Bestiality: Always wrong?

[Laudenum]

Right.

First off, bestiality is gross.

Really gross.

God dammit they don't even have boobs!


But, I saw a documentary a few years back on More Four, about bestiality, which featured an elderly farmer who has sex with his donkey.

His defence was that the donkey was consenting, since it was large enough to hurt him if it objected - logic which, assuming it is not hobbled 'during', I cannot fault.

There are loads of large animals: horses, cows, large dogs, that could inflict massive pain on anyone trying to have sex with them against their will.

So obviously he wasn't hurting the animal if it just accepted his ministrations.
It probably didn't even notice.

So, he could kill it, eat it, hunt it, but not have sex with it.

Any thoughts?

I'm against it on ick grounds, but those kinds of arguements don't carry much weight in the Dope.

[Llama Llogophile]

I think it would have been hilarious if you'd added "Need answer fast" to the thread title.

[HMS Irruncible]

I think bestiality, like any form of animal cruelty, is not so much wrong as a place where society has to draw a line. It's a tough line to draw. We eat them without the animal's consent, so why should we need their consent for anything else up to and including sex or torture?

The only rationale I can figure is that since some animals seem very human-like, we're prohibiting the act of hurting human-like beings (because they include us). I suppose that's why they call it being 'inhumane' to animals.

So is sexual congress with animals inhumane? It's disgusting, for certain, but for large animals probably not painful. Barely noticeable, even. Is it like rape? Animals really have no sense of sexual agency, identity, or autonomy, so probably not. So I'd say bestiality ought only be illegal when it causes the animal torment. In the farmer's case I'd accept the reasoning that a large animal could avoid contact if it was experiencing torment.

[Acid Lamp]

First off: Ick.

That said, I don't think it ought to be illegal so long as the animal is either 1. Willing, in the case of male animal/ human female; or 2. large enough to either not care/ notice or move away, thus giving some sort of passive consent in the case of human male/ female animal. What is unacceptable is forcible contact that harms the animal or restraints that do not allow for a "choice" to decline that contact. That falls into abuse as far as I'm concerned.

Also: Ick.

[Lobohan]

I'm against it on ick grounds, but those kinds of arguements don't carry much weight in the Dope.Ick grounds pretty much define the arguments against same sex marriage. Some posters can stretch those quite a ways.

As to the OP, I would say it's pretty gross, but I can't really see the government needing to get involved if there isn't cruelty (like a dude fucking a chicken to death).

A horse isn't degraded or dehumanized by getting fucked. It's probably fairly unimpressed.

[clairobscur]

I've no moral qualm with bestiality. We kill animals for food, stuff and fun, who ride on their back, we have them pulling chariots or moving heavy stuff, we made them jump in circles of fire or juggle with balls, and so on. So, why not fuck them too? I hardly see how it is somehow more cruel than any of those other uses we have for them.

IMO, the general ban on bestiality is purely based on the ick factor.

[John Mace]

If it's a domestic animal, you've probably already bought it dinner. Throw in a movie, and you're good to go.

[Gfactor]

Here is an argument that not all bestiality need be abusive, from Peter Singer, whose book Animal Liberation heavily influenced the animal liberation movement: http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/

A description of some of the responses: http://www.slate.com/id/103801

And Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and President has been quoted as saying:

If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it’s great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong. http://www.animalrights.net/blog/2005/washington-state-sen-wants-bestiality-ban-dont-tell-ingrid/

[Sage Rat]

If it's between Billy Bob raping Mary Sue or diddling a sheep, I'd rather he go for the sheep. Overall though, while I'd rationally argue that bestiality is minimally acceptable, it's not a topic that I feel like putting any effort into arguing. If it's illegal, I don't see it as having a great effect on anything.

(When bestiality is illegal, only criminals screw the pigs.)

[Der Trihs]

I don't regard it as automatically wrong in an ethical way; the consent argument is flawed because animals can't consent to anything at all by human standards, including sex with each other. I do think it's a bad idea because it's a good way to introduce new and interesting diseases into the human population. Well, unless you cook the animal before having sex with it.

[FriarTed]

Yes, always wrong. And in this case, I think the Ick factor alone is a perfectly valid reason to ban & prosecute it.

[Acid Lamp]

Yes, always wrong. And in this case, I think the Ick factor alone is a perfectly valid reason to ban & prosecute it.

You do realize that people make the same argument against homosexuals, interracial couples, and all sorts of other things right? I personally find abortion protesters holding disgusting signs and making their children do so as ick as beastiality. Does that mean I get to revoke their right to free speech? I realize that the comparison is flawed here.

[tim314]

Bestiality is icky to me for a lot of reasons, but in my mind the main reason bestiality is immoral is because animals don't have the standing to consent to a sexual relationship with a human being. I believe there's something morally wrong with humans having sex with creatures of lesser intelligence or sentience. If this alien species is at least of comparable intelligence to humans, and we're talking about consensual relations between two adult members of the species (or whatever the aliens' equivalent to "adulthood" is, in the sense of fully developed mental faculties), then I don't have any moral objection.

If they look like sheep or dogs or whatever, then there's certainly an "ick factor" for me, but that's not the same as a moral objection. In fact I feel strongly that people have a right to engage in sexual relationships that I may personally find icky.

[Icarus]

the consent argument is flawed because animals can't consent to anything at all by human standards, including sex with each other.

Ask the same questions about bestiality with un-domesticated animals and I think most would agree that you could not get past the animal defending itself violently. So, what makes it different for domesticated animals? That they don't object? Of course they don't - they're domesticated!

This is the key objection for me. Just as in human law, the unequal power element is very germain to discussions of rape (it's about power), and sexual harassment (he's my boss/teacher/uncle, I didn't want to get fired/flunked/he threatened me). Domesticated animals may not have cognition of it but it is inherent in the structure that the human has ultimate power over the animal. Think of the slave owner who thought of their slaves as domesticate animals, was it OK for them to have sex with their slaves as long as the slave "didn't object"?

[Acid Lamp]

Sapience makes all the difference Icarus. As far as we can tell an animal is totally and completely incapable of making such a decision. However they can show displeasure with a situation through body language, moving away, biting, kicking etc...

[Sunspace]

You do realize that people make the same argument against homosexuals, interracial couples, and all sorts of other things right? I personally find abortion protesters holding disgusting signs and making their children do so as ick as beastiality. Does that mean I get to revoke their right to free speech? I realize that the comparison is flawed here.Actually, I don't think your comparison is particularly flawed. IMHO, the ick factor is never sufficient as a sole reason to ban something. Banning something must be based on demonstrable harm to others. To others, not just the perpetrator.

[billfish678]

A horse isn't degraded or dehumanized by getting fucked. It's probably fairly unimpressed.

Reminds me of the old joke where a male mouse is screwing a female elephant and she doesn't even notice. At some point the elephant is stung by a bee and lets out a loud bellow. At which point the mouse says "yeah...take it ALL bitch!"...

As for the ick factor...IMO anything regarding sex besides maybe the exchange of Valentines gifts is icky when you get right down to it.

[Astroboy14]

God dammit they don't even have boobs!


What are you talking about? Some of them have 6 or 8!

Yum! (I'm feeling contrary today...):p

[Dissonance]

Yes, it's always wrong. Society wouldn't and shouldn't allow something like for example, two women giving a pig a hand job 'til he ejaculates. Much less the filming of it. Certainly it wouldn't be broadcast nationwide on television.

Link may or may not be safe for work, it's hard to say. On the one hand it is two women giving a pig a hand job, on the other hand it's been broadcast on basic cable in the middle of the afternoon: The Daily Show, May 18, 2000: Swine Song (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-18-2000/swine-song).

[Der Trihs]

Think of the slave owner who thought of their slaves as domesticate animals, was it OK for them to have sex with their slaves as long as the slave "didn't object"?
No, because the slave really did object. As I see it, consent in the human meaning of the word is simply a nonissue with most or all animals; they simply don't have the mental equipment for it. To consent, or to not consent. They enjoy things, or they don't, or they are indifferent; but they lack the self image and conscious purposes that make consent in the human sense meaningful.

And as an aside, if we take the "animals can't consent therefore bestiality is immoral" line of thought seriously, a direct implication is that if a dog humps your leg you are sexually assaulting him. After all, he can't consent so the fact that he wants to do that is irrelevant.

[Superhal]

I'm all for beastiality if it keeps the pervs away from humans. If you have sex with animals, you're missing that moral compass that is characteristic of all serial killers, and I'd much rather have them abusing animals than kidnapping children.

humans4life

[DocCathode]

A classic argument- It's cruel to have sex with animals, but acceptable to kill and eat them?

I think animals can show their lack of consent just fine. Dogs growl, snap, attempt to move away etc when you do something they don't like. I assume horses do similar things.

I agree that bestiality is illegal just because of the ick factor.

[Rick]

Is the sheep cute?
Wouldn't want an ugly one.

[Mekhazzio]

And as an aside, if we take the "animals can't consent therefore bestiality is immoral" line of thought seriously, a direct implication is that if a dog humps your leg you are sexually assaulting him. After all, he can't consent so the fact that he wants to do that is irrelevant.Indeed. If you follow the elaborate construction of social standards for "consent" farther down the train of thought, it becomes ridiculous even for human interaction. Saying that a pair of horny teenagers who are happily going at it are capable of consent one day, but weren't the day before, is nothing but a convenient legal fiction.

For that matter, the entire fuss about educated consent is assuming there's some innate property of the act of sex that necessarily makes it a long-term commitment. That argument only holds water when a child might come out of the act. Once a barrier to procreation is in place, be it contraceptives or a species divide, sex really is just sex and the "educated" part of consent ought to disappear entirely.

[DocCathode]

I do think it's a bad idea because it's a good way to introduce new and interesting diseases into the human population. Well, unless you cook the animal before having sex with it.

I doubt that. Most people already let dogs lick their faces and hands, feed them from their hands, clean up their urine and feces etc. If the dog has a zoonotic illness, chances are you've already got it too.

[willthekittensurvive?]

I'm all for beastiality if it keeps the pervs away from humans. If you have sex with animals, you're missing that moral compass that is characteristic of all serial killers, and I'd much rather have them abusing animals than kidnapping children.

humans4life

And if it is just a gateway for human rape?
Don’t most serial killers start with hurting animals and when they no longer find satisfaction htere they move on to humans?

but mostly ick!

[JRDelirious]

No, because the slave really did object. As I see it, consent in the human meaning of the word is simply a nonissue with most or all animals; they simply don't have the mental equipment for it. To consent, or to not consent. They enjoy things, or they don't, or they are indifferent; but they lack the self image and conscious purposes that make consent in the human sense meaningful.

IOW, in the case of the slave (and the minor, the employee, the student, etc.) : submission is not equal to consent.
I agree, animals can suffer pain and distress, but are not themselves moral actors. The "immorality" of bestiality would not be based on it being lesive to to the animal's dignity, but on a notion that sex may only legitimately happen between moral equals and thus the human is acting wrongly (which may be just a fancy expression of an ancestral legacy of a species mating only with its likes). I can't get too worked up about it, really.

[Der Trihs]

I doubt that. Most people already let dogs lick their faces and hands, feed them from their hands, clean up their urine and feces etc. If the dog has a zoonotic illness, chances are you've already got it too.Dogs aren't the only animal around.

[foolsguinea]

I see bestiality as a bit like pedophilia. To be discouraged as it annoys the object of "affection."

But I think there's also a philosophical argument to be made that bestiality is using a living thing for a kind of masturbation, & is thus symptomatic of an selfish sexuality.

[billfish678]

Dogs aren't the only animal around.

Preach it brother!

damn, I probably shouldn't have said that

[Stoneburg]

I agree with everyone else, ie: "Ick... shouldn't be illegal"

But there are positive effects too!

For example, the Swedish minister of Agriculture talking about it in the parliament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBrybugODSA

When he said "Let me give you a few examples..."

That just has to have been the most awkward moment in the parliaments history.


(The clip is in Swedish, sorry)

[clairobscur]

Ask the same questions about bestiality with un-domesticated animals and I think most would agree that you could not get past the animal defending itself violently. So, what makes it different for domesticated animals? That they don't object? Of course they don't - they're domesticated!

Franckly, I don't see the difference. We kill both domesticated sheeps and wild lions, so I've no moral issue with people fucking either (and want to watch the movie in the second case)

This is the key objection for me. Just as in human law, the unequal power element is very germain to discussions of rape (it's about power), and sexual harassment (he's my boss/teacher/uncle, I didn't want to get fired/flunked/he threatened me). Domesticated animals may not have cognition of it but it is inherent in the structure that the human has ultimate power over the animal. Think of the slave owner who thought of their slaves as domesticate animals, was it OK for them to have sex with their slaves as long as the slave "didn't object"?

But *why* should the unequal power element matter for sex when it doesn't for other things?

Having slaves work in fields was wrong, even if they didn't object, but we don't think having oxes working in fields is immoral.

The problem here is that you make a special case for sex that doesn't apply to anything else we do to animals or have animals do.

[alice_in_wonderland]

Well, gross, no doubt about it.

However, a male dog mounting a female human seems to have consented about as clearly as possible, no? Obviously it's a bit different if it's a male human penetrating an animal (either female or male); however, given the size of the animal they may not even notice, as has been mentioned.

So, from that point of view I guess it's fine, but really gross.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, always wrong. And in this case, I think the Ick factor alone is a perfectly valid reason to ban & prosecute it.
Could you please explain what moral code or religious precepts that position derives from, or is even consistent with? Thanks.

[StusBlues]

Well, gross, no doubt about it.

However, a male dog mounting a female human seems to have consented about as clearly as possible, no?

Damn.

As utterly repugnant as I find this discussion, and as difficult a time I will ever have interacting with the pro-bestiality folks in this thread going forward, I must say you have a point there.

That said, it's naive to say that bestiality is not animal cruelty in a vast majority of cases. Though a running theme here has been that most large mammalian vaginas are simply inured to their invasion by puny human phalli, perhaps the most cited news item in Dope history (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_south_carolina_man_busted_for_having_sex_with_horse.html) emphatically argues otherwise. There was a similar story out of Indianapolis a few years ago about several men who had sex with a goat; I can't find it right now, but I understand the goat required serious medical attention.

It's wrong, people. It's just wrong.

[StusBlues]

This link goes into a bit more detail about the negative consequences for the unluckiest horse in South Carolina: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/rodell-vereens-sex-with-h_n_345740.html

[FriarTed]

Could you please explain what moral code or religious precepts that position derives from, or is even consistent with? Thanks.

Sure- and it's one that is pretty much despised here on the Dope, which is why a lot of Dopers can't raise a real moral objection to "consensual bestiality"- the ban on "Abominations" in the Bible (OT & NT)- the very term "Abomination", and the Hebrew & Greek corellaries, pretty much means "It's ICKY!!!"

I'm convinced that if we didn't have a lot of Dopers who were sexually abused as children, there'd be a lot more SDMB pussyfooting about the wrongness of active pedophilia also. We already have a vocal minority who ho-hum about adult consensual incest.

[FriarTed]

I agree with everyone else, ie: "Ick... shouldn't be illegal"

But there are positive effects too!

For example, the Swedish minister of Agriculture talking about it in the parliament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBrybugODSA

When he said "Let me give you a few examples..."

That just has to have been the most awkward moment in the parliaments history.


(The clip is in Swedish, sorry)

Could you give us an English translation of what he said?

[JRDelirious]

Damn.

As utterly repugnant as I find this discussion, and as difficult a time I will ever have interacting with the pro-bestiality folks in this thread going forward, I must say you have a point there.

Indeed. As Der mentioned, the animal reacts as it will to pleasant or unpleasant stimuli. There is no moral dignity to violate (which is a constituent element of the censure against pedophilia, slavery or sex with the impaired: in those cases a human's normal capacity to be a moral agent is incomplete, denied or diminished even if conceivably physically "pleased")

That said, it's naive to say that bestiality is not animal cruelty in a vast majority of cases.
[...]
It's wrong, people. It's just wrong. As animal cruelty, whereby in our society we believe that we may exploit animals for work, food, research, etc., but we're expected to do so without inflicting wanton or neglectful pain or distress -- it has nothing to do with consent.

And also there's the case of a so-called "zoophile"who PREFERS sex with animals and convinces him/herself that it's somehow "love": there you have a major behavioral deviation.

But as a "malum per se" independent of circumstance? That's merely the "Ick" factor IMO

[alice_in_wonderland]

As utterly repugnant as I find this discussion, and as difficult a time I will ever have interacting with the pro-bestiality folks in this thread going forward,

Yikes - I hope you don't think I'm pro-bestiality - blargh!!!!!

And I agree emphatically - if an animal is physically injured either by a stick, or a hand or a penis or being drop kicked off a balcony, the perpetrator is a douche-bag of the highest order.

And the 'but we kill them and eat them' argument is dumb. I, personally, am a vegetarian; however, even for meat eaters out there - fast, safe, humane ways to slaughter animals for food is big business. I work at a vet school and when we have Temple Grandin visit it's standing room only (for those who don't know, she's one of the primary authorities on humane animal handling in the food industry).

Purposefully going out of your way to hurt an animal just makes you an asshole (and yes, having sex with an animal that's a size where your wang is going to rend it in half is purposefully hurting it.)

[Laudenum]

Purposefully going out of your way to hurt an animal just makes you an asshole (and yes, having sex with an animal that's a size where your wang is going to rend it in half is purposefully hurting it.)

But then I'll never have sex with anyone :cool:

[alice_in_wonderland]

But then I'll never have sex with anyone :cool:

Well, I guess it's hollowed out grapefruits for you then. :D

[StusBlues]

But as a "malum per se" independent of circumstance? That's merely the "Ick" factor IMO


Sure, but are there some things that are simply wrong from an a priori standpoint? I could just as soon say that murder was only wrong because of the "ick" factor.

You all remember a while back when we had a pedophile on the boards who tried to rationalize sex with children, as it may be pleasant for the child sometimes. Might not this be considered a similar activity--something that produces bad circumstances in such a number of cases that it should be considered wrong without atomizing every single instance?

[ElvisL1ves]

the very term "Abomination", and the Hebrew & Greek corellaries, pretty much means "It's ICKY!!!"Not an answer at all, just a rephrasing.

[billfish678]

Purposefully going out of your way to hurt an animal just makes you an asshole (and yes, having sex with an animal that's a size where your wang is going to rend it in half is purposefully hurting it.)

An odd aside to share.

When I was pretty young, a friend of mine and I were talking about going to visit a small southern town. This was in the presence of a middle to upper middle aged other friend. He immediately announced "I knew a guy from XYZ. He fucked a chicken once. XYZ is full of chicken fuckers!".

Thats ALL it took. Now, even decades later, EVERY DAMN time I hear of that town I think "oh yeah, chicken fucker town". I know its wrong. I don't WANT to automatically think that. But, there it is, just lurking in there 24/7 just waiting for its chance to emerge yet once again...

[carnivorousplant]

XYZ is full of chicken fuckers!

How...No, I don't want to know.
Never mind.

[42fish]

On the consent question:

What if you had one of those gorillas who knows sign language like Koko and you asked, "So, you wanna have sex?" and she signed back her consent. Would it then be acceptable (albeit icky)?

[Broomstick]

What if Koko was the one to initiate the conversation - how would you feel about that?

[JRDelirious]

Sure, but are there some things that are simply wrong from an a priori standpoint? I could just as soon say that murder was only wrong because of the "ick" factor.

Murder deprives another human being of her/his life, and society of one of its members. There's plenty more than "ick" involved.

You all remember a while back when we had a pedophile on the boards who tried to rationalize sex with children, as it may be pleasant for the child sometimes. Might not this be considered a similar activity--something that produces bad circumstances in such a number of cases that it should be considered wrong without atomizing every single instance? But again, there we have arrived at the conclusion not just from the ancestral behavioral trait (you mate with your likes of mating age), but also from the evidence of harm and from the realization that a constituent element of the censure against pedophilia, slavery or sex with the impaired [is that]: in those cases a human's normal capacity to be a moral agent is incomplete, denied or diminished even if conceivably physically "pleased" thus, regardless of outlier cases, having child molestation be regarded as criminal in the legal sphere and evil in the social-moral sphere is a sensible, rational conclusion. Not just "ick".


Lemme restate Der's position as I understood it: The human's capacity for moral consent is not diminished or impaired in the animal, it is absent from the animal to begin with, and it is not a criterion for our other animal-welfare-related mores, so using it as a criterion for declaring bestiality immoral is meaningless.(*) (To which my elaboration is that a human whose capacity for consent is incomplete or impaired, can be being violated even if under the impression s/he's receiving welcomed pleasure; the animal can never do more than merely react to stimuli.)

[(*) BUT, it is NOT meaningless in opposing a marriage with an animal, because the absence of the capacity for moral consent renders one party incapable of entering a contract.]

OTOH nothing prevents having the conduct be seen as cruelty in the face of evidence, nor it receiving societal opprobrium as deviant, abnormal behavior ("ick").

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

This may or may not be a hijack, I'll leave it for you to decide. Every time I watch the movie Planet of the Apes, I feel that Charlton Heston's character hooking up with a human woman from the planet of the apes is somehow vaguely wrong. Even though they are both the same species, and the woman seems to like Heston's character as much as she's capable of, I feel that it's pretty close to bestiality. In fact, I'd say it's different from him dating a mentally retarded woman (which, if he has sex with her, could lead to rape charges if it is ruled she could not legally consent to sex): I really feel like he's dating an animal. I think I'd find it less wrong if he was dating one of the chimpanzee women.

Does this make sense to anyone?

[Der Trihs]

Sure- and it's one that is pretty much despised here on the Dope, which is why a lot of Dopers can't raise a real moral objection to "consensual bestiality"- the ban on "Abominations" in the Bible (OT & NT)- the very term "Abomination", and the Hebrew & Greek corellaries, pretty much means "It's ICKY!!!"That's hardly a useful argument, since some other religion could just as easily say "he who does not couple with a goat while at noon prayer is an abomination."

This may or may not be a hijack, I'll leave it for you to decide. Every time I watch the movie Planet of the Apes, I feel that Charlton Heston's character hooking up with a human woman from the planet of the apes is somehow vaguely wrong. Even though they are both the same species, and the woman seems to like Heston's character as much as she's capable of, I feel that it's pretty close to bestiality. In fact, I'd say it's different from him dating a mentally retarded woman (which, if he has sex with her, could lead to rape charges if it is ruled she could not legally consent to sex): I really feel like he's dating an animal. I think I'd find it less wrong if he was dating one of the chimpanzee women.

Does this make sense to anyone?
Yes. Person/not a person is a more important division than human/nonhuman.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Yes. Person/not a person is a more important division than human/nonhuman.
I think that's it. I cannot see Heston's woman as a person, even though she's the same species as him. OTOH the apes are persons.

[Enderw24]

Yes. It's wrong. Always. And while there's of course an underlying "ick" factor, that's not the real reason it should be illegal and morally unjustifyable.

It's wrong in the same way that sex with a 12 year old is wrong. It does not matter if the 12 year old consents. It does not matter if the 12 year old enjoys it. It does not matter if the 12 year old initiates it. It is statutory rape which is a bright line rule that says no sex, ever, for whatever possible reason you can imagine or hypothesize, with a 12 year old. There is automatically such a huge authoritative and mental divide between the two actors that there simply cannot be meaningful consent no matter what.

That exact same justification can be made as to why beastiality is always wrong. Why animals cannot consent and why it is irrelevant as to whether they enjoy it or initiate it. It's illegal.

So the OP posits, what about eating them? Isn't that more wrong than sex?

Well no. Aside from the fact that we're omnivores at our core and need meat, there's the entire issue of how we kill animals. Animal cruelty is bad. Cutting off slices of a cow to throw on the grill just for shits and giggles is wrong. Proper killing should be instantaneous and as painless as possible. There's a right and wrong way to kill an animal. There's no right way to sex a donkey up.

[Der Trihs]

Yes. It's wrong. Always. And while there's of course an underlying "ick" factor, that's not the real reason it should be illegal and morally unjustifyable.

It's wrong in the same way that sex with a 12 year old is wrong. It does not matter if the 12 year old consents. It does not matter if the 12 year old enjoys it. It does not matter if the 12 year old initiates it. It is statutory rape which is a bright line rule that says no sex, ever, for whatever possible reason you can imagine or hypothesize, with a 12 year old. There is automatically such a huge authoritative and mental divide between the two actors that there simply cannot be meaningful consent no matter what.

That exact same justification can be made as to why beastiality is always wrong. Why animals cannot consent and why it is irrelevant as to whether they enjoy it or initiate it. Again, that line of reasoning leads to absurdities. Should we arrest dogs for having sex with each other? Neither can consent, after all. Moral rules that apply to humans do not necessarily apply to nonhumans. "No sex with twelve year olds" works because all the twelve year olds in question are human twelve year olds, with a shared human nature.

[Laudenum]

That's hardly a useful argument, since some other religion could just as easily say "he who does not couple with a goat while at noon prayer is an abomination".

But every major world religion agrees on this point. Even the little ones too.

[Der Trihs]

But every major world religion agrees on this point. Even the little ones too.No, IIRC some religions have advocated bestiality (I recall reading of one where girls traditionally ritually lost their virginity to a goat, but the name escapes me). Besides which, any would-be bestialist could make up a religion that advocated bestiality, and that religion would be just as valid as any other.

[Acid Lamp]

Yes. It's wrong. Always. And while there's of course an underlying "ick" factor, that's not the real reason it should be illegal and morally unjustifyable.

It's wrong in the same way that sex with a 12 year old is wrong. It does not matter if the 12 year old consents. It does not matter if the 12 year old enjoys it. It does not matter if the 12 year old initiates it. It is statutory rape which is a bright line rule that says no sex, ever, for whatever possible reason you can imagine or hypothesize, with a 12 year old. There is automatically such a huge authoritative and mental divide between the two actors that there simply cannot be meaningful consent no matter what.

That exact same justification can be made as to why beastiality is always wrong. Why animals cannot consent and why it is irrelevant as to whether they enjoy it or initiate it. It's illegal.



This is a poor argument because as societies change, the laws governing conduct changes with them. Not terribly long ago, 13 and 14 year old young men and women were expected to marry and begin families. Today we've swung farther in the opposite direction due to longer lifespans and infantilization of teen and young adult children. We allow them more time to "grow up" because they have more time. The law is not some objective writ from on high that is it's own moral compass. it is a line we drew because we have decided that we cannot argue the merits of each case individually.

[Laudenum]

No, IIRC some religions have advocated bestiality (I recall reading of one where girls traditionally ritually lost their virginity to a goat, but the name escapes me). Besides which, any would-be bestialist could make up a religion that advocated bestiality, and that religion would be just as valid as any other.

(1) Really? Weird?

(2) It isn't a real religion if someone doesn't actually believe it to be true.

[Der Trihs]

(2) It isn't a real religion if someone doesn't actually believe it to be true.And if they do think it's true? People have believed weirder things.

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

On the consent question:

What if you had one of those gorillas who knows sign language like Koko and you asked, "So, you wanna have sex?" and she signed back her consent. Would it then be acceptable (albeit icky)?

I asked that question (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10790488#post10790488) on my first or second day here.

And I thought I had a uniquely twisted mind.

[billfish678]

I asked that question (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10790488#post10790488) on my first or second day here.

And I thought I had a uniquely twisted mind.

Yeah, but you didnt top the concept of genetically engineered "monkubines" :)

[Enderw24]

This is a poor argument because as societies change, the laws governing conduct changes with them. Not terribly long ago, 13 and 14 year old young men and women were expected to marry and begin families. Today we've swung farther in the opposite direction due to longer lifespans and infantilization of teen and young adult children. We allow them more time to "grow up" because they have more time. The law is not some objective writ from on high that is it's own moral compass. it is a line we drew because we have decided that we cannot argue the merits of each case individually.

My point was to compare the law and the rationale behind the law to the law against beastiality. The point is that animals do not fully think the way humans do and cannot give meaningful consent regardless of their actions. If you wish to argue that society has been infantilizing our puppy dogs too much and as soon as we stop coddling them and understand that French Poodles know what they're doing because in dog years they're really 6 times older, well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm quite fine with a bright line rule.


Moral rules that apply to humans do not necessarily apply to nonhumans.

You're absolutely right.
That's why we don't arrest the donkey.

[Acid Lamp]

My point was to compare the law and the rationale behind the law to the law against beastiality. The point is that animals do not fully think the way humans do and cannot give meaningful consent regardless of their actions. If you wish to argue that society has been infantilizing our puppy dogs too much and as soon as we stop coddling them and understand that French Poodles know what they're doing because in dog years they're really 6 times older, well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm quite fine with a bright line rule.




Nice dodge. The point was that "the Rules" are made up as we go along and subject to change as societies change. Bright line rules aren't holy writ, they are just what a group of people decided, and subject to change. Care to address that?

[Enderw24]

Nice dodge. The point was that "the Rules" are made up as we go along and subject to change as societies change. Bright line rules aren't holy writ, they are just what a group of people decided, and subject to change. Care to address that?

Rules can change, yes. Laws can change, yes. Society perspective can change, yes. I'm not arguing any of that because it's beyond the scope of this debate. If you need me to concede an argument I never made, fine.
I'm arguing against bestiality because that is the scope of this debate. The question is "bestiality: always wrong?" and the answer is "yes." This goes beyond the ick component and into the huge differences between the two actors in terms of intelligence and authority to name but just two factors.

If you'd like to argue your point in terms of bestiality (i.e. "society doesn't understand, man, they were fucking donkeys back in Ancient Greece" or "we could create a test to prove that dolphin's smart and totally loves me when he sticks his dick in me"), be my guest. I don't think you're going to be very convincing but I welcome the effort.

[Condescending Robot]

There's no solid moral argument against it and it's probably not the law's concern, but I would be very suspicious of anyone who makes this their big issue. The people who do it are very fundamentally off and, like a lot of other behaviors that don't hurt people (words chosen on purpose) and aren't the state's business, it's still not something a healthy human being would ever choose to do.

I guess what I'm saying is that any time I have for political causes can be better spent on about six hundred things before I get to "free the dogfuckers" on my list.

[Enderw24]

As a slight clarification or elaboration to my point above, I'm not making the circular argument that bestiality is wrong because it's against the law and it's against the law because it's wrong. I'm saying that it's against the law and there are good, convincing reasons why it's against the law and those reasons are highly unlikely to change with time or a shift in society's perspective. I think the best you can hope for is a shift in what punishments are allowed or administered by law, but a live-and-let-live-barnyard-orgyfest? Not gonna happen. With good reason.

[robertliguori]

My point was to compare the law and the rationale behind the law to the law against beastiality. The point is that animals do not fully think the way humans do and cannot give meaningful consent regardless of their actions. If you wish to argue that society has been infantilizing our puppy dogs too much and as soon as we stop coddling them and understand that French Poodles know what they're doing because in dog years they're really 6 times older, well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm quite fine with a bright line rule.


Sex toys similarly cannot give informed consent. If it's blanket-unethical to have sex with something that can't consent, then it is unethical to use sex toys, yes?

If not, what attribute about animals makes them different than sex toys?

[GIGObuster]

You're absolutely right.
That's why we don't arrest the donkey.
:dubious:

IIRC there are examples of places were the beast is stoned to death or even tried and then killed.

[Kaio]

Lemme restate Der's position as I understood it: The human's capacity for moral consent is not diminished or impaired in the animal, it is absent from the animal to begin with, and it is not a criterion for our other animal-welfare-related mores, so using it as a criterion for declaring bestiality immoral is meaningless.(*) (To which my elaboration is that a human whose capacity for consent is incomplete or impaired, can be being violated even if under the impression s/he's receiving welcomed pleasure; the animal can never do more than merely react to stimuli.)

Not trying to be snarky, but I'm genuinely curious -- what evidence leads you to this conclusion?

For some context: I am a vegetarian (for moral reasons). I have objections to things like factory farms for the cruelty and negative environmental impact reasons. I also recognize that the life/death cycle is a part of nature, and am not about to lecture a lion not to hunt and eat antelope. I also have no objection to symbiotic relationships between species, as long as they are truly symbiotic; I have pets, I eat eggs and dairy but make sure they come from cruelty-free farms. I don't see anything morally wrong with domestic oxen working on a farm in exchange for shelter, safety (protection from predators), and easy access to food. I think that domestic animals are less likely to demonstrate an objection to something because compliance has been intentionally bred into them by us; that's an imbalance of power that we made, and thus the moral onus is on us not to abuse it.

And the reason I ask is that humans have a history of assuming that animals have a low/simple mental capacity -- and then they actually do the research and discover that we've been wrong in that assumption. For a long time it was believed that only humans have sex with each other as an act of social or emotional bonding. Then we learned that dolphins and bonobos do that too.

[Enderw24]

Sex toys similarly cannot give informed consent. If it's blanket-unethical to have sex with something that can't consent, then it is unethical to use sex toys, yes?

If not, what attribute about animals makes them different than sex toys?

Seriously? Seriously?

Holy cow that's the most unbelievably god-awfully adverbly stupid question I think I've heard. Ever.

Seriously. Ever.



it's the udders. sex toys don't have udders

[ivan astikov]

What if Koko was the one to initiate the conversation - how would you feel about that?

I'd be flattered, but I'd have to turn him down.

[WhyNot]

This goes beyond the ick component and into the huge differences between the two actors in terms of intelligence and authority to name but just two factors.

But the question is, why is it wrong (and illegal)? It's wrong when it's statutory rape (and even more wrong and more harshly punished when it's pedophilia as opposed to a 19 year old with her 16 year old boyfriend or two 14 year olds) because it carries a great potential for harming the nonconsenting partner. If it couldn't cause harm it wouldn't be illegal purely on "ick" factor. (How do I know this? Because before people were icked out by it, it wasn't illegal.)

Again, where is the harm to the animal? Consent is required in human relations because to allow otherwise risks harm. Where is the similar harm in "raping" a cow?

And to whomever said upthread that a human has the upper hand in a domesticated animal relationship obviously hasn't tried to back an unwilling horse into a trailer. She might not be hot for your bod, but if you haven't hobbled her, she has a whole lotta power at her disposal to move away or make you stop. A full horsepower, in fact!

I claim there's no harm and absent even that potential for harm, even without consent, there's nothing to the law or the morality besides the ick factor.



(And, if it hasn't been said enough, "ick".)

[42fish]

I'd be flattered, but I'd have to turn him down.

Not sure if it would change your response, but Koko's a female.

[ivan astikov]

Not sure if it would change your response, but Koko's a female.

If her legs are hairier than mine, it's a definite no-no.





ps. It's the only standard I have, but I never deviate from it.

[42fish]

If her legs are hairier than mine, it's a definite no-no.



What if she signed that she would shave her legs before the date?

[carnivorousplant]

What if she signed that she would shave her legs before the date?

Signin' ain't doin'.

[The Second Stone]

In the case of Gorilla v. Clarence Beeks in the movie Trading Places, it was implied that Gorilla sex with an unwilling man trapped in a Gorilla suit was entirely just.

[JRDelirious]

Not trying to be snarky, but I'm genuinely curious -- what evidence leads you to this conclusion?

[...]


(1) I am, as I mentioned, looking at Der Trihs's proposition and seeing where it takes us. In the scenario he proposes, one side (humans or even just "persons") has normally a component of the quality of sentience that makes it capable of moral agency and significant consent, although it may be impaired or disabled for certain individuals; while the other ('animal') simply lacks it to begin with.

(2) IF that is taken as a premise, then, "where it takes us", is here: If it has been judged that the fundamental "wrong" in the various forms of human sexual assault is the "violation of the person" and the potential for harm beyond the immediate and physical, then an animal submitting to a sexual contact due to reacting to pleasant stimuli should not be in the same category of immorality as a human being lured under circumstances of impaired consent. Diddling livestock that can't give you conscious consent [woud/should] not be the same kind of crime as doing it to a roofied-out sorority pledge. Creepy and unethical on its own terms, perhaps, but not in the same league. Can a cow "feel violated" upon the emergence 5 years later of a suppressed memory of Farmer Jed getting freaky?

(3) Now, HOWEVER, you do bring other possible arguments in favor of the sociocultural norm ("bestiality: wrong") : (a) considerations of stewardship of a resource that is at the same time a living creature and whether sexual use is beneficial to said creature or a proper use of the resource ; and (b) a cautionary approach as to [I]how certain are we that this life form is NOT a moral agent whose dignity can be violated? Better arguments than just "ick".

[Kaio]

;

I wouldn't define it as a contract as much as it is a relationship. Friends exchange favors all the time; the parent-child relationship is predicated on the parent providing food, care, and safety in exchange for the companionship/warm fuzzy feelings they derive from the child. Neither of these are "contracts", they're just the normal give-and-take of relationships between individuals. Not every interaction requires a signed piece of paper.


and (b) a cautionary approach as to [I]how certain are we that this life form is NOT a moral agent whose dignity can be violated? Better arguments than just "ick".

...and this is basically where I end up when considering the question. There's a whole heck of a lot we don't know about what, exactly, is going on in the mind of a non-human animal. We can assume, we can guess, but our track record on guessing correctly hasn't been all that great. Humans tend to be egotistical and make assumptions that lead to the conclusion that our species is "more special," which I think is both normal ("species solidarity" exists in other animals, too), and not currently backed by overwhelming evidence other than our desire to BE "special." Lacking any better information, I'd err on the side of caution.

[hankhill911]

http://www.thesharkguys.com/2009/02/06/top-8-people-who-married-animals/

A rather unique list...people who married animals...

[Kobal2]

Food for thought : veterinaries involved in artificial insemination most often have to obtain the semen samples manually (esp. common in the case of prize bulls or race horses - good genes are worth a mint, and it's easier to sell an ice bucket full of swimmers than it is to organize a recreational trip for the whole bull).
It's perfectly legal, although of course very few vets get off on it ;). AFAIK, nobody bothers them with consent issues.

[Pashnish Ewing]

There's no right way to sex a donkey up.Maybe you're just not doing it right.

[wwworldclique]

I don't think beastiality is *wrong*, just absolutely disgusting and degrading-- not for the animal ironically but for the human being engaging in it. Anyone who does that IMO has hit bottom.

[manila]

So this guy walks into the matrimonial bedroom with a sheep under his arm. His wife opens one eye and hears him say in a loud and slightly drunken voice.

"I have to confess that this is the Pig I have been sleeping with when you are not around!"

His wife shrugs and closes her eye and replies. " I think you will find that that is a sheep not a pig you drunken fool!"

To which he retorts

"Shut up woman I was talking to the sheep!"


I'll get my coat :)

[Lust4Life]

Slightly O.T. but when a Human pairs up with a Klingon or a Vulcan whatever isn't that Bestiality ?

I ask this because presumably those two non human species aren't even as close to humanity as a Chimpanzee or Gorilla
.

Or have I missed something ?

[JRDelirious]

Slightly O.T. but when a Human pairs up with a Klingon or a Vulcan whatever isn't that Bestiality ?

I ask this because presumably those two non human species aren't even as close to humanity as a Chimpanzee or Gorilla
.

Or have I missed something ? :D well, SciFi has established that aliens of every shape and form are hot for human women... with Trek further specifying earthlings will go at it with anything reasonably humanoid that can be determined with some degree of confidence to be of the appropriate gender (and eventually justifying it in that all those species were "seeded")

But really, it goes to one of the lines of the discussion: if Lifeforms A and B are both endowed with such qualities of sentient consciousness/awareness that they can be ranked as a "person" capable of autonomous moral decisionmaking, THEN valid mutual consent is a meaningful concept in evaluating how licit is their union.

Though there will always be someone who will come up with 5 pages of impassioned rational arguments that can be summarized as: "ick, that's unnatural".

[AClockworkMelon]

So if my dog can talk, I can fuck her?

Good to know!

[JRDelirious]

So if my dog can talk, I can fuck her?

Good to know!

Sure, but that's just the first step; once she acquires language then she can give or withold consent, and you'd have to argue before the court that she did so knowingly and freely* (that's provided the Court allows for the conversion to "dog years" of the age of consent). Why you'd bother fucking your talking dog instead of making millions on TV and public appearances is beyond me, but to each his own...


(* if the court recognizes her as a person, she stops being property...)

[AClockworkMelon]

Sure, but that's just the first step; once she acquires language then she can give or withold consent, and you'd have to argue before the court that she did so knowingly and freely* (that's provided the Court allows for the conversion to "dog years" of the age of consent). Why you'd bother fucking your talking dog instead of making millions on TV and public appearances is beyond me, but to each his own...


(* if the court recognizes her as a person, she stops being property...)The bitch told me she was 18!