What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

I come from a farm and still take an active part in farming. In my years of farming, I've seen veterinary surgeons anally palpate ("fist") cows to determine their fertility, using Fairy Liquid as a libricant; I've seen them "squeeze" bull calves (cutting vascular supply to their testes using an instrument resembling a pliars, without anaesthetic).

As a part-time farmer, I don't necessarily object to this, nor do I object to the slaughter of livestock to feed the human species.

But, considering the invasive and painful nature of these techniques, which exist purely for human benefit, I wonder why bestiality is a criminal offence?

This is a serious, genuine question.

I have no paraphilia in this regard! But I wonder why it's a criminal act to penetrate an animal with a genital, and not with a limb? Does this make sense to you?

Seriously, is this just some arbitrary, out-dated distinction?

pangbang

And its bedtime for me

Arghus

It's woof stuff.

Yourself isit

Thank you caller. Moving on...

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I come from a farm and still take an active part in farming. In my years of farming, I've seen veterinary surgeons anally palpate ("fist") cows to determine their fertility, using Fairy Liquid as a libricant; I've seen them "squeeze" bull calves (cutting vascular supply to their testes using an instrument resembling a pliars, without anaesthetic).

As a part-time farmer, I don't necessarily object to this, nor do I object to the slaughter of livestock to feed the human species.

But, considering the invasive and painful nature of these techniques, which exist purely for human benefit, I wonder why bestiality is a criminal offence?

This is a serious, genuine question.

I have no paraphilia in this regard! But I wonder why it's a criminal act to penetrate an animal with a genital, and not with a limb? Does this make sense to you?

Seriously, is this just some arbitrary, out-dated distinction?

I would assume, and I may be wrong, its to do with consent. An animal can not legally give consent the same way a 15 year old boy or girl can not legally give consent in this jurisdiction.

sabat

Didn't a young mother in Limerick die a few years ago after suffering an allergic reaction to Alsatian jizz? I remember there were a lot of restrictions placed on reporting the case and her name was never released.

sabat

sabat wrote: »

Didn't a young mother in Limerick die a few years ago after suffering an allergic reaction to Alsatian jizz? I remember there were a lot of restrictions placed on reporting the case and her name was never released.

I remember that story, though she wasn't a "young mother" from what I recall, she had a teenage son. I remember thinking at the time how sorry I felt for her son. Losing your mother is traumatic enough as it is, but in such a manner would be... inconceivable.

Arghus

sabat wrote: »

Didn't a young mother in Limerick die a few years ago after suffering an allergic reaction to Alsatian jizz? I remember there were a lot of restrictions placed on reporting the case and her name was never released.

Great name for a band: Alsatian Jizz. Even better if it was written in illegible black metal font. That'd be some gnarly band.

SmartinMartin

They don't kiss back.

Surreptitious

What's wrong with bestiality? Oh nothing at all sure, I regularly have sex with a local stallion. In all fairness, animals do not have the higher consciousness of a human being. Even entertaining the notion of indulging in sexual activities with them is sick in itself.

WinnyThePoo

SmartinMartin wrote: »

They don't kiss back.

Yes they do.

greencap

They're too fcking fast.

Robsweezie

sabat wrote:

Didn't a young mother in Limerick die a few years ago after suffering an allergic reaction to Alsatian jizz? I remember there were a lot of restrictions placed on reporting the case and her name was never released.

Poor woman, and a really, really awkward case to report and discuss. What must the family have been thinking? How do you even begin to....

"hey dad, did you hear about the wom...never mind."

Mutant z

you seriously cant see how fukked up it is.

SmartinMartin

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Yes they do.

Swap ya.

MrVestek

I'm probably way off the mark here... But I think it's the whole "actually ****ing animals" bit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MrVestek

MrVestek wrote: »

I'm probably way off the mark here... But I think it's the whole "actually ****ing animals" bit.

The crux of my question is the problem of inconsistency.

Anybody can palpate ("fist") a farm animal, or castrate them using fairly brutal methods, for a purely human benefit, with impunity.

There's a logical inconsistency at play here. You don't have to favour bestiality to accept that.

jigglypuffstuff

And that's enough Internet for today...

Jesus Wept

Deleted User wrote: »

I would assume, and I may be wrong, its to do with consent. An animal can not legally give consent the same way a 15 year old boy or girl can not legally give consent in this jurisdiction.

They aren't able to consent to any of the other things the OP mentioned, or to being slaughtered.

NinetyTwoTeam

A gynecologist can poke around a woman's ladybits in his office to ensure her health, but he can't do it for his own sexual pleasure without her consent, can he?

Such a dumb thread.

NinetyTwoTeam

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

A gynecologist can poke around a woman's ladybits in his office to ensure her health, but he can't do it for his own sexual pleasure without her consent, can he?
.

But obviously the difference there is consent.

In my examples, incapacity to consent is omnipresent. But different rules apply, regardless of pain.

endacl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But obviously the difference there is consent.

In my examples, incapacity to consent is omnipresent. But different rules apply, regardless of pain.

Keep digging...

endacl

endacl wrote: »

Keep digging...

Keep thanks-whoring.

It's a legitimate question. If it's so easily, so obviously rubbished, then please do so, using your intelligence.

The thread will end, and you will win.

Outlaw Pete

I'd rather come back in my next life as dog owned by a gorgeous zoophilic Swedish blonde than one born in certain parts of Asia.

If you want a link to how the first dog mentioned lives.. PM me :P

endacl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's a legitimate question.

It is indeed a legitimately stupid question.

Jesus Wept

endacl wrote: »

It is indeed a legitimately stupid question.

It is legal in vast swaths of the world.

See the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory

In fact, according to the same page, Germany have recently legalised it as far as I can tell.

It's not the best forum for discussions though because of inane posts like yours that add absolutely nothing.

Eimee90

Because obviously Vets have to do certain procedures in order to save or treat the animal for their health.

Beastiality on the other hand is for the sexual pleasure of a person, going against nature and violating a creature that can't say no.

Why do you need to even ask this, OP?

StupidLikeAFox

Fianna Fail announce new election manifesto which includes:
- Increase in infrastructure spending
- More schools
- Legalisation of sex with dogs
- €5 pension top up

Can't see it happening OP, it would be a seriously hard sell

elsa21

elsa21 wrote: »

Because obviously Vets have to do certain procedures in order to save or treat the animal for their health.

eh? save their life? I'm guessing you're not a farmer.

Life-saving procedures can exist, but rarely
The last time Ive seen anyone anally palpate an animal was to determine if she was ready for artificial insemination.

Fertility checks are probably the most common reason for anal palpation of horses and cows. Nothing to do with life saving or preservation of health.

These things are mainly for human benefit.

Murrisk

It's Devil's Advocacy Week for OP. :pac:

What you should be asking 'Why is it OK to artifically inseminate a cow via fisting?' rather than 'Why isn't it OK to fuck or be fucked by animals?'.

Well, you are asking that, except you've framed it the wrong way in the thread's title. This doesn't really seem to be about bestiality but, rather, why are questionable practices acceptable when they benefit the human race?

The title of the thread was just to provoke and it will probably work.

Arghus

You mouth says moo, but your eyes say yes.

Lucy8080

First question I would ask on a date--" have you ever had sex with a farm animal?"

It's kind of a deal breaker for me if the answer is yes. Farm animals are renowned for not taking/demanding precautions..as i'm sure the o.p. knows.

Obviously I don't always ask that question on a date..sometimes "What county are you from" will do the trick.

If someone from Roscommon reports this post can the mods disregard it,please!

I never mentioned any county.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Seriously, is this just some arbitrary, out-dated distinction?

A quick check on Google suggests that in fact more countries are moving to specifically ban it.

Presume it's just a situation where the perceived depravity exceeds the utility. One might perceive that sado masochism between adults is "depraved" but there is clear consent. One might perceive that veterinary practice is pretty brutal for the animal, but it has a utility. Zoophilia is not so much "worse" than the others as an act, but it has no saving characteristic.

Rave.ef

Is this really what iv woken up to

LadyMacBeth_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A quick check on Google suggests that in fact more countries are moving to specifically ban it.

Presume it's just a situation where the perceived depravity exceeds the utility. One might perceive that sado masochism between adults is "depraved" but there is clear consent. One might perceive that veterinary practice is pretty brutal for the animal, but it has a utility. Zoophilia is not so much "worse" than the others as an act, but it has no saving characteristic.

+1

The invasive veterinary practices are questionable but at least they serve a purpose beyond the sexual pleasure of one individual, as would be the case with bestiality.

As Murrisk said, we should be questioning these invasive farming/veterinary practices, not heaping more on the poor animals by legalising beastiality.

Big Nasty

The problem here is even talking openly about it is the first step to it becoming accepted by society. Well done OP, well done.

Canis Lupus

Next you'll be asking why can't we marry them. Slippery slope OP.

Pherekydes

My first wife was a right cow.

gramar

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Life-saving procedures can exist, but rarely
The last time Ive seen anyone anally palpate an animal was to determine if she was ready for artificial insemination.



These things are mainly for human benefit.

...and unless the vet had their free hand down their pants having a good tug or frig of themselves then it's ok.

kneemos

elsa21 wrote: »

Because obviously Vets have to do certain procedures in order to save or treat the animal for their health.

Beastiality on the other hand is for the sexual pleasure of a person, going against nature and violating a creature that can't say no.

Why do you need to even ask this, OP?

A sheep or a sow in heat would probably enjoy a good rogering.

Probably a biblical thing,OK to eat them but **** them you're suddenly the worst in the world.

Mental Mickey

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I come from a farm and still take an active part in farming. In my years of farming, I've seen veterinary surgeons anally palpate ("fist") cows to determine their fertility, using Fairy Liquid as a libricant; I've seen them "squeeze" bull calves (cutting vascular supply to their testes using an instrument resembling a pliars, without anaesthetic).

As a part-time farmer, I don't necessarily object to this, nor do I object to the slaughter of livestock to feed the human species.

But, considering the invasive and painful nature of these techniques, which exist purely for human benefit, I wonder why bestiality is a criminal offence?

This is a serious, genuine question.

I have no paraphilia in this regard! But I wonder why it's a criminal act to penetrate an animal with a genital, and not with a limb? Does this make sense to you?

Seriously, is this just some arbitrary, out-dated distinction?

Please tell us you're taking the p!ss with this?

Mister Vain

This thread made me think of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3s0EEkgOW8

fizzypish

Humans can masturbate. If you need to get your rocks off then that solves the problem. If you need to get your rocks off with an animal then you've got issues and should be treated accordingly.

Samaris

Spread of incompatible biological material between a human and an animal is a bad idea. Various diseases ("zoonosis") transfer from animals to humans and they're not the sort of diseases you want to be explaining to a doctor.

It goes against most of our inbuilt instincts, the same place that admittedly, caused way too strict views on sexuality in general. But given how we (as humans) seem to react to illegitimate sex in general, I don't see animals becoming fair game any time soon!

Not certain that consent actually comes into it with an animal. They don't offer consent to be killed and eaten either. Or to be artificially inseminated. If we want to go all the way down the rabbit hole, isn't forcing a male to cover a female animal rape if we are worrying about consent?

It causes way too many really stupid injuries, both to the human and to the animal involved.

SuperS54

sabat wrote: »

Didn't a young mother in Limerick die a few years ago after suffering an allergic reaction to Alsatian jizz? I remember there were a lot of restrictions placed on reporting the case and her name was never released.

http://www.thejournal.ie/woman-died-from-allergic-reaction-to-sex-with-dog-172620-Jul2011/

mad muffin

Because that's how the zombie apocalypse begins…

Pac1Man

Lest we forget the late, great Mr. Hands. Poor guy let a stallion go balls deep.

I'm sure his heart was in the right place. It was in the other side of his chest when the horse was finished with him though.
.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have no paraphilia in this regard! But I wonder why it's a criminal act to penetrate an animal with a genital, and not with a limb? Does this make sense to you?

Seriously, is this just some arbitrary, out-dated distinction?

No I do not think it is an out-dated distinction. Rather it is merely an extension of moral axioms we hold internally as a species.

When it comes to sex we have in our moral systems the concept of "informed consent". We mostly have that to protect minors and mentally compromised individuals from being exploited or abused sexually.

So the concept of informed consent has become integral to the moral opinion on sex for many - if not most - people.

So the issue with Bestiality is going to be affected by this - simply by extension of the concept of informed consent which an animal is in no place to give.

On top of that though I reckon there is a biological health factor involved comprising fears that infections and diseases with the potential to jump species could do so through sexual channels that might not otherwise have had a vector to jump to humans.

Other than that however - I reckon there is an added level in bestiality that we see in topics such as homosexuality. Which is that when someone else is sexually attracted to another in a way completely alien to your own sexuality - there seems to be a knee jerk level of disgust that simply explodes upwards in them.

With things like homosexuality that leads to unwarranted bigotry and so forth. But with things like bestiality I think being against it is indeed warranted - as with paedophilia.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's a legitimate question. If it's so easily, so obviously rubbished, then please do so, using your intelligence.

It happens. Some moral viewpoints are so innate to us after years and generations of building them that many people are in no position to coherently explain what is actually wrong with them.

But rather than take a "Ah I just know it is wrong - but I admit I can not tell you why" approach to the conversation they will lash out - get aggressive - and even declare you to be some kind of sick deviant for even asking the question.

Try it sometime with paedophilia or incest. A lot of people will simply not be able to tell you _why_ these things are considered "wrong" - they just know they are disgusted by them and will hate you for even querying the foundations _of_ that disgust.

Some people more clued in will eventually mention informed consent with regards paedophilia. And they will be able to explain why paedophilia is wrong and is and _should_ be against our moral core.

Incest is less clear cut. Assuming by incest we mean sex between consenting adults - few people are able to explain what they thing is _actually_ wrong with it. They simply do not know and - to be honest - I do not either. I have never seen any moral argument against it that made the remotest shred of sense.

But I _do_ hold fast and dear to the concept of informed consent in all things sexual. So I _do_ hold an equal level of abhorrence for bestiality as I do for paedophilia.

Doctor Nick

I worry about people I really do. I mean, what goes on in their minds to think up questions such as this? Really disturbing.

what the hell!

First the gays and now this. Fellas will be wanting to have kids with their hyena wives next.