What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

CFlat · 28-06-2017 05:55PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Personally speaking, I'd love to say they were all models, but there are 1 or 2 lurking in my past who never mind their beauty, but their actual species is still somewhat in doubt.

Spit it out there Spongebob, they were from Cork, right?

lifeandtimes · 28-06-2017 05:56PM

loveisdivine wrote: »

If you're happy to eat meat and animal products, you really shouldn't have a problem with beastiality.

The chicken in the bondage...god that had me spit my drink out

dd972 · 28-06-2017 05:57PM

No Centaurs, no point.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 06:12PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nobody claimed homosexuality is the basis of the comparison.

The point is that we can't reject an act as egregiously or morally reprehensible, simply because it nauseates us. I find scatalogica nauseating, but I have to be an adult and accept that I have no right to interfere in other people's sexual proclivities, so long as they're not hurting anybody.

There are people on this thread saying "because it's disgusting...isnt that enough?"

No. It is not. Tell us why it should be criminalized.

Because, due to a species only evolving to fuck each other, the trans-species sexual act will very likely cause injury or death to one of the parties. Sometimes the animal, sometimes the human. The human knows what is happening, the animal doesn't.

Now, you have brought up artificial insemination. That's why, to me, the question should be "Why are these invasive farming practices OK?" rather than "Why is trans-species fucking not OK?". Tran-species sex is not OK for the above reasons, primarily. Well, that's my main issue with it. It should not happen because of the potential for great harm. And if that invites a discussion on whether artificial insemination is acceptable, so be it. But it should be about questioning invasive animal husbandry, IMO, not querying the "rightness" of banning bestiality.

BBDBB · 28-06-2017 06:15PM

Whats the difference between erotic and kinky?

erotic is when you use a feather to caress your partner

kinky is when you use the whole fecking chicken

28-06-2017 06:18PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Because, due to a species only evolving to fuck each other, the trans-species sexual act will very likely cause injury or death to one of the parties.

Two points:

First of all to claim that's the crux of the objection to bestiality is wholly incredible. Nobody believes that.

Secondly, it doesn't stand up to analysis. Why should natural selection punish interspecies sexual contact with disease?

Venereal disease can arise, as it can arise between humans, but there's no reason to believe this is the reason why bestiality is a crime, especially since the advent of the condom.

bear1 · 28-06-2017 06:23PM

Suppose it brings a whole new meaning to getting some pussy.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 06:26PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Because, due to a species only evolving to fuck each other, the trans-species sexual act will very likely cause injury or death to one of the parties. Sometimes the animal, sometimes the human. The human knows what is happening, the animal doesn't.

Now, you have brought up artificial insemination. That's why, to me, the question should be "Why are these invasive farming practices OK?" rather than "Why is trans-species fucking not OK?". Tran-species sex is not OK for the above reasons, primarily. Well, that's my main issue with it. It should not happen because of the potential for great harm. And if that invites a discussion on whether artificial insemination is acceptable, so be it. But it should be about questioning invasive animal husbandry, IMO, not querying the "rightness" of banning bestiality.

Its funny how biology suddenly becomes a good argument when it suits a persons personal feelings.

Some cons
spread of disease
biology
unprecedented history for majority acceptance

Some pros
Animal is stupid, not harming anyone
Animal comes second to human, not harming anyone
Its just love, who are you to question it

Only one thing will matter in the end, and it wont be reasoning. It'll be mainstream media promotion.

In fact, just talking about it right here and now on boards is giving the idea the oxygen it needs to proliferate. That's how all these whacky ideas start, peoples boredom and the search for something to do/something to talk about.

Lets see if in 20 years it wont start to creep in as normal.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 06:32PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Two points:

First of all to claim that's the crux of the objection to bestiality is wholly incredible. Nobody believes that.

That's my primary objection to it. That is absolutely the crux of it for me. First thing I think of when I consider it. I'm nobody then? And you really think nobody else considers that when they think of bestiality?

Veneral diseases are causes by viruses and bacteria. Humans are covered in bacteria so naturally we sometimes get infected with same. That is not the same thing as picking up physical injuries from the sexual act, as you well know. I'm not OK with injury (maybe leading to death) being caused to an unconsenting party. And that why the discussion should be about invasive farming methods. That's a much more interesting angle.

Ugh, why even am I bothering to this stupid, blatant, devil advocate thread?

28-06-2017 06:46PM

Murrisk wrote: »

That's my primary objection to it. That is absolutely the crux of it for me. First thing I think of when I consider it. I'm nobody then? And you really think nobody else considers that when they think of bestiality?

Veneral diseases are causes by viruses and bacteria. Humans are covered in bacteria so naturally we sometimes get infected with same. That is not the same thing as picking up physical injuries from the sexual act, as you well know. I'm not OK with injury (maybe leading to death) being caused to an unconsenting party. And that why the discussion should be about invasive farming methods. That's a much more interesting angle.

Ugh, why even am I bothering to this stupid, blatant, devil advocate thread?

It's a primal human instinct to feel revulsion towards things that may harm us, filth, rodents, excrement, mould, cockroaches, stuff like that. Beastiality engenders disgust for the same reason; it's unlikely to benefit humanity and it's possible that we'll be harmed, seriously harmed.

Exposing oneself to a zoonotic diseases rightly results in natural revulsion. Even diseases not presently zoonotic can cross the species barrier, HIV in humans was a simian immundeficiency virus that did just that - though it's unlikely to have been transmitted sexually in the first instance, exposure to infected blood while butchering bushmeat is the likely avenue.

Incest revolts us instinctively for the same reason, as we know that intermarriage and procreation between relatives is likely to result in illness or disability in the offspring, and many studies of some communities in the UK bear this out, with much higher rates of developmental problems.

If we're revolted by the thought of sex with other humans because of their relationship to us, it's hardly surprising that exposing ourselves to much greater risk of harm via contracting disease or being a conduit for disease is also anethema.

And that's before the poor animals feelings are considered.

28-06-2017 06:46PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Ugh, why even am I bothering to this stupid, blatant, devil advocate thread?

You wrote this before you pressed "post", so I have no idea.

This is a question with which most people appear incapable of serious engagement. If my aim were to incite and enrage, Id hardly be so standoffish. Ive mainly ignored what I consider the utterly stupid, infantile replies, and only responded to objectively valid points.

If you think this is trolling, report the post. I'm not interested in apologising for asking a sincere question, and I have no idea why you pressed that "post" button after apparently dismissing as pointless any response to thia thread. Bye, so.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 06:53PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You wrote this before you pressed "post", so I have no idea.

This is a question with which most people appear incapable of serious engagement.

This is a common tactic of yours in threads you start, I've noticed. I would say that a lot of people are giving thoughtful responses here. But if it doesn't take the path you envisaged then people just don't "get it" or apparently aren't intellectually up to the task. You are not the arbiter of that, I'm afraid. And that attitude of yours actually stifles discussion rather than stimulate it. That's grand but why bother starting threads if that's your stance?

28-06-2017 07:09PM

"Candie;103937942&quot wrote:

It's a primal human instinct to feel revulsion towards things that may harm us

Indeed. But it's a peculiar and positive characteristic of the human species that we are not enslaved to our instincts. Racism may be instinctive. So may violence, and even sexual violence. But we are intelligent, and we are capable of reasoning ourselves beyond our instincts.

"Candie;103937942&quot wrote:

Exposing oneself to a zoonotic diseases rightly results in natural revulsion.

Rightly??

I am not aware of any revulsion to the behaviour of my elderly Vet, who contracted brucellosis in the 1970s because of the nature of his work. My closest gay friend is in a relationship with a HIV+ partner, even though my friend is negative. Is that repulsive?

I dont blame people for expressing fear or even anguish atbthis behaviour, but the question i asked related to criminality. Why is it acceptable to throw people in prison for doing this?

pangbang · 28-06-2017 07:13PM

Candie wrote: »

It's a primal human instinct to feel revulsion towards things that may harm us, filth, rodents, excrement, mould, cockroaches, stuff like that. Beastiality engenders disgust for the same reason; it's unlikely to benefit humanity and it's possible that we'll be harmed, seriously harmed.

Exposing oneself to a zoonotic diseases rightly results in natural revulsion. Even diseases not presently zoonotic can cross the species barrier, HIV in humans was a simian immundeficiency virus that did just that - though it's unlikely to have been transmitted sexually in the first instance, exposure to infected blood while butchering bushmeat is the likely avenue.

Incest revolts us instinctively for the same reason, as we know that intermarriage and procreation between relatives is likely to result in illness or disability in the offspring, and many studies of some communities in the UK bear this out, with much higher rates of developmental problems.

If we're revolted by the thought of sex with other humans because of their relationship to us, it's hardly surprising that exposing ourselves to much greater risk of harm via contracting disease or being a conduit for disease is also anethema.

And that's before the poor animals feelings are considered.

Homosexuality and HIV say hello. I'm sure at one point homosexuality was a revolting concept too, but here we are, and HIV has nicely made the transition to all people now despite (rightly or wrongly) the mainstream public being inundated with negative messages from government. How did that happen?

As for incest, I would say there are more than just a couple of weirdos that think its perfectly fine. The same could have been said about homosexuality at some point too, no?

Again, like someone else posting in this thread, biology is all of a sudden the way-marker for better living......except when it doesn't suit personal feelings.

And seeing as this is the internet, I better explicitly state that I'm not homophobic, I DO question same-sex couples with children however. This question here isn't at all a dig at gay people, its devils advocate for....

"If X was wrong 30 years ago, and now X is absolutely grand, whats to stop Y from becoming absolutely grand too?"

And I say that the answer is "nothing".

As I said in another post, if youre in for a penny, youre in for a pound.

Samaris · 28-06-2017 07:18PM

Bear in mind that one is not just exposing oneself to a zoonotic disease, one is also exposing potential future (probably human) partners to it too.

While we can rationalise our way out of current attitudes towards bestiality though, another question is -why- should we? Flip it around, why is it beneficial, why would, should or could societal attitudes change and would it be worth overcoming the actual, serious issues with the practice? (e.g. zoonoses, distress in the animal and pretty high chance of injury to human or animal)

Airyfairy12 · 28-06-2017 07:22PM

It's animal abuse, the same way having sex with a minor or someone with a severe mental disability is abuse. Taking advantage of an animal or human for your own sexual pleasure is really disturbing.

28-06-2017 07:24PM

Samaris wrote: »

Bear in mind that one is not just exposing oneself to a zoonotic disease, one is also exposing potential future (probably human) partners to it too.

While we can rationalise our way out of current attitudes towards bestiality though, another question is -why- should we? Flip it around, why is it beneficial, why would, should or could societal attitudes change and would it be worth overcoming the actual, serious issues with the practice? (e.g. zoonoses, distress in the animal and pretty high chance of injury to human or animal)

For the same reason we allow people to chase footballs, gamble on the grand national at Aintree, and vote Conservative: even though no benefit accrues to society, human liberty demands it, in the name of individual freedom.

The issue of zoonoses is fairly easy to clear up (no pun intended); why not just criminalise unprotected intercourse?

Having said that, human transmission of venereal disease is a far more significant issue and I don't see many people clutching their pearls over human-to-human sexual encounters.

28-06-2017 07:26PM

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

It's animal abuse, the same way having sex with a minor or someone with a severe mental disability is abuse. Taking advantage of an animal or human for your own sexual pleasure is really disturbing.

But please, by all means, fist them and inseminate them and slaughter them!

Airyfairy12 · 28-06-2017 07:34PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But please, by all means, fist them and inseminate them and slaughter them!

Thats not right either but it still doesn't make beastiality any less wrong.

People have always eaten meat, we're mammals and although I completely disagree with how animals are farmed and treated I still don't think it's as bad as beastiality were someone might be abusing an animal for their own personal sexual gratification or pleasure.

Samaris · 28-06-2017 07:35PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

For the same reason we allow people to chase footballs, gamble on the grand national at Aintree, and vote Conservative: even though no benefit accrues to society, human liberty demands it, in the name of individual freedom.

The issue of zoonoses is fairly easy to clear up (no pun intended); why not just criminalise unprotected intercourse?

Having said that, human transmission of venereal disease is a far more significant issue and I don't see many people clutching their pearls over human-to-human sexual encounters.

HIV has caused devastation over decades and it has killed millions of people at this point. We still don't have a reliable cure (although there's been a promising development on that very recently there). Let's not risk another AIDS for the sake of being carnally pleasured by a chicken.

Human-to-human contact is unavoidable, it is a necessary part of the human race's survival. It is far more sensible to focus on curing human venereal diseases when human sexual contact is a necessity. We also have a pretty good idea of what human viruses do to another human. It would be extremely difficult to work out what potential diseases might be passed from a donkey, a chicken, a penguin or a bonobo and we really do have more to be focusing resources on.
Edit: Protection isn't 100% and certainly when we don't know what diseases to look for, let alone how they are transmitted. Also, if you were a condom manufacturer, would you guarantee that your product could stand up just as well with a horse?

I am not sure that human liberty demands that which could risk the population. There is no such thing as absolute liberty. I am not free to murder the next person I see, because such behaviour is detrimental to society (certainly to my victim). Human liberty is a very mutable notion and its limits can be wider or narrower at any given stage or nation, so while you -can- argue that it can or should be wide enough to account for paraphilias and I can't really argue against it for a constructed and temporary metric such as liberty, but I don't think it is worth it.

28-06-2017 07:46PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I am not aware of any revulsion to the behaviour of my elderly Vet, who contracted brucellosis in the 1970s because of the nature of his work. My closest gay friend is in a relationship with a HIV+ partner, even though my friend is negative. Is that repulsive?

Neither your vet nor your gay friends were exposed to illness via sexual contact with animals, right? So not the same thing and its silly to pretend it is.

pangbang wrote: »

Homosexuality and HIV say hello. I'm sure at one point homosexuality was a revolting concept too, but here we are, and HIV has nicely made the transition to all people now despite (rightly or wrongly) the mainstream public being inundated with negative messages from government. How did that happen?

Homosexuality is not a disease.

HIV is spread between humans, not via sexual contact with animals.

And not everyone considered homosexuality a revolting concept, more societies were accepting than condemning of it.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 07:47PM

Samaris wrote: »

HIV has caused devastation over decades and it has killed millions of people at this point. We still don't have a reliable cure (although there's been a promising development on that very recently there). Let's not risk another AIDS for the sake of being carnally pleasured by a chicken.

Human-to-human contact is unavoidable, it is a necessary part of the human race's survival. It is far more sensible to focus on curing human venereal diseases when human sexual contact is a necessity. We also have a pretty good idea of what human viruses do to another human. It would be extremely difficult to work out what potential diseases might be passed from a donkey, a chicken, a penguin or a bonobo and we really do have more to be focusing resources on.
Edit: Protection isn't 100% and certainly when we don't know what diseases to look for, let alone how they are transmitted. Also, if you were a condom manufacturer, would you guarantee that your product could stand up just as well with a horse?

I am not sure that human liberty demands that which could risk the population. There is no such thing as absolute liberty. I am not free to murder the next person I see, because such behaviour is detrimental to society (certainly to my victim). Human liberty is a very mutable notion and its limits can be wider or narrower at any given stage or nation, so while you -can- argue that it can or should be wide enough to account for paraphilias and I can't really argue against it for a constructed and temporary metric such as liberty, but I don't think it is worth it.

To the bolded, swap a chicken for a gay person.

Whats the difference? How did one thing become acceptable against perceived reason/biology at a certain point in time, but bestiality is held under a microscope?

Whats to stop bestiality from becoming accepted in the future if biology is simply something that is occasionally and conveniently agreed with?

Why isn't anyone answering this basic question?

(and again, its devils advocate)

28-06-2017 07:49PM

pangbang wrote: »

To the bolded, swap a chicken for a gay person.

Let's not, because a chicken is an animal and a gay person is a human being and using that analogy is inappropriate.

Outlaw Pete · 28-06-2017 07:50PM

Ancient cave drawings show us that back in the day women were quite partial to a bit of the old equine man meat.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 07:51PM

Candie wrote: »

Neither your vet nor your gay friends were exposed to illness via sexual contact with animals, right? So not the same thing and its silly to pretend it is.

Homosexuality is not a disease.

HIV is spread between humans, not via sexual contact with animals.

And not everyone considered homosexuality a revolting concept, more societies were accepting than condemning of it.

I didn't say it was a disease. Same way I'm not saying bestiality is a disease. But they are both conduits to spread disease.

And yeah, I'm sure not everyone thought homosexuality was revolting. I'm sure there were some people at a certain point in time that thought licking toads was a great idea too.

But I'm talking GENERAL population. And if youre trying to sell the idea that GENERALLY, 70's America (for example) was GENERALLY accepting of homosexuality, youre out of your mind.

I just read "more societies were accepting of it" than not.......wow. Talk about rewriting history to suit current narrative.

28-06-2017 07:52PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ancient cave drawings show us that back in the day women were quite partial to a bit of the old equine man meat.

Ancient drawings also depict humans on the backs of winged horses and slaying sea monsters, but that doesn't mean it happened.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 07:52PM

Candie wrote: »

Let's not, because a chicken is an animal and a gay person is a human being and using that analogy is inappropriate.

Or in other words, "lets not, because I have sweet FA to counter it"

Erik Shin · 28-06-2017 07:53PM

Candie wrote: »

Ancient drawings also depict humans on the backs of winged horses and slaying sea monsters, but that doesn't mean it happened.

Sex with animals did happen, it is well documented in ancient civilizations

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 07:54PM

Samaris wrote: »

While we can rationalise our way out of current attitudes towards bestiality though, another question is -why- should we? Flip it around, why is it beneficial, why would, should or could societal attitudes change and would it be worth overcoming the actual, serious issues with the practice? (e.g. zoonoses, distress in the animal and pretty high chance of injury to human or animal)

Exactly. That's why it's so difficult to take seriously as a question and why there have been dismissive posts towards the OP in this thread.

28-06-2017 07:54PM

pangbang wrote: »

I didn't say it was a disease. Same way I'm not saying bestiality is a disease. But they are both conduits to spread disease.

And yeah, I'm sure not everyone thought homosexuality was revolting. I'm sure there were some people at a certain point in time that thought licking toads was a great idea too.

But I'm talking GENERAL population. And if youre trying to sell the idea that GENERALLY, 70's America (for example) was GENERALLY accepting of homosexuality, youre out of your mind.

I just read "more societies were accepting of it" than not.......wow. Talk about rewriting history to suit current narrative.

You probably need to read more history, and remember there's more to the world than the west.

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Comments