"Wet Goddess" Can bestiality Ever Be OK?

[Lamuella]

basically, an animal differs from both an inanimate thing (which you can shag as long as it's not in public) and a fully grown human (ditto).

The reason it differs from an inanimate thing is that animals can feel suffering. Putting an animal in a sexual situation is leaving it open to a degree of suffering that an electric toothbrush cannot feel. Causing undue suffering to an animal is considered to be a societal ill. Even when we are killing animals for food, for useful products, or for fun, we attempt to lessen the suffering of the act. It's how we can have a concept of "humane slaughter".

The reason it differs from a fully grown human is that while an animal can suffer, it cannot reason. If an animal cannot reason, it cannot give informed consent. Sex with a creature that cannot meaningfully agree has the chance of causing that creature suffering to which it has not consented.

That's where I stand, anyway. Don't have sex with anything that has the capacity to be hurt by it, unless that thing has sufficiently advanced mental faculties to consent.

 

[angrysoba]

It isn't illegal everywhere.

And the core issue is that animals, like children, cannot legally give free and clear consent.

The irony of saving them from being raped, so that they can be chopped up and eaten, is something that only humans could come up with.

Well, like I said, there generally are ethical standards about how animals are treated even in slaughterhouses and in laboratories. They may not always be consistent and in many cases they could probably be improved upon but the fact that there isn't some perfect standard of maintaining animal welfare doesn't mean that it is open season on animal-porking.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It's not illegal here in Denmark. There has been some debate though, whether it should be. Here's an article from a Danish science blog run through Google Translate:

http://translate.google.com/transla...r-samfund/sex-med-dyr-ja-hvorfor-ikke&act=url

 

[crimresearch]

Well, like I said, there generally are ethical standards about how animals are treated even in slaughterhouses and in laboratories. They may not always be consistent and in many cases they could probably be improved upon but the fact that there isn't some perfect standard of maintaining animal welfare doesn't mean that it is open season on animal-porking.

I concede that you have just proven that you are human, by coming up with that rationalization.

 

[KevinCanada]

Since everyone has covered this is disgusting reasoning parts! Yeah gross.

I'll cite biological reasoning. Sex is for re procreating. Which is not going to happen do it well in other ways.

 

[Lamuella]

The irony of saving them from being raped, so that they can be chopped up and eaten, is something that only humans could come up with.

In the sense that we're the only animals with reasoning skills sufficient to have a concept of humane treatment, you're absolutely right.

I concede that you have just proven that you are human, by coming up with that rationalization.

Indeed. It is deeply unlikely that a thompson's gazelle operated a computer and produced that message.

 

[Dessi]

I've commented on the subject before:

Have you ever actually seen a beastiality community? Do a search for one on Google, you'll get a feel people's motives and how they fetishize it.

People will often keep public diaries filled with their fantasies of mostly an absurd sort like dolphin ***********; sometimes they're personal accounts of a very terrifying sort like chicken ***********, where the animals are too small for safe penetration, so the animals thrash and flail violently, and often die from internal damage.

I got the impression that they aren't really into zoosadism per se, but really view animals as a kinky sex toy. In their universe, some people **** pies, other people **** chickens, what's the difference?

So, yes, I think there is a very strong objection to beastiality not only because its non-consentual, but animals are tangibly and severely harmed or killed in the process.

 

[truethat]

A. Stop comparing homosexuality to beastiality it's a disgusting homophobic comment even if you don't intend it to be so. Even you don't feel that way you are contributing to it being discussed that way.

B. Beyond that I can see the point regarding consent. We don't get animal consent for food etc. However I would also say that disease could be another serious reason it should be illegal. Check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

 

[marplots]

Why is it illegal?
So we can identify those outliers who do not agree with societal norms and either get them to change their behavior to match or separate them out from the herd. This is a good rule and justifies many laws. It is also why laws are sometimes different in different societies and why they change over time.

 

[crimresearch]

Why is it illegal?
So we can identify those outliers who do not agree with societal norms and either get them to change their behavior to match or separate them out from the herd. This is a good rule and justifies many laws. It is also why laws are sometimes different in different societies and why they change over time.

How does removing outliers cause the norm to change?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sex with someone that has not given informed consent is (or should be) illegal.
Sex with someone that is incapable, either generally or at the point, giving informed consent is (or should be) illegal.
Animals aren't mentally capable of consenting to sex so sex with them is (or should be) illegal.
Children aren't mentally capable of consenting to sex so sex with them is (or should be) illegal.
Adults of dismissed mental capacity (to a certain degree) aren't capable of consenting to sex so sex with them is (or should be) illegal.
Adults under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or other factors are not capable of consenting to sex so sex with them is (or should be) illegal.

An adult straight person, baring factors already mentioned, is capable of giving informed consent so if that consent is met, sex with them is legal.
An adult gay person, baring factors already mentioned, is capable of giving informed consent so if that consent is met, sex with them is (or should be) legal.

"Icky" doesn't have to (and honestly doesn't since there's never been a push to make two ugly people having sex illegal) factor into it at all.

So why are so many standard animal husbandry practices legal? There are all kinds of artificial insemination. Basically masturbating an animal is legal as long as you don't enjoy it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It isn't illegal everywhere.

And the core issue is that animals, like children, cannot legally give free and clear consent.

The irony of saving them from being raped, so that they can be chopped up and eaten, is something that only humans could come up with.

And of course raped to make more of them. They don't ask for consent when they ram an electric probe up a bulls anus to force it to ejaculate. But that is all legal.

If people were serious about animals consenting they would need to dramatically rework animal husbandry.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, like I said, there generally are ethical standards about how animals are treated even in slaughterhouses and in laboratories. They may not always be consistent and in many cases they could probably be improved upon but the fact that there isn't some perfect standard of maintaining animal welfare doesn't mean that it is open season on animal-porking.

Unless of course your job is inseminating farm animals...

 

[Beerina]

Why is it illegal?
So we can identify those outliers who do not agree with societal norms and either get them to change their behavior to match or separate them out from the herd. This is a good rule and justifies many laws. It is also why laws are sometimes different in different societies and why they change over time.

I.e. memes, what I say all the time.

Religon used this, among hundreds of other things, as a control mechanism. That's religion-as-memeplex, evolving and changing sub-memes for the greater good of its spreading.

So with "icky" as cultural backgroung, it should not be surprising that modern democracy, another religion-based memeplex, looking to evolve so it can spread, should adopt this sub-meme, stealing it from religion, just as it stole hospitals and caring for the sick and elderly.


Note the progression -- religion used to force you to join it. Secular people stripped religion of this power (and never authorized government to step in for exactly the same reason) but that this secular state has been slowly taking on everything religion did, and for the exact same reason, and with the exact same method, including forcing you to join.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've commented on the subject before:

Judging any group by what some of them post online is pretty poor reasoning.

 

[Dessi]

Judging any group by what some of them post online is pretty poor reasoning.

Point taken. Are there any places to look for credible, serious defenses of beastiality?

 

[marplots]

How does removing outliers cause the norm to change?

It doesn't. But removing others isn't as effective as it could be either. There are a few mechanisms in play. One is to hold an opinion that something that is currently illegal should become legal, without actually getting caught doing it and while trying to convince others your point of view is correct. Medical marijuana might be of this type.

A second powerful method is to reshape a behavior or recast it to fit into the category of an existing good. Again, marijuana as a drug, not so much to get high and entertain yourself with, but as a medical necessity that mitigates pain or nausea.

Homosexuality might fall into this latter method when gays are recast from lustful hedonists into the more acceptable loving, committed relationship mold.

I'm guessing there are other mechanisms, but those two, and those two in combination, come to mind.

 

[Cylinder]

So what about bestiality?

You are a baaaa-ad person.

 

[jasonpatterson]

I'll cite biological reasoning. Sex is for re procreating. Which is not going to happen do it well in other ways.

Not so much. There are undoubtedly some people in the world who only have sex with the intent to procreate as part of their religious doctrine, but for the vast majority of people, sex is for fun most of the time. Your argument would go against sex in a couple that can't procreate, for whatever reason (homosexual, infertile, birth control, non-vaginal, etc.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Point taken. Are there any places to look for credible, serious defenses of beastiality?

With the stigma associated it is probably rather difficult to accurately poll and study such groups.