Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

1…68101112

Comments

  • #212
    Murrisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 889 ✭✭✭Murrisk


    pangbang wrote: »
    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.

    The first reported case of it was in a heterosexual Nordic sailor.

    Anal sex lends itself to the disease being more easily spread due to the skin in the rectal passage being more likely to break during intercourse. But it can be spread just fine from heterosexual to heterosexual, anal sex not being a solely homosexual activity and the fact that it can be spread through vaginal sex also. We don't know that it started with gay men.


  • #213
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


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

    Same as today....


  • #214
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


    Airyfairy12 wrote: »
    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?

    What logic...I'm applying no false logic here... only you are doing this


  • #215
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Putting the best back in bestiality


  • #216
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    pangbang wrote: »
    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.

    Homosexuality is hunky dory. Bestiality isn't. Hetereosexual sex is hunky dory. Pedophilia isn't. These are self-evident truths, are they not?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Murrisk wrote: »
    The first reported case of it was in a heterosexual Nordic sailor.

    Anal sex lends itself to the disease being more easily spread due to the skin in the rectal passage being more likely to break during intercourse. But it can be spread just fine from heterosexual to heterosexual, anal sex not being a solely homosexual activity and the fact that it can be spread through vaginal sex also. We don't know that it started with gay men.

    Well that's great about the sailor, correct or not. But it has nothing to do with the spread of the disease after the zoonotic leap. Nothing.

    It is highly unlikely that the first instance of HIV began with gay men, probability-wise, although not impossible. That still has nothing to do with the spread of the disease.

    And yeah, biologically speaking, ones anus horriblis is not designed for sexual intercourse, hence why it gets damaged during anal sex, hence why disease took hold. Its doing something its not supposed to do, much like an animal isn't designed to have sex with a human.

    So what? Are you trying to add even more weight to my question?


  • #218
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Homosexuality is hunky dory. Bestiality isn't. Hetereosexual sex is hunky dory. Pedophilia isn't. These are self-evident truths, are they not?

    "self-evident" is the 300mph highway to ignorance! Nothing is self-evident anymore, and THAT is the root of my question.

    If you go back and read my simple question, you'll see what I'm saying.


  • #219
    redarmyblues
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    SuperS54 wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/woman-died-from-allergic-reaction-to-sex-with-dog-172620-Jul2011/

    Its hard to understand why the DPP brought charges in that case, the woman had kids and a lot of people in Limerick found out her identity, it was just unfortunate that she had that particular allergy given her hobby, the death could have been given as anaphylaxis, though it is quite rare to actually die from it as it is easy to diagnose and treat. I wonder why she didn't present at hospital, perhaps the dog was still attached, apparently decoupling can be a problem in that activity, awful way to die if that was the case.

    They blamed the owner for training the dog for the purpose, if I remember correctly and that is why he got convicted, though I wouldn't think it needed that much training, you wouldn't need to be Aidan O' Brien or anything. The dog was put down too and that was the final tragedy of that menage a trois.


  • #220
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Homosexuality is hunky dory. Bestiality isn't. Hetereosexual sex is hunky dory. Pedophilia isn't. These are self-evident truths, are they not?

    One of the people who literally, LITERALLY, could not answer my question, has liked your post.

    To spell it out, they cant reason why such and such a thing is good or bad, but they "like" your post.

    Is that not a perfect example of feelings over fact?

    That feeds into the question I'm asking too.


  • #221
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    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?

    nonsense pangbang
    slavery, rape, paedophilia, incest, crucifixion were all once "lawful" or acceptable in the past, but are now soundly and properly rejected by most. just because one thing was once rejected, and is now accepted, doesnt mean all that was once morally rejected should be accepted.

    The argument against bestiality from a biological/human health holds fast and most true, irrespective of any human exceptionalism, Leviticus, or animal welfare or consent arguement.

    we'll be back next week arguing necrophilia aint all that bad... sure your wan is dead, I dug her up so there's no issues...


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    pangbang wrote: »
    "self-evident" is the 300mph highway to ignorance! Nothing is self-evident anymore, and THAT is the root of my question.

    If you go back and read my simple question, you'll see what I'm saying.

    This 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 bestiality is still considered unacceptable whereas homosexuality is considered acceptable today. The fact that a disease was prevalent amongst homesexual men doesn't make homosexuality more or less acceptable as a behaviour.


  • #223
    Day Lewin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,868 ✭✭✭Day Lewin


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I have no problem with homosexuality. I think bestiality is wrong. Yourself?

    Well, that was the original post, wasn't it? WHY is bestiality wrong - if it is?

    Emotional reaction: yuk that's gross...not really an answer, just an individual response.

    Its illegal because everyone knows that...well, bandwagon thinking: just 'cos a lot of people think something is wrong, doesn't make it so.

    May cause illness or injury? so may lots of things that aren't illegal.

    And here may I toss in a new angle: bestiality DOES exist, always has, is even common. Mainly, I believe, because it represents a release of sexual tension for those who lack any other outlet. And there's also a Paraphilia that even FetLife doesn't allow to be aired. (If you are squeamish, do NOT Google "Fetish K9")

    That being so, it seems that not many animals really have been harmed by it...they may not mind this any more than they mind other stuff that humans do. I mean, the dog in that film thing could have barked or bit or backed away?

    This truly is one that dare not speak its name, or to put it another way, it is a sexual variant that it is still permissible to condemn.

    Thats what the OP was getting at, in my understanding of it.

    My own personal view? I think its creepy. Because I'm an idealist who thinks that sex between humans is a sacred spiritual experience. But not everyone agrees with that either...


  • #224
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    nonsense pangbang
    slavery, rape, paedophilia, incest, crucifixion were all once "lawful" or acceptable in the past, but are now soundly and properly rejected by most. just because one thing was once rejected, and is now accepted, doesnt mean all that was once morally rejected should be accepted.

    The argument against bestiality from a biological/human health holds fast and most true, irrespective of any human exceptionalism, Leviticus, or animal welfare or consent arguement.

    we'll be back next week arguing necrophilia aint all that bad... sure your wan is dead, I dug her up so there's no issues...

    Its not nonsense, man. And if was, it would have been answered far more succinctly by now.

    If anything, your post only adds more weight to my question. Such and such a thing was bad, now its good, so it can apply to everything.....that's the way I have been phrasing my question.

    Your post is essentially the opposite side of the same thing, such and such a thing was good, and now its bad.

    As I've said multiple times now, if youre in for a penny you are in for a pound. Accept whatever you like, reject whatever you like.......

    But it all goes to show you that there is no freaking reasoning behind anything at that rate! Maybe the world has always been run on feelings, and there just so happened to be a crossover with science the odd time.

    My question still stands though.

    If X behaviour was condemned not that long ago, wasn't beneficial to humanity (strictly biologically speaking), and had inherent dangers associated with it, but eventually became acceptable despite logic....

    Then there is no reason (literal reason, logic) to condemn bestiality, right?


  • #225
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    This 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 bestiality is still considered unacceptable whereas homosexuality is considered acceptable today. The fact that a disease was prevalent amongst homesexual men doesn't make homosexuality more or less acceptable as a behaviour.

    Fine, at least youre trying to answer. But you'll see in your answer that there is no rhyme or reason for rejecting/accepting one over the other.

    Just timing perhaps? Bestiality isn't okay now, but what about later?

    I take from your answer that "no, there is no difference"


  • #226
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,839 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    pangbang wrote: »
    I say that if you think X is all grand, then you have absolutely NO reason to say that Y is wrong either.
    This is fundamentally flawed.

    It's predicated on the assumption that there are no differences in the nature of X and Y, but there are clear differences in the nature of the relationship and the sex between two informed and consenting adult men/women and the nature of any sex between a human and an animal that is incapable of consenting to or even understanding consensual sex.

    There might be some merit in it as an argument (purely from the 'they are all consenting adults' perspective) for, say, the legalisation of marriages of more than 2 people, or even incest among adults, but not for bestiality.


  • #227
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    pangbang wrote: »
    Its not nonsense, man. And if was, it would have been answered far more succinctly by now.

    If anything, your post only adds more weight to my question. Such and such a thing was bad, now its good, so it can apply to everything.....that's the way I have been phrasing my question.

    Your post is essentially the opposite side of the same thing, such and such a thing was good, and now its bad.

    As I've said multiple times now, if youre in for a penny you are in for a pound. Accept whatever you like, reject whatever you like.......

    But it all goes to show you that there is no freaking reasoning behind anything at that rate! Maybe the world has always been run on feelings, and there just so happened to be a crossover with science the odd time.

    My question still stands though.

    If X behaviour was condemned not that long ago, wasn't beneficial to humanity (strictly biologically speaking), and had inherent dangers associated with it, but eventually became acceptable despite logic....

    Then there is no reason (literal reason, logic) to condemn bestiality, right?

    What's your position (so to speak) on oral sex?

    "was condemned"? Tick
    "wasn't beneficial to humanity (strictly biologically speaking)". Tick
    "had inherent dangers associated with it". Tick
    "but it eventually became acceptable despite logic". Tick

    So, according to your logic, it follows that there is no reason to condemn bestiality. Doesn't compute.


  • #228
    LadyMacBeth_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,070 ✭✭✭LadyMacBeth_


    These ''inherent dangers'' of homosexuality are a modern issue, since the 80s, you do realise that gay people have been having sex for a lot longer than that? Or do you think that only straight people have been having sex since the dawn of time because ''common sense''?

    And apparently the first person to have HIV was a heterosexual, who must have then given it to someone else and so on and so on, by using your logic we should then blame heterosexuals for spreading HIV to the gay community!


  • #229
    Airyfairy12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭Airyfairy12


    Day Lewin wrote: »
    Well, that was the original post, wasn't it? WHY is bestiality wrong - if it is?

    Emotional reaction: yuk that's gross...not really an answer, just an individual response.

    Its illegal because everyone knows that...well, bandwagon thinking: just 'cos a lot of people think something is wrong, doesn't make it so.

    May cause illness or injury? so may lots of things that aren't illegal.

    And here may I toss in a new angle: bestiality DOES exist, always has, is even common. Mainly, I believe, because it represents a release of sexual tension for those who lack any other outlet. And there's also a Paraphilia that even FetLife doesn't allow to be aired. (If you are squeamish, do NOT Google "Fetish K9")

    That being so, it seems that not many animals really have been harmed by it...they may not mind this any more than they mind other stuff that humans do. I mean, the dog in that film thing could have barked or bit or backed away?

    This truly is one that dare not speak its name, or to put it another way, it is a sexual variant that it is still permissible to condemn.

    Thats what the OP was getting at, in my understanding of it.

    My own personal view? I think its creepy. Because I'm an idealist who thinks that sex between humans is a sacred spiritual experience. But not everyone agrees with that either...

    Pedophelia and necrophelia exist, always have, are even common...Doesnt make them right though. Even if theyre a sexual release because theres no other outlet.. theyre still not right.

    'The dog could have barked or backed away' ...So like he wanted it? ..Sounds eerily similar to victim blaming in rape victims.

    The dog doesnt back away because the dog doesnt have the intelligence to understand whats going on or the ability to comprehend that it's being sexually molested, a dog is primitive and cant consent to having sex. A human has the intelligence to understand that having sex with an animal is not only abusive and degrading to the animal itself but its taking advantage of a living being for sexual gratification regardless of the potential harm you could inflict on the animal youre sexually molesting. I cant believe that needs to be explained to you??


  • #230
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    osarusan wrote: »
    This is fundamentally flawed.

    It's predicated on the assumption that there are no differences in the nature of X and Y, but there are clear differences in the nature of the relationship and the sex between two informed and consenting adult men/women and the nature of any sex between a human and an animal that is incapable of consenting to or even understanding consensual sex.

    There might be some merit in it as an argument (purely from the 'they are all consenting adults' perspective) for, say, the legalisation of marriages of more than 2 people, or even incest, but not for bestiality.

    Quite the opposite, its fundamentally sound.

    I say that the fundamentals are almost exactly the same.

    Bestiality isn't popular or accepted
    Neither was homosexuality not so long ago, but it is now (and this is the only difference I see)

    Bestiality is rightly recognised as a potential vector/origin for new disease, that might spread beyond people having sex with animals.
    Homosexuality was widely recognised as the most significant vector for HIV at a certain point in the past, and it did indeed spread to everyone.

    Bestiality has no strict biological/evolutionary purpose
    Homosexuality has no strict biological/evolutionary purpose

    Animals are not biologically designed to have sex with humans
    A dudes ass is not designed for sex either, hence why it tears and allows disease.

    So yeah, I think the fundamental comparisons are completely appropriate. Not nice, but appropriate.

    How can someone say that one is all fine and dandy, but in the same instance say "nah, that ones completely different!".

    How is it different?

    Its okay to admit that it isn't logical, but goddamm are some people trying to avoid the obvious!


  • #231
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    pangbang wrote: »
    Its not nonsense, man. And if was, it would have been answered far more succinctly by now.

    If anything, your post only adds more weight to my question. Such and such a thing was bad, now its good, so it can apply to everything.....that's the way I have been phrasing my question.

    Your post is essentially the opposite side of the same thing, such and such a thing was good, and now its bad.

    As I've said multiple times now, if youre in for a penny you are in for a pound. Accept whatever you like, reject whatever you like.......

    But it all goes to show you that there is no freaking reasoning behind anything at that rate! Maybe the world has always been run on feelings, and there just so happened to be a crossover with science the odd time.

    My question still stands though.

    If X behaviour was condemned not that long ago, wasn't beneficial to humanity (strictly biologically speaking), and had inherent dangers associated with it, but eventually became acceptable despite logic....

    Then there is no reason (literal reason, logic) to condemn bestiality, right?

    You completely missed the point; both arguments are absurd, only "my argument" was used to demonstrate the absurdity of yours!
    But you completely avoided it, and just reiterated your position.

    I'm not rejecting what "I" like, "in for a pound", I'm accepting what society deem acceptable. I might not agree with it, but I wont condemn it.
    society currently rejects bestiality for several reasons. I just believe the biological/human health one is the most rational and valid.
    If seem to be deliberately ignoring the reasoning behind the biology/health.



    using your argument, necrophilia has some merit.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Day Lewin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,868 ✭✭✭Day Lewin


    As a matter of fact, most of the infectious diseases that plague humanity came originally from domesticated animals.
    Tuberculosis, as everyone knows, is a bovine disease. Influenza, originally from birds. Measles came from pigs, apparently
    There's no suggestion that this was caused by improper relations, though - unless you consider domestication to BE "improper relations" - (some do!)
    Yes, HIV a simian disease...never mind how it got into the population, it's there now. That's definitely not a convincing argument against bestiality.


  • #233
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    What's your position (so to speak) on oral sex?

    "was condemned"? Tick
    "wasn't beneficial to humanity (strictly biologically speaking)". Tick
    "had inherent dangers associated with it". Tick
    "but it eventually became acceptable despite logic". Tick

    So, according to your logic, it follows that there is no reason to condemn bestiality. Doesn't compute.

    Yeah, basically!

    I'm the one that asked the question. Why don't you try and answer it instead of finding different ways to ask it?


  • #234
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    You completely missed the point; both arguments are absurd, only "my argument" was used to demonstrate the absurdity of yours!
    But you completely avoided it, and just reiterated your position.

    I'm not rejecting what "I" like, "in for a pound", I'm accepting what society deem acceptable. I might not agree with it, but I wont condemn it.
    society currently rejects bestiality for several reasons. I just believe the biological/human health one is the most rational and valid.
    If seem to be deliberately ignoring the reasoning behind the biology/health.



    using your argument, necrophilia has some merit.

    There must be some crossed wires going on here. Yeah, going by my question, there is nothing to say necrophilia is bad.

    Biology doesn't factor.
    Disease doesn't factor.
    History doesn't factor.
    An inherent reason doesn't factor.

    So yeah, what are you left with other than feelings and timing? Bestiality is "bad" today, "good" tomorrow. And why not?


  • #235
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,839 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    pangbang wrote: »
    How is it different?
    From the perspective of informed consent, totally different.


  • #236
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    pangbang wrote: »
    Yeah, basically!

    I'm the one that asked the question. Why don't you try and answer it instead of finding different ways to ask it?

    The question you asked is, frankly, ridiculous. That is why it is being ridiculed. In a not so subtle way, you attempt to equate homosexuality with bestiality under the guise of logic. All the while you ignore perfectly valid and conclusive refutations of your argument.

    This is your argument: Homosexuality was unacceptable and caused the spread os a disease so bestaility should be acceptable. That's not an argument, it's the conflating of two unrelated activities in order to make a point that doesn't exist.


  • #237
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    pangbang wrote: »
    There must be some crossed wires going on here. Yeah, going by my question, there is nothing to say necrophilia is bad.

    Biology doesn't factor.
    Disease doesn't factor. it does
    History doesn't factor.
    An inherent reason doesn't factor. other than dignity and moral.

    So yeah, what are you left with other than feelings and timing? Bestiality is "bad" today, "good" tomorrow. And why not?

    so we're back to slavery bad today good yesterday...


  • #238
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    osarusan wrote: »
    From the perspective of informed consent, totally different.

    Right, and what about everything ELSE I mentioned?


  • #239
    Murrisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 889 ✭✭✭Murrisk


    LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »
    These ''inherent dangers'' of homosexuality are a modern issue, since the 80s, you do realise that gay people have been having sex for a lot longer than that? Or do you think that only straight people have been having sex since the dawn of time because ''common sense''?

    And apparently the first person to have HIV was a heterosexual, who must have then given it to someone else and so on and so on, by using your logic we should then blame heterosexuals for spreading HIV to the gay community!

    And if anything, the spread of HIV from animals to humans should make more of an argument of not having sex with animals. I realise that HIV was thought to have passed to human via the consumption of monkey meat, not via bestiality, but the point is it passed from animals to humans and wreaked devastation and we simply don't know what else could be passed along to humans from animals via bestiality. New illnesses might manifest or illnesses might reemerge. Why would anyone want to gamble on that?


  • #240
    Airyfairy12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭Airyfairy12


    So whats your stance on having sex with people who are passed out, comatose, brain dead ect?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    The question you asked is, frankly, ridiculous. That is why it is being ridiculed. In a not so subtle way, you attempt to equate homosexuality with bestiality under the guise of logic. All the while you ignore perfectly valid and conclusive refutations of your argument.

    This is your argument: Homosexuality was unacceptable and caused the spread os a disease so bestaility should be acceptable. That's not an argument, it's the conflating of two unrelated activities in order to make a point that doesn't exist.

    No man, youre missing the point entirely.

    I AM conflating the two for the purpose of comparison. And the only difference I see, as I posted above, is that one WAS bad (not anymore), and the other IS bad now.

    Its an academic question.

    If it was so easily dismissed, there would have been a real simple answer by now.

    Saying that its ridiculous is NOT an answer, saying it is ridiculed is NOT an answer. On the contrary, it shows that the question is extremely difficult to answer for some people.


Advertisement