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

MrVestek

So anyway... was the sex good OP?

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

in such a situation conceivable would be worse :pac:

silverharp

HalloweenJack wrote: »

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

hmmm, so if they could it would be ok , fcccck offff

Bullocks

If ye could have sex with an animal which one would you pick ?

MrVestek

Bullocks wrote: »

If ye could have sex with an animal which one would you pick ?

Yer Ma.

Lux23

Aren't there enough people in the world? I just think it is very sad if a person has to resort to bestiality for some physical contact.

BBDBB

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Booking a table for dinner first

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

hmmm, so if they could it would be ok , fcccck offff

As long as they're over 17.

[Deleted User]

silverharp wrote: »

hmmm, so if they could it would be ok , fcccck offff

Well - yes - frankly. Why would it not be? Other than your own personal disgust?

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Well - yes - frankly. Why would it not be? Other than your own personal disgust?

Some taboos are useful , at the risk of saying "think of the children" but erm think of the children

[Deleted User]

So essentially "just because"? Not sure what children have to do with it to be honest.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

So essentially "just because"? Not sure what children have to do with it to be honest.

its like incest, better that its a taboo when trying to raise kids. the last thing you want is horny teenagers thinking their pets or siblings are fair game.
I probably err on the side that beastiality should'nt be a crime as long as society deems it to be ostracisable act or the act of someone that is either a loser or has mental issues.

pickarooney

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?

That's all consistent up to the point where you're allowed murder them and feast on their flesh with a by your leave.

And that's ignoring artificial insemination which has no benefit for the bull or cow.

The difference is that we're allowed to do what we like to an animal for pecuniary reward but not for gratification.

BuyersRemorse

Deleted User wrote: »

Well - yes - frankly. Why would it not be? Other than your own personal disgust?

My talking budgie says (among other things) "F**ck me!". After this thread I'll never look at him the same.

Little slut.

[Deleted User]

silverharp wrote: »

its like incest, better that its a taboo when trying to raise kids.

I think that is topic shifting though. Basically saying "Why should bestiality be taboo" "Well because incest is". They are two different things and justifying one being taboo does not transfer onto another.

What is worse is that - assuming consenting adults - I actually do not see what is so wrong about incest either. So there not even anything to transfer there - even if we were to allow random transfers of that fashion.

Someone saying this -

"Why did you hit me just now" "Well some people just need to be hit" "Yes well ok - but specifically why am I one of those people?"

- sounds to me no different that saying "Well some taboos are good". Ok some are. But why _this_ one? That _some_ taboos are good does not mean any particular taboo is good.

silverharp wrote: »

the last thing you want is horny teenagers thinking their pets or siblings are fair game.

That too is a different thing. It sounds like strafe bombing an entire coast line just to take out one hut. I think when people are discussing things like "What is wrong with incest" or "What is wrong with bestiality" they are doing so assuming that we are talking about consenting adults.

The sexuality of teenagers is a different topic. We do not want _anyone_ thinking their pets are fair game because pets can not offer informed sexual consent.

But the question was _if_ animals _could_ offer informed sexual consent - then what would be wrong with bestiality? And I think _if_ animals could offer informed sexual consent then I would be less worried about people having sex with them than I would be about them being kept as pets!!! Any creature capable of informed sexual consent should not ever be the pet of any human - let alone some teenager.

So if we are playing with the "what if" question of an animal being able to offer consent - I think by definition we would not be talking about pets in the first place anyway.

pickarooney

Samaris wrote: »

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.

Now here's a well presented answer that doesn't skirt around the latent hypocrisy or just say 'yocky!'

lawred2

silverharp wrote: »

its like incest, better that its a taboo when trying to raise kids. the last thing you want is horny teenagers thinking their pets or siblings are fair game.
I probably err on the side that beastiality should'nt be a crime as long as society deems it to be ostracisable act or the act of someone that is either a loser or has mental issues.

You think it's just societal norms that prevents teenage siblings from fu(king each other?

lifeandtimes

Wouldn't it have something to do with the transmission of diseases?

Bending a gorrila over and you get aids which you then infect the rest of the world with killing us all.

It's really for our own protection I believe.

whisky_galore

Stick to your own species OP, whatever that may be.

jmayo

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?

Seriously dude ?
And you lecture some of us on our opinion on migration. :rolleyes:

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

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

Oh now you have gone and done it.

The OP gets very upset and righteous if one, to quote the OP, "shoehorn fianna fail into anything".
He lectured me for doing so elsewhere.

But I do bow to you for being able to introduce them into this topic.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Hopefully the ISPCA are aware of this problem. Degenerate Sexual abuse of animals has been an issue on this island for many many years.

Seems to be a 'Celtic' thing as this deviancy has also been widely documented in Scotland and Wales.

New Zealand also has a severe problem.

Kimbot

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Hopefully the ISPCA are aware of this problem. Degenerate Sexual abuse of animals has been an issue on this island for many many years.

Seems to be a 'Celtic' thing as this deviancy has also been widely documented in Scotland and Wales.

New Zealand also has a severe problem.

Nah its just those dam sexy sheep causing it all :pac:

PopePalpatine

If you f*ck an owl, you're always guaranteed eye contact. :pac:

GreeBo

Samaris wrote: »

Mod: Enough of the gay cracks.

Ohhh Matron! :pac:

Bizarre question OP, I believe its illegal in Ireland under cruelty to animals legislation?

silverharp

lawred2 wrote: »

You think it's just societal norms that prevents teenage siblings from fu(king each other?

I didn't say that, but I would find it unacceptable for the norms to be challenged in the public sphere, you would end up with gobsh1tes that would want it turned into a progressive cause for equality.. "after all man if they arent going to have kids whats the harm, why the bigotry?, you're such a fascist"

AnGaelach

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

And I thought the Iona Institute were crazy when they said gay marriage would lead to people wanting to fúck their dogs

jmayo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Hopefully the ISPCA are aware of this problem. Degenerate Sexual abuse of animals has been an issue on this island for many many years.

Seems to be a 'Celtic' thing as this deviancy has also been widely documented in Scotland and Wales.

New Zealand also has a severe problem.

Don't forget Australia.

BTW I know of a guy that swears he saw someone doing a donkey in a field along the road in middle of Turkey way back in the 80s.

And you couldn't make up some of the stories that come from other parts of the world.
In 2011 in Pakistan a man was fined for having sex with a donkey.
Now he wasn't fined for having sex with an animal, but because it was deemed adultery since the donkey belonged to another man.
The donkey was labelled Kari (an adultress) and was honor killed.

TheDavester

HalloweenJack wrote: »

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

Could see Louise o Neill having a show on this, animals cant consent

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I agree with this, but find myself running into difficulty when I ask my vet to douse his arm in washing-up liquid, and stick it into a heifer's rectum as far as his elbow, to determine whether she is about to ovulate.

She can't consent to that, nor to our decision to artificially inseminate her, and later, her calf cannot consent to its own slaughter.

All of these activities can be said to exist for my pleasure. I enjoy farm work, I enjoy producing calves, and I enjoy eating beef. I have a full time job away from the farm, I don't do do this to survive.

My mother produces turkeys. She buys about a dozen chicks every year, locks them in a small shed with no access to the outdoors, and when they have been sufficiently fattened on a high protein diet, this softly-spoken old woman catches and strangles them. There is no question of consent -- nor do I believe there should be any.

I fully agree with you that our rejection of bestiality emanates largely from an animal's inability to consent, but the problem of consistency is stark when we apply it to very similar trespasses, such as artificial insemination.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that is topic shifting though. Basically saying "Why should bestiality be taboo" "Well because incest is". They are two different things and justifying one being taboo does not transfer onto another.

What is worse is that - assuming consenting adults - I actually do not see what is so wrong about incest either. So there not even anything to transfer there - even if we were to allow random transfers of that fashion.

Someone saying this -

"Why did you hit me just now" "Well some people just need to be hit" "Yes well ok - but specifically why am I one of those people?"

- sounds to me no different that saying "Well some taboos are good". Ok some are. But why _this_ one? That _some_ taboos are good does not mean any particular taboo is good.

you twisted my point, I didn't say one was linked to the other. My point was that in raising kids taboos act as some kind of bounded pointers. I'd like to think lots of things would never be socially acceptable and realistically speaking in this case it never would be. at a minimum 90% of the population would think you are a freak and 10% in an effort to virtue signal their edgy libertarian attitudes might support you. Its simply a non runner.