What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

....... · 28-06-2017 12:58PM

This post has been deleted.

28-06-2017 01:02PM

....... wrote: »

Really?

I would have thought our rejection came from the notion of someone being a sexual deviant for wanting to have sex with an animal.

By "our" I mean that 5% of people in the thread who aren't saying "eww, gross" or "OP... lol ...wants ...lol to shag a cow lololol"

I'm talking about people who are, like myself, trying to understand this from a non-emotive, logical viewpoint.

Outlaw Pete · 28-06-2017 01:25PM

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

Oh it's far from something which people only engage in because they can't find a partner. Seen a clip of this stuff that has been uploaded to Adult Tube sites over the years (usually taken down shortly afterwards) but what surprised me intially also was that it's often couples and not some desperate neerdowell at all.

I remember about seven or eight years back seeing one clip of a cute couple and the girl went from the boyfriend to the dog and back in a softly lit room as James Blunt's album played in the background. One of the most romantic things I've ever seen :P

Think it may have been these two:

North Carolina soldier and wife charged with making dog porn

A Raeford, N.C., woman is accused of having sex with dogs while her Fort Bragg soldier husband filmed them. The couple posted the videos on the Internet, police say.

"Anything you can ever imagine a man and a woman doing to each other, she was having the dogs do," Raeford Police Chief Franklin Crumpler told The Huffington Post on Tuesday.

Ruben Chance James Fox and his wife, Amber Nicole Fox, both 23, were to make their first courtroom appearance in Hoke County on Tuesday after their Monday arrest, Crumpler said. They faced charges of bestiality, conspiracy and disseminating obscene materials, with Amber Fox facing an additional charge of soliciting a crime against nature.

AnGaelach · 28-06-2017 01:30PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This, pretty much. I don't understand why people are looking for some sort of logical arguments. The simple fact of it being repulsive to most people is surely the argument itself is it not?

Do we really need to justify why fucking a penguin is bad?

Doctor Nick · 28-06-2017 01:35PM

IMO OP just wants to he the proud author of the most controversial threads on boards. Not a title I'd personally want to hold but each to their own.

BBDBB · 28-06-2017 01:43PM

Doctor Nick wrote: »

IMO OP just wants to he the proud author of the most controversial threads on boards. Not a title I'd personally want to hold but each to their own.

hold my beer

"Incestuous Necrophilia, is it all bad?"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-06-2017 01:49PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nohting to with deviation. People can be as sexualy deviant as they like as long as they don't harm anyone or anything else and, while you may be as repulsed be the idea of it, you don't actually have any rights to tell them what to do or what not to do.

AnGaelach · 28-06-2017 01:51PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nohting to with deviation. People can be as sexualy deviant as they like as long as they don't harm anyone or anything else and, while you may be as repulsed be the idea of it, you don't actually have any rights to tell them what to do or what not to do.

Yes, actually, you do. It's called the law. As such, fúcking an animal is illegal, so I have every right to tell someone not to do so.

pickarooney · 28-06-2017 01:53PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

This, pretty much. I don't understand why people are looking for some sort of logical arguments. The simple fact of it being repulsive to most people is surely the argument itself is it not?

Do we really need to justify why fucking a penguin is bad?

Well, no. Gay sex is probably repulsive to the majority of people, but cattle copulating is not. It's when you find yourself able to imagine being in the place of one of the participants that the panic sets in and manifests itself in moral outrage.

But of course if you don't see the place of logic in an argument this won't register with you.

valoren · 28-06-2017 01:56PM

Arghus wrote: »

You mouth says moo, but your eyes say yes.

Walking around with nothing to cover their bits.
They're only asking for it.

28-06-2017 02:07PM

silverharp wrote: »

you twisted my point, I didn't say one was linked to the other.

Not a twist - just responding to you saying "its like incest".

I do not think it is like incest at all. Assuming we are talking about incest with consenting adults - then we are talking about consenting adults. With bestiality we are talking about one side being incapable of consent.

That alone means they are not "like" each other at all.

But the question was also asked - well what if the animal _could_ give consent. That makes it a _bit_ more like incest sure - as now everyone is capable of consent at least.

But I still do not see the two things as being "like" each other at all other than that one thing.

silverharp wrote: »

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.

I think we are now talking past each other - which is no ones fault. You are basically saying it is taboo - it will likely always be taboo - and you are personally happy that it is taboo.

And I am saying well sure but if consent were possible is there anything else otherwise _wrong_ with bestiality? And the answer seems to be somewhere between "no" and "very little".

My whole issue with bestiality centers around informed consent. The lack of it is why I think it is is wrong. If however two species capable of informed consent - humans and some higher animal - or humans and some visiting alien species - consent to sex with each other - then so what? What would be wrong with that - other than peoples personal disgust of course?

But none of that "what iffery" really is all that important. They can't give consent - so I think it is wrong. Imagining they _could_ give consent and then asking "what if" is a fun thought experiment - but pointless in itself too. So perhaps this thread of conversation is dead.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-06-2017 02:14PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, actually, you do. It's called the law. As such, fúcking an animal is illegal, so I have every right to tell someone not to do so.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nohting to with deviation. People can be as sexualy deviant as they like as long as they don't harm anyone or anything else and, while you may be as repulsed be the idea of it, you don't actually have any rights to tell them what to do or what not to do.

...

Robert McGrath · 28-06-2017 02:23PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, actually, you do. It's called the law. As such, fúcking an animal is illegal, so I have every right to tell someone not to do so.

So gay sex was repulsive and wrong before 1993 and magically became ok when the law changed?

The law should be based on what we believe is right and wrong, not vice versa

The question the OP raised was *why* is bestiality illegal. If the answer is "because it is wrong", then the next question is "why is it wrong?". To answer that with "because it's illegal" brings us round in a circle and adds nothing

AnGaelach · 28-06-2017 02:27PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Well, no. Gay sex is probably repulsive to the majority of people, but cattle copulating is not. It's when you find yourself able to imagine being in the place of one of the participants that the panic sets in and manifests itself in moral outrage.

But of course if you don't see the place of logic in an argument this won't register with you.

Yes, because two men having sex is completely and utterly comparable to wanting to **** a kitten...

DEFTLEFTHAND · 28-06-2017 02:29PM

Robert McGrath wrote: »

So gay sex was repulsive and wrong before 1993 and magically became ok when the law changed?

The law should be based on what we believe is right and wrong, not vice versa

The question the OP raised was *why* is bestiality illegal. If the answer is "because it is wrong", then the next question is "why is it wrong?". To answer that with "because it's illegal" brings us round in a circle and adds nothing

You can't compare consensual homosexual sex to a human being fcking an animal.

Roger Hassenforder · 28-06-2017 02:29PM

While common enough in nature, e.g. otters and their seal fcuk buddies, Humans having crossspecies sex is IMO repugnant from a health perspective. Notwithstanding physical risks (bites, internal damage) , there's risks of transmission of zoonoses e.g. brucellosis, rabies, HIV, toxocarias etc. into the human population, as well as already mentioned anaphylaxis.

....... · 28-06-2017 02:31PM

This post has been deleted.

osarusan · 28-06-2017 02:34PM

Apart from previously mentioned issues of disease, and it being perceived as perverted and disgusting, and just on the issue of consent/non-consent, I suppose it's a question of the 'necessity' of the exploitation and suffering of animals.

We (in general, as a society) can justify our exploitation of them for food and clothes as these are seen as necessities, which we can only get from animals (meat, wool, leather, etc).

Whereas sex is something we can get from other people, and is lower on a scale of necessities, and so the exploitation of animals is not seen as justifiable.

Some other ways in which animals could be used for our pleasure/entertainment, such as dog-fighting, are illegal, and other ways, like hunting, horse-racing, and others, are often criticised.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 28-06-2017 02:36PM

osarusan wrote: »

I suppose it's a question of the 'necessity' of the exploitation and suffering of animals.

We (in general, as a society) can justify our exploitation of them for food and clothes as these are seen as necessities, which we can only get from animals (meat, wool, leather, etc).

Whereas sex is something we can get from other people, and is lower on a scale of necessities, and so the exploitation of animals is not seen as justifiable.

Plus the fact that 99% of the human race are not sexually attracted to animals.

This is not some sort of social construct it's a fact of nature.

pickarooney · 28-06-2017 02:41PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, because two men having sex is completely and utterly comparable to wanting to **** a kitten...

Why did you choose a kitten, as a matter of interest.

28-06-2017 02:41PM

osarusan wrote: »

We (in general, as a society) can justify our exploitation of them for food and clothes as these are seen as necessities,

Meat isn't a dietary necessity anymore. In fact It's a major contributor to global warning, aside from all the ethical challenges.

I eat meat because it's delicious, not because I need to eat it to survive.

osarusan · 28-06-2017 02:44PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Meat isn't a dietary necessity anymore. In fact It's a major contributor to global warning, aside from all the ethical challenges.

Indeed, and as it becomes easier to survive without it, criticism of meat-eating and meat-producing practices increases.

pickarooney · 28-06-2017 02:44PM

osarusan wrote: »

Apart from previously mentioned issues of disease, and it being perceived as perverted and disgusting, and just on the issue of consent/non-consent, I suppose it's a question of the 'necessity' of the exploitation and suffering of animals.

We (in general, as a society) can justify our exploitation of them for food and clothes as these are seen as necessities, which we can only get from animals (meat, wool, leather, etc).

Whereas sex is something we can get from other people, and is lower on a scale of necessities, and so the exploitation of animals is not seen as justifiable.

Some other ways in which animals could be used for our pleasure/entertainment, such as dog-fighting, are illegal, and other ways, like hunting, horse-racing, and others, are often criticised.

Is keeping a pet not exploitation? They don't consent to being locked in a house or kept on a leash. What purpose does it serve apart from human gratification?

osarusan · 28-06-2017 02:47PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Is keeping a pet not exploitation? They don't consent to being locked in a house or kept on a leash. What purpose does it serve apart from human gratification?

I think you could make the case that many aspects of the life of tame animals is the result of exploitation.

Again, I think that society views it as a balance of the benefits it brings to humans (be it necessity or gratification) versus the suffering it causes the animals.

EDIT: in the case of horse-racing, the suffering of horses is seen as mild enough that it can be justified for human entertainment, but (in Ireland at least) dog-fighting is outlawed as the suffering is serious enough that is isn't seen as justifiable.

....... · 28-06-2017 02:50PM

This post has been deleted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-06-2017 03:28PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair point, but I got the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that the idea was it's illegal because it's a deviation. Well, there are lots of deviations - most of which are legal if all parties can and do consent.

.

....... · 28-06-2017 03:30PM

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach · 28-06-2017 03:32PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Why did you choose a kitten, as a matter of interest.

Posting the same thing over and over again is a bit bland, the previous one was Penguins, the next one will probably be a snake of some kind.

AnGaelach · 28-06-2017 03:33PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You'd be hard-pressed finding a ban on fiddling a donkey in Bunreacht na hÉireann...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-06-2017 03:33PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, because two men having sex is completely and utterly comparable to wanting to **** a kitten...

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You can't compare consensual homosexual sex to a human being fcking an animal.

FFS, he was clearing not comaparing homosecuality to bestiality - did you guys misread the post intentionally or just not read it at all?

He was highlighting the fallacy of claiming that an act is immoral purely on the basis of law, as AnGaelach claimed, by highlighting a completley different sexual act that once would have been seen as immoral and now seen as perfectly ok - the only thing being changed about it being the law.

Robert McGrath wrote: »

So gay sex was repulsive and wrong before 1993 and magically became ok when the law changed?

The law should be based on what we believe is right and wrong, not vice versa

The question the OP raised was *why* is bestiality illegal. If the answer is "because it is wrong", then the next question is "why is it wrong?". To answer that with "because it's illegal" brings us round in a circle and adds nothing

EDIT - one other thing: I feel it nessecary to hightlight the fact that I am NOT suggesting that bestiality be legalised or will be legalised in the next 24 years and we'll all be fine about it.

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Comments