of slaughtered animals for human consumption. Creepy. I get it.

Well, obviously you don't get it if you think "creepy" is all there is to say. Humans want to do all sorts of things - run around in gangs, rape, murder, punch people who annoy them, cheat on their partners, steal, you name it. If doing what we wanted, or what we have evolved to do, was automatically moral we'd be in a right mess.

That still doesn't make children like animals. So stop pretending it does.

Actually a full-grown animal has far more personality than a newborn human. So stop pretending it doesn't.

Was that persuasive? Are you convinced my claim is true because some random internet denizen, who for all you know is just a long-running troll having a laugh, asserted it? If not, you might want to reflect on the fact that your assertions are no more persuasive than mine.

 

[truethat]

A full grown animal is a non human. Period the end. Appeals to emotion are illogical and total BS. Just because you want to humanize animals to justify better treatment for them doesn't mean it's true. Frankly it's a stupid argument. I've never thought animals should be treated better because they were "like people." I've thought they should be treated better because they are living creatures that deserve dignity and respect.

The argument that they are "like people" is total BS. Dogs have many times mauled babies. If you want to present a one sided tuggin' at the heart strings story of Ol' Yeller and Skippy the miracle cat go on. But it's a stupid argument.

Animals maim, kill and devour other animals all the time (including humans). So what in the heck are you talking about.

Animals are not human even if humans are animals. If you are arguing other than that, it's plain willful ignorance to which no one should reply.

 

[Puppycow]

I am against bestiality. I am also against other certain aspects of animal handling. I still maintain that animals should have less rights than human beings.

Then your objection lacks logical consistency.

It's delicious.

Joking aside, it is commonly claimed that in humans rape is "worse" than murder, for various reasons. While such a claim is subjective, once one maps it onto animals, it becomes "bestiality is worse than killing animals". Using that premise, then it becomes quite easy to understand. Of course, I don't necessarily agree with it, and it has very little to do with whether bestiality itself is wrong. I can say murder is wrong without comparing it to rape, and vice versa.

Rape is not worse than murder. It just isn't. And its hardly a subjective matter either. A murdered victim is gone forever, but a person who is raped can still have a life. They may even get over it if they are mentally resilient.

I note that you don't actually address the whole "consent" thing I mentioned. It really is quite vital.

I don't agree that consent is vital in the case of animals, and I don't see how you can claim that consent is vital for sex but not vital to kill the animal.

Yes it does. You are having sex with a being incapable of giving informed consent.

It doesn't matter. A dildo is also incapable of giving informed consent.

Either animals have rights or they don't. You can't say that the consent of the animal matters in one case but not another.

ETA: at least Dessi seems to have a logically consistent animal-rights based objection. I can respect that even if I disagree. Yours however is entirely arbitrary. Consent only becomes an issue when it involves a sex act, and is irrelevant otherwise.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A full grown animal is a non human. Period the end. Appeals to emotion are illogical and total BS. Just because you want to humanize animals to justify better treatment for them doesn't mean it's true. Frankly it's a stupid argument. I've never thought animals should be treated better because they were "like people." I've thought they should be treated better because they are living creatures that deserve dignity and respect.

The argument that they are "like people" is total BS. Dogs have many times mauled babies. If you want to present a one sided tuggin' at the heart strings story of Ol' Yeller and Skippy the miracle cat go on. But it's a stupid argument.

Animals maim, kill and devour other animals all the time (including humans). So what in the heck are you talking about.

Animals are not human even if humans are animals. If you are arguing other than that, it's plain willful ignorance to which no one should reply.

Nothing in your post resembles an intelligent or rational argument.

 

[Manopolus]

So who do we arrest when a mentally handicapped (or, as we used to say before someone decided it was misused enough to be ALWAYS improper: retarded) person has sex with a cow? I happen to know of just such an incident. Who was in the wrong? The retarded person? The cow? Or the person that prevented them from continuing their sexual relationship?

Personally, I'm not so sure that the cow's civil rights weren't violated when someone interfered with her sexual exploits.

 

[Puppycow]

So who do we arrest when a mentally handicapped (or, as we used to say before someone decided it was misused enough to be ALWAYS improper: retarded) person has sex with a cow? I happen to know of just such an incident. Who was in the wrong? The retarded person? The cow? Or the person that prevented them from continuing their sexual relationship?

Personally, I'm not so sure that the cow's civil rights weren't violated when someone interfered with her sexual exploits.

IANAL, but provided that the mentally handicapped is over the legal age of consent, I believe that they have the legal capacity to consent to sex as long as they are capable of communicating.

That doesn't really answer your question, but I would imagine that there would be no need to involve the police.

 

[roger]

The consent thing is problematic. My dogs lack it in large swarths of their lives. They were both recently bitten by a rattlesnake, a snake they could have avoided if we never hiked. I take them in the car, understanding the risks of an accident they are unable to consent to. I don't let them eat anything they want, yet allow some treats. And so on. I do not make light of this - it bothers me, but it seems to be a tradeoff with value. They get food, affection, a pillow top bed, etc.I have trouble thinking I am immoral for making decisions for then despite their lacking informed consent. That is not an argument for or against the OP, just questioning whether informed consent is the proper way to "get at" the answer.

 

[sarge]

It comes down to need, think of it this way.

If you are in dire financial straights, and you need your 16 year old son to contribute to the family funds , via money from his part time job, that is morally justified. But if you are a very well off family, and just make your kid work 8 hour shifts after school, and take the cash to the casino, your morals are wildly out of place.

We are evolved to eat meat, so there is a need to do so, we are omnivores, there is no 2 ways about it. We are not evolved to bang animals, there is no need to, and it generally ends up in some kind of harm for both parties involved.

I don't consider "need" to be the sole justification for doing something pleasurable, I doubt that sex between humans and animals "generally" results in harm to both participants, and I don't believe humans require animal flesh for sustenance.

Animals are useful, and I generally consider it okay to use them. I don't really care whether the use is a necessity or a nicety. I don't favor cruelty for cruelty's sake, but don't really oppose some things that are cruel. Hunting and fishing are cruel, and I'm fine with both. Pulling the wings off flies is cruel, and it would bother me. Squashing them with a fly swatter is cruel, and it doesn't bother me in the least.

In the abstract, I suppose I desire consistency, while in the real world I do not demand it. I am okay with shooting a deer with an arrow, letting it die, then eating it. I am not okay with porking the same deer and then releasing it unharmed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I assume you meant to type "requires", not "requites".


A dog requires nobody's consent to bite them, or even to pee on their carpet. He is not making a moral decision.
Should he choose to copulate with a human, he will not give a doggie damn whether the human dies of it, because caring is not part of his neural process any more than morality is. Same applies if he bites the guy's throat out. The dog is reacting to instinct.

Whether or not a dog or a dolphin humps someone is not a moral issue. It's about wiring.

A man, choosing to kill a fly, bite a dog or bonk a horse IS making a moral decision. The effect on the dog or horse is not the issue. The effect on the man is.

Bestiality is immoral if the majority of people think it is.
It will always be icky, even if only to me, but if the legally constituted courts of the land, Her Maj. Teh Queen, the Arch Bish of Canterbury and 50.1% of the British electorate tell me it's not immoral, then it won't be. In Britain.
Because morality is about decision making and nothing else.

So what they did to Turing was right because his homosexuality was immoral at the time? And the same goes for the Nuremberg laws I guess.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then your objection lacks logical consistency.


Rape is not worse than murder. It just isn't. And its hardly a subjective matter either. A murdered victim is gone forever, but a person who is raped can still have a life. They may even get over it if they are mentally resilient.


I don't agree that consent is vital in the case of animals, and I don't see how you can claim that consent is vital for sex but not vital to kill the animal.




It doesn't matter. A dildo is also incapable of giving informed consent.

Either animals have rights or they don't. You can't say that the consent of the animal matters in one case but not another.

ETA: at least Dessi seems to have a logically consistent animal-rights based objection. I can respect that even if I disagree. Yours however is entirely arbitrary. Consent only becomes an issue when it involves a sex act, and is irrelevant otherwise.

And only when it is a sex act for the human.

 

[I Ratant]

This guy (could be a gal, I don't know snake sexes) crossed the street in front of the neighbors house yesterday.
Just watching the way these things is fascinating.
The only snake I've actually killed was a copperhead 55 years or so ago.