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

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!'

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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

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]

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?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

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

As long as they're over 17.

BBDBB

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Booking a table for dinner first

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.

MrVestek

Bullocks wrote: »

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

Yer Ma.

Bullocks

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

silverharp

HalloweenJack wrote: »

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

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

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:

MrVestek

So anyway... was the sex good OP?

myshirt

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

[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

kneemos

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

HalloweenJack

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

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!

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:

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.

[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.

CFlat

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

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...

what the hell!

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

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.

[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.

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