"Wet Goddess" Can bestiality Ever Be OK?

[dafydd]

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.

I saw David Attenborough being interviewed recently. He was asked if he didn't think that he went a bit too far with some of the gory stuff in his documentaries. He replied that it was mild compared with the bits they don't show. Animals are nothing like people.

 

[Pup]

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.

We can eat meat, but we certainly don't need to.

 

[Pup]

I believe I already pointed out that leg-humping is about dominance, and not necessarily sexual.

That opens a can of worms.

Society is generally okay with adults showing dominance over children and animals, as long as it's not sexual and doesn't cause more than momentary physical discomfort. If leg-humping is no more sexual than shaking a finger and saying "bad dog," or forcing a disobedient child to stand in the corner, then it would mean that society should find it acceptable for adults to perform some sexual activities on children and animals as long as those activities were about dominance.

 

[Pup]

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

The same cannot be said of an animal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mess them up." Animals develop phobias, generalized anxiety and depression by being subjected to treatment that causes similar things in humans.

 

[Alan]

That opens a can of worms.

Society is generally okay with adults showing dominance over children and animals, as long as it's not sexual and doesn't cause more than momentary physical discomfort. If leg-humping is no more sexual than shaking a finger and saying "bad dog," or forcing a disobedient child to stand in the corner, then it would mean that society should find it acceptable for adults to perform some sexual activities on children and animals as long as those activities were about dominance.

I don't agree with the time in that you still refer to it as sexual, but I could bring up medical or other legitimate reasons for doing things that would in another context with different intents be sexual. A parent changing their child's clothes, a doctor doing something, etc.

 

[Pup]

I don't agree with the time in that you still refer to it as sexual, but I could bring up medical or other legitimate reasons for doing things that would in another context with different intents be sexual. A parent changing their child's clothes, a doctor doing something, etc.

I agree that there are legitimate reasons to do things that might be sexual in another context, which is why I'd still count leg-humping and similar things as sexual, even if they're also about dominance.

 

[Madalch]

Pup and Alan- it's really creepy to read this thread and only see your avatars show up.

 

[000063]

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

The same cannot be said of an animal.

I...I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Sex with an animal can have negative effects upon an animal's psyche. You are wrong.

 

[Pup]

Pup and Alan- it's really creepy to read this thread and only see your avatars show up.

I'd post the laughing dog smiley, but, um, I don't think that would be the best choice.

 

[000063]

Then your objection lacks logical consistency.

No, it's not. I have no problem with raising animals for food. I have problems with raising animals for food in an inhumane manner. I have qualms about animal testing. I consider bestiality to be abuse and rape.

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 distinctly said I don't necessarily agree.

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.

That's called "confirmation bias". Things eat other things all the time.

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

So is a six-year old girl named Jean. If Alex, an adult, wants to have sex with Jean, it's not okay because Jean can't give consent. But hey, feel free to reduce the animal to the level of a sex toy instead of a living being. Real caring there.

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.

Yes I can. I can do it with humans too.

Someone's consent matters when they have sex, but the state has the authority to arrest them if they have probable cause or better of them committing a crime, whether they want to be arrested or not.

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.

Straw man. I did not say whether any of the other aspects of animal handling I referred to specifically involved the animal's consent or not.

 

[000063]

That opens a can of worms.

Society is generally okay with adults showing dominance over children and animals, as long as it's not sexual and doesn't cause more than momentary physical discomfort. If leg-humping is no more sexual than shaking a finger and saying "bad dog," or forcing a disobedient child to stand in the corner, then it would mean that society should find it acceptable for adults to perform some sexual activities on children and animals as long as those activities were about dominance.

Good thing that's not what I argued then. Hence the modifier "not necessarily sexual".

The argument being made was that leg-humping necessarily indicated sexual desire towards humans. This is false.

 

[Pup]

Good thing that's not what I argued then. Hence the modifier "not necessarily sexual".

The argument being made was that leg-humping necessarily indicated sexual desire towards humans. This is false.

But that's why I said "if." People say the same thing about rape, especially violent rape: it's not necessarily about sex, it's about dominance. And yet in my opinion, one can't ever remove the sexual component too.

There are some things that would be an invitation for sexual contact if done by two human adults but definitely aren't in actuality, such as a puppy licking your face or a baby breastfeeding.

But I just can't wrap my head around the idea, either in human or dog terms, that the dominant party would clearly pantomime sexual intercourse on the submissive party, but if the submissive party agreed to have actual sexual intercourse, the submissive one would be forcing the dominant one to do it without consent.

For what it's worth, to be clear where I stand on the whole issue, my opinion is:

Ideally, animals should be treated like children, when it comes to eating, harming or killing them. But because adult animals are sexually mature, they can be treated like adults when it comes to sex, meaning consent is possible and if it's indicated, then it's okay (though certainly not something I'd want to do myself).

But society is gradually working up to that day, and until then, I'm satisfied eating meat if it's not mistreated too much when it's alive.

We're in a long gray area, one that will never disappear entirely, because there are problems I can't see any solution to: controlling overpopulation of wild animals, protecting humans from naturally harmful animals without imposing unilateral human morals on them, deciding if consent can be given for things like horse racing or dog shows or milking cows, deciding where the line is between mammals and bacteria as far as which are worthy of rights, etc. etc. There's always going to be some amount of human exploitation or dominance over animals, so there can never be a simple solution.

 

[Stellafane]

I think sex with veggies should be legal, if it isn't already.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

To anyone saying 'sex with the animal is dangerous':

What if you kept bestiality only to oral sex? Like the peanut butter example from that buddy movie where they go to try to win back the guy's girlfriend that everyone thought was a really hilarious movie but wasn't that great.

In case you haven't seen the movie in question, one of the guys says he put peanut butter on his ding dong and got his dog to lick it up.

For people who would see homosexuality sanctioned: should homosexual bestiality be more strongly sanctioned than heterosexual bestiality? If so, why; if not, why not?

For those who would uphold the family: should an adulterous relationship with an animal be grounds for divorce? Why / why not?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Pup and Alan- it's really creepy to read this thread and only see your avatars show up.

lol wow

that is pretty funny