nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

[Deleted User]

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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

[Deleted User]

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.

Ursus Horribilis

Pac1Man wrote: »

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

Cripes, I truly have led a sheltered life...

CFlat

No Gard, I swear my dog did give consent. I asked her how she liked it and she said, "rough".

[Deleted User]

Doctor Nick wrote: »

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

I do not think it is disturbing at all. It _pays_ to question your core assumptions and attitudes to - at the very least - understand why you hold them and why they are true. And at best - to understand _if_ you should be holding them in the first place - or are they merely in your brain because of some indoctrination - conformance with a world view religious political or otherwise.

I also - personally - do not like to hold views and opinions I can not defend when asked to do so. If i find I think something is bad or wrong because "it just is" I am internally embarrassed by that and I personally _enjoy_ exploring those innate attitudes to reach a point where I can intellectually and coherently validate them through reason and argument.

So no - I do not think it at all sick or disturbing to find an attitude of "it just is" in ones own brain and then ask yourself "yeah ok - but _why_ is it so?". It is not just the preconceptions and assumptions of others that we should be questioning in this world - but our own as well.

Samaris

Mod: Enough of the gay cracks. This is a completely different topic, so don't rehash gratuitously insulting nonsense. A couple of the comments have probably been jokes, but the line between joking and trolling generally gets fallen over pretty quickly in these threads. People who persist in dragging in comparisons to homosexuality will be threadbanned because ain't no-one got time for that.

There's plenty to talk about just regarding people wanting to get steamy with a goat.

sbsquarepants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't forget the one about Karl Marx and the paddy whacks - that was good too!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

I'm starting to think that you are in fact a Tyrant named Katie Hopkins - "what off the wall controversial bolloxology can I spout today"?:rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

what the hell! wrote: »

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

What a stupid thing to say:mad:

You have kids with the goat wife, it's cubs with Mrs Hyena.
Jaysus, educate yourself man!

HalloweenJack

Animals can't consent, that's the problem.

kneemos

Speaking of Goats wasn't there a video of Colombians being quite open about their Donkey ****ing exploits?

[Deleted User]

I think OP a lot of the practices you mention as being performed on farms might be allowed nowadays due to the ignorance, wilfull or not, of the vast majority of the modern population as to what actually goes on in food production

myshirt

I was merely giving the sheep a helping push through the gate father. Honest. On the Bible.