What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Sam Kade · 28-06-2017 07:55PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

Seeing that you are from a farming background (cough) you surely witnessed a cow holding onto the afterbirth, should the vet ask it to come out? Would you also consider a gynecologist to be raping women?

28-06-2017 07:55PM

Erik Shin wrote: »

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

And it's still happening now, but just because there's a drawing of something that doesn't make it proof.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 07:56PM

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.

And again, +1. You are the voice of reason here.

And another consideration. Certain diseases have been eradicated from the human population. How do we know that some other animal isn't a reservoir for that disease? They might be able to host it while it does them no harm. But it could be passed on to a human where it could then manifest and spread to an unvaccinated human population and wreak havoc. This isn't a far-fetched notion. Like you say, why risk an epidemic of another disease? Nobody wants another AIDS epidemic.

Erik Shin · 28-06-2017 07:57PM

Candie wrote: »

And it's still happening now, but just because there's a drawing of something that doesn't make it proof.

Pardon? Because you decide you don't like something... it didn't happen....I'm afraid that's not the way the real world works

pangbang · 28-06-2017 07:57PM

Candie wrote: »

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

Maybe you can try and answer the question then, instead of trying to instil your version of history.

If X was unacceptable in the past, was of no use to human survival, provided the means for disease to spread, but NOW is acceptable...

Then why cant bestiality go the same way?

Is it too awkward to answer?

28-06-2017 07:58PM

Erik Shin wrote: »

Pardon? Because you decide you don't like something... it didn't happen....I'm afraid that's not the way the real world works

No, that's not what I'm saying Erik. I'm saying that while bestiality certainly happened, it's a bad idea to use ancient illustration as 'proof'. Otherwise we'd all believe in the Greek gods or dragons.

LadyMacBeth_ · 28-06-2017 07:59PM

pangbang wrote: »

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)

Animals can't consent with humans, gay adults can consent with each other.

The fact that homosexuality keeps cropping up in a beastiality thread is really beyond me.

28-06-2017 08:00PM

pangbang wrote: »

Maybe you can try and answer the question then, instead of trying to instil your version of history.

If X was unacceptable in the past, was of no use to human survival, provided the means for disease to spread, but NOW is acceptable...

Then why cant bestiality go the same way?

Is it too awkward to answer?

Do you really not see the difference between sexual contact between two humans and a human and an animal? I don't think they're comparable situations, since humans spread human disease and animals spread other disease.

It's not awkward at all.

Airyfairy12 · 28-06-2017 08:00PM

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.

Back in the day people were burned for being witches, public executions were common, Romans used little boy's as sex slaves, lobotomies were practiced on homosexuals and people with schizophrenia marital rape was legal in Ireland until 1990.

Allot of unfortunate things were acceptable 'back in the day'.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:01PM

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

Animals can't consent with humans, gay adults can consent with each other.

The fact that homosexuality keeps cropping up in a beastiality thread is really beyond me.

Well then youre not reading my question properly. Agency is in the hands of the person, a sheep doesn't get to tell you what to do.

Erik Shin · 28-06-2017 08:02PM

Candie wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying Erik. I'm saying that while bestiality certainly happened, it's a bad idea to use ancient illustration as 'proof'. Otherwise we'd all believe in the Greek gods or dragons.

Instagram of its day

And beastiality goes back tens of thousands of years and even back in the time of Jesus was actively encouraged

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:04PM

Candie wrote: »

Do you really not see the difference between sexual contact between two humans and a human and an animal? I don't think they're comparable situations, since humans spread human disease and animals spread other disease.

It's not awkward at all.

Instead of the song and dance to avoid answering the question out straight, why don't you just answer the question?

If X behaviour was generally condemned in the past, served no biological purpose, and was a means to spread devastating disease but is acceptable NOW.....

then why cant bestiality be accepted on the same reasoning?

LadyMacBeth_ · 28-06-2017 08:07PM

pangbang wrote: »

Instead of the song and dance to avoid answering the question out straight, why don't you just answer the question?

If X behaviour was generally condemned in the past, served no biological purpose, and was a means to spread devastating disease but is acceptable NOW.....

then why cant bestiality be accepted on the same reasoning?

Because human beings can form complicated sexual and romantic relationships with each other. Animals and humans cannot.

Outlaw Pete · 28-06-2017 08:08PM

Candie wrote: »

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

28-06-2017 08:09PM

pangbang wrote: »

Instead of the song and dance to avoid answering the question out straight, why don't you just answer the question?

If X behaviour was generally condemned in the past, served no biological purpose, and was a means to spread devastating disease but is acceptable NOW.....

then why cant bestiality be accepted on the same reasoning?

You're hung up on HIV. Are you forgetting that it's also transmitted between hetrosexuals? It's not a 'gay' illness, part of the reason for it's spread is because people assumed it was. Most transmissions are between hetrosexuals, so lets not hold gay people to account for spreading disease, especially when you consider the human cost of syphillis long before HIV.

The big three diseases are malaria, tuberculolsis and HIV. We already know that we can and do fall prey to devastating illness of animal origin as things stand. You want to go for a big four by adding transmission via sexual fluids too? Or a big five?

How about we just leave gay people out of this discussion, since it's about bestiality and nothing to do with human consensual sexual activity? Can we do that? Or are you just absolutely determined to draw parallels that don't exist?

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 08:13PM

Erik Shin wrote: »

Instagram of its day

And beastiality goes back tens of thousands of years and even back in the time of Jesus was actively encouraged

Super. There were a lot of things that happened in ancient times that are now recognised as uncivilised or barbaric.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:14PM

Candie wrote: »

You're hung up on HIV. Are you forgetting that it's also transmitted between hetrosexuals? It's not a 'gay' illness, part of the reason for it's spread is because people assumed it was. Most transmissions are between hetrosexuals, so lets not hold gay people to account for spreading disease, especially when you consider the human cost of syphillis long before HIV.

The big three diseases are malaria, tuberculolsis and HIV. We already know that we can and do fall prey to devastating illness of animal origin as things stand. You want to go for a big four by adding transmission via sexual fluids too? Or a big five?

How about we just leave gay people out of this discussion, since it's about bestiality and nothing to do with human consensual sexual activity? Can we do that? Or are you just absolutely determined to draw parallels that don't exist?

Yeah, but it still propagated and spread from the gay community to the straight community, easily the most significant vector.

Fast forward 100 years, heres your reasoning read back to you.

"You're hung up on bestiality disease XXX. Are you forgetting that it's also transmitted between people? It's not a "bestiality" illness, part of the reason for it's spread is because people assumed it was. Most transmissions are between people, so lets not hold bestiality people to account for spreading disease, especially when you consider the human cost of HIV long before that"

Can you see how youre talking in circles, and refusing to answer a basic question?

Airyfairy12 · 28-06-2017 08:19PM

Erik Shin wrote: »

Instagram of its day

And beastiality goes back tens of thousands of years and even back in the time of Jesus was actively encouraged

By that logic we might aswell bring back public whippings, child marriages, public executions... Necrophilia has been practiced too, should we decriminalise that as well?

28-06-2017 08:21PM

pangbang wrote: »

Yeah, but it still propagated and spread from the gay community to the straight community, easily the most significant vector.

Fast forward 100 years, heres your reasoning read back to you.

"You're hung up on bestiality disease XXX. Are you forgetting that it's also transmitted between people? It's not a "bestiality" illness, part of the reason for it's spread is because people assumed it was. Most transmissions are between people, so lets not hold bestiality people to account for spreading disease, especially when you consider the human cost of HIV long before that"

Can you see how youre talking in circles, and refusing to answer a basic question?

You realise that both the gay community and the straight community are human beings, right? You really need to move away from that line of reasoning.

Your question was answered a few times, you're just not getting the answer you're fishing for.

LadyMacBeth_ · 28-06-2017 08:21PM

HIV originally spread as a zoonotic disease, it didn't originate from gay sex, so you can't really blame the gay community for it.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:25PM

Candie wrote: »

You realise that both the gay community and the straight community are human beings, right? You really need to move away from that line of reasoning.

Your question was answered a few times, you're just not getting the answer you're fishing for.

No, it wasnt answered a few times. Heres what I got instead of an honest answer.

"its different"
"It inappropriate"
"read history"
"stop getting hung up"

You know damn well what the answer is, and anyone with half a brain reading this will clearly see the answer is too.

You're not fooling anyone by avoiding the question. Talk about mental gymnastics!

28-06-2017 08:27PM

pangbang wrote: »

No, it wasnt answered a few times. Heres what I got instead of an honest answer.

"its different"
"It inappropriate"
"read history"
"stop getting hung up"

You know damn well what the answer is, and anyone with half a brain reading this will clearly see the answer is too.

You're not fooling anyone by avoiding the question. Talk about mental gymnastics!

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the donkey.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:27PM

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

HIV originally spread as a zoonotic disease, it didn't originate from gay sex, so you can't really blame the gay community for it.

No, it didn't "spread" as a zoonotic disease. It has its etiology in zoonotics, and that's all.

It DID spread voraciously via the gay community to the point where everyone is at risk from it now.

But keep dancing around the obvious.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:28PM

Candie wrote: »

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the donkey.

I'll add that to the list of non-answers, shall I?

It must actually be awkward! Wow, I didn't think simple logic could be that embattled!

LadyMacBeth_ · 28-06-2017 08:30PM

pangbang wrote: »

No, it didn't "spread" as a zoonotic disease. It has its etiology in zoonotics, and that's all.

It DID spread voraciously via the gay community to the point where everyone is at risk from it now.

But keep dancing around the obvious.

Well if you want to be pedantic the original cause of the disease is a cross infection between animals and humans. As Candie pointed out, more straight people than gay people have HIV now, so it's spreading pretty well in that community too.

Donald Trump · 28-06-2017 08:36PM

Doggy style

Stigura · 28-06-2017 08:37PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

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

Attempting to 'Bend a Gorilla over would far more likely get you ripped, limb from limb. You'd not get as far as 'getting AIDS, infecting the world and killing every one' (A statement that Must win the all time prize for implied, hysterical, Homophobia, surely to god?!)

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And, ye discovered this fact How, exactly ....?

Anyway, even by page three, this thread was sliding into the usual, AH Trench Warfare. More people now seem to be arguing for their 'side', rather than attempting any rational discussion.

Have at it, AH's. It's got boring now though.

Hani Miletski.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:41PM

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

Well if you want to be pedantic the original cause of the disease is a cross infection between animals and humans. As Candie pointed out, more straight people than gay people have HIV now, so it's spreading pretty well in that community too.

You know what, such wilful ignorance is actually disappointing.

I don't want to be pedantic about simple facts, no. That you think simple facts are pedantic is nuts to me.

And again with the song and dance, skipping the inconvenient part, mentioned multiple times by now, that it SPREAD from the gay community to straight community.

YES, now its ever so slightly more prevalent in the straight community NOW, and YES, you are conveniently skipping the part of where it came from.

And again I'll use your flawed logic here. Read this back to yourself, and question your sanity. 100 years from now, ladymacbeth junior junior says

"Well if you want to be pedantic the original cause of the bestiality disease is a cross infection between animals and humans. As Candie pointed out, more humans than bestiality fans have bestiality disease XXX now, so it's spreading pretty well in that community too"

Wow, I said!

The simple, simple, simple, simple and apparently most awkward, awkward, awkward answer is that there is NO difference between the eventual acceptance of homosexuality and the plausible acceptance of bestiality in the future.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2017 08:45PM

pangbang wrote: »

You know what, such wilful ignorance is actually disappointing.

I don't want to be pedantic about simple facts, no. That you think simple facts are pedantic is nuts to me.

And again with the song and dance, skipping the inconvenient part, mentioned multiple times by now, that it SPREAD from the gay community to straight community.

YES, now its ever so slightly more prevalent in the straight community NOW, and YES, you are conveniently skipping the part of where it came from.

And again I'll use your flawed logic here. Read this back to yourself, and question your sanity. 100 years from now, ladymacbeth junior junior says

"Well if you want to be pedantic the original cause of the bestiality disease is a cross infection between animals and humans. As Candie pointed out, more humans than bestiality fans have bestiality disease XXX now, so it's spreading pretty well in that community too"

Wow, I said!

The simple, simple, simple, simple and apparently most awkward, awkward, awkward answer is that there is NO difference between the eventual acceptance of homosexuality and the plausible acceptance of bestiality in the future.

I have no problem with homosexuality. I think bestiality is wrong. Yourself?

pangbang · 28-06-2017 08:52PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I have no problem with homosexuality. I think bestiality is wrong. Yourself?

In most regards, no, I don't have a problem with it, and in most regards, no, I don't bestiality is okay. Still, theres no avoiding a simple comparison that shares MANY fundamental similarities.

But my question wasnt about feelings anyway, it was just simple logical deduction. I mean, read back the last page or two, the mental reaching to avoid a clear, simple question is almost amusing.

I say that if you think X is all grand, then you have absolutely NO reason to say that Y is wrong either.

Mad stuff, ted!

If you accept X as hunky dory, then youre a hypocrite to say that Y is unacceptable.

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Comments