Bestiality [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Mekhazzio

05-17-2001, 03:57 AM

Most dogs would like to get it on with their people, it's just that few actually let them. Kind of a shame really, if you're not going to let your pets ever boff another of their own kind in their life, the least you could do is help them out yourself.

Most animals of an appropriate size for sex acts with humans are quite capable of conveying consent (or lack thereof) - in fact, they generally do so much better than quite a few humans do. No really does mean no when it equals fangs/claws/hooves in a tender spot, and in the opposite regard, it's hard to misinterpret the none-too-subtle signs of a randy animal (particularly with males). Anyone preaching the "cannot consent" spiel has obviously never had a pet, because animals have moods, feelings and desires, and it doesn't take a psychic to be able to read them.

As for why anyone would want to, Kayeby, the answer is: because they want to. This falls into that foggy 'sexual preference' area. A lot of people in the world feel a connection to animals, and/or just plain have a lust for em. Everyone has their own kinks, and there are benefits to animals, be it just from the different physiology, or from their very nature itself.

As for why so many people have a knee-jerk reaction of "bestiality/zoophilia is wrong", I think it's the superiority complex theory. By lowering yourself to the level of an inferior (particlarly when -you're- the passive partner) you're insulting everyone else by forsaking your birthright.

Personally, I don't buy it. I consider humans an animal too, and not necessarily an outright superior one. I have absolutely no problem with bestiality, and would happily engage in it myself if the animals my kinks lean to didn't consider people a potential dinner entree ;)

SPOOFE

05-17-2001, 04:32 AM

No, no, no, you're all wrong (as usual :D).

The REAL reason why beastiality is frowned upon is because fleas in the pubic hair can be a big problem.

Dijon Warlock

05-17-2001, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
No, no, no, you're all wrong (as usual :D).

The REAL reason why beastiality is frowned upon is because fleas in the pubic hair can be a big problem. Not for you, though; eh, SPOOFE? ;)

Darqangelle

05-17-2001, 08:18 AM

#u@k it, kill it, eat it....

no consent needed in those cases, I guess, huh?

...works for me...

"When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro" - HST

gobear

05-17-2001, 08:44 AM

BTW, the stuff about gay men getting their dogs to fuck them in the ass was taken from the internet "somewhere," and may be unreliable. But god knows male dogs are horny

May be unreliable? Lord, you straight people have some sick imaginations. When will you people get it through your skulls that being gay doesn't make us into slavering sex monsters that want to despoil every piece of quivering flesh that is unlucky enough to be in our paths? Gay people have the exact same need to love and be loved, to connect with someone else emotionally and physically that straight people do, except that, for some reason, we are attracted to our own gender. We have no desire to destroy families, we don't want to subvert America, and we don't want to rape animals.

Kyomara, you owe every gay person on this board an apology.

Jodi

05-17-2001, 09:55 AM

GOBOY, that sword you're juggling has two edges.

First, I did not read KYOMARA's post as an attack on all gay people; merely as a statement that he had read of some gay bestiality, in which the animal, as the top, presumably was acting voluntarily. He never said that all gay people (or even gay men) are into it. Surely you are not arguing that homosexuals are superior to straights in that no gay people at all are excited by bestiality -- that bestiality is a purely "straight" phenomenon?

Second, if we are allowed to be personally insulted by generalizations that manifestly are not meant to be insulting, then based on this

Lord, you straight people have some sick imaginations.

You owe every straight person on this board an apology.

Morrison's Lament

05-17-2001, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by The Fromesiter
Um...why does the animal have to consent to it? We slaughter cows, pigs, chickens, even ostriches (sp?) without their consent. We want to eat them. Sure, we could survive on a diet consisting soley of plants, but then, but we want to eat meat. What's the difference with sex? It's an animal, it is not human, it has no cnociousness (that we know of), and it's not exactly capable of higher though. If I chose (not that I would) to use a cow to relieve myself of sexual tension, how is that any different from killing it and using it to sate my hunger?

EXCELLENT point, I can't believe no one has seconded this one yet.

If killing millions of animals in England for purely financial concerns is OK, then why is having sex with a single animal totally wrong?

Personally, I'm against it, because I don't think animals generally like sex with humans any more than humans like sex with them on a general basis. That's not to say there's not a double standard being imposed by those who kill and consume these animals on a daily basis.

--- G. Raven

gobear

05-17-2001, 11:08 AM

OK, Jodi, I apologize to every straight person on the board who has never passed around rumors of gay folk gettin' down with the animal kingdom.

The thing is, Jodi, is that nobody supposes that you, as a heterosexual woman, routinely have sex with gerbils, dogs, or children. But gay people get that crap constantly.
There is no practice too foul or depraved to accuse gay people of engaging in. So when I read this:

Dude, Tengu, you've got to be kidding. I've read accounts of gay men getting their dogs to fuck them in the ass.

it puts my back up. Now are there gay zoophiles? I'm sure there must be, but Kyomara didn't qualify his statement to indicate he was talking about a small minority of gay men. It reads to me to indicate that this is
a common gay practice, and that annoys me.

Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, but a lifetime of parents being scared to have gays around their children and people sniggering about gerbils makes me want to stomp on Internet rumors confusing bestiality and homosexuality with both feet.

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by goboy
OK, Jodi, I apologize to every straight person on the board who has never passed around rumors of gay folk gettin' down with the animal kingdom.

The thing is, Jodi, is that nobody supposes that you, as a heterosexual woman, routinely have sex with gerbils, dogs, or children. But gay people get that crap constantly.
There is no practice too foul or depraved to accuse gay people of engaging in. So when I read this:

Dude, Tengu, you've got to be kidding. I've read accounts of gay men getting their dogs to fuck them in the ass.

it puts my back up. Now are there gay zoophiles? I'm sure there must be, but Kyomara didn't qualify his statement to indicate he was talking about a small minority of gay men. It reads to me to indicate that this is
a common gay practice, and that annoys me.

Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, but a lifetime of parents being scared to have gays around their children and people sniggering about gerbils makes me want to stomp on Internet rumors confusing bestiality and homosexuality with both feet.

But goboy, you still seem to be speaking with the presumption that zoophilia is a bad thing. Maybe it's the prejudice against zoophilia that's the real problem, hmmm? You may additionally need to apologize to every zoophile on this board, mister.

What if I were to argue that being attracted to animals is simply a part of one's innate sexuality? That is, some people are simply born with an attraction for four legs instead of two, and that's simply something they should accept about themselves. It can't be changed, of course--if a zoophile is hectored by societal rejection and prejudice into submitting to psychotherapy to try to "cure" or at least "control" tendencies toward bestiality, the only possible result is that his feelings of failure will be compounded by a lack of success in the program, or that the program will "succeed" in turning him into a self-deluding, psychically-unwilling humanophile at war with himself.

Would you agree?

gobear

05-17-2001, 01:46 PM

Zarathustra, I'm going to assume you're being facetious because I'd hate to think that you can't tell the difference between acts between mutually consenting adults and cruelty to animals.

The Fromesiter and Morrison's Lament made the most sensible point; if you're going to kill and eat animals, knowing them carnally isn't that much worse. But ewwww! (or should I say ewe?)

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by goboy
Zarathustra, I'm going to assume you're being facetious because I'd hate to think that you can't tell the difference between acts between mutually consenting adults and cruelty to animals.

The Fromesiter and Morrison's Lament made the most sensible point; if you're going to kill and eat animals, knowing them carnally isn't that much worse. But ewwww! (or should I say ewe?)

Ah. Cognitive dissonance in action.

More to the point, you'd hate to think that I have a valid point that you have no means of addressing.

Gaudere

05-17-2001, 02:41 PM

What if I were to argue that being attracted to animals is simply a part of one's innate sexuality? That is, some people are simply born with an attraction for four legs instead of two, and that's simply something they should accept about themselves.If you are going to draw parallels between zoophilia to other inborn sexual behaviors, why compare it to homosexuality and not heterosexuality? Hets also have innate sexuality, and want that sexuality accepted.

The thing is, heterosexuality and homosexuality are more than just sexual behviors. They also define the sort of people you have intimate emotional connections with. It is generally accepted that an adult can have a genuine emotional/intellectual/sexual relationship with other adults, but it seems less likely for there to be the same with an animal or child or inanimate object, for reasons of maturity, intelligence, development, shared interests, etc. So it is not like goboy is saying "I want my particular kink to be legitimaized", he is saying that he wants his relationship with another man to be legitimized, since there's no real difference between the capacity for mature relationship between an adult man and an adult woman. But there do seem to be unsurmountable barriers to prevent that sort of relationship from occurring between a man and a doberman or a vacuum cleaner. Sex, yes, relationship, no. Now, if someone wants to make a case that you can have a relationship with a poodle that is equivalent to a relationship with a fellow human, go ahead, but that's the only way I can see bestiality as ever being comparable to a relationship with a fellow human of either gender.

I do have an "eww" factor with bestiality, but overall it just seems to me like really kinky masturbation. And I don't like the idea of sex without the animal's clear consent. Even if we do kill and eat animals, torturing them purely for our own pleasure is unpleasant. I'd look more kindly on someone who raises and kills dogs for food than on someone who raises them to rape them.

Superdude

05-17-2001, 02:51 PM

Well, very few animals have sex for any reason other than procreation. Most animals, as far as humans have been able to ascertain, do not have sex purely for fun. Of course, porpoises have been known to do so, so I guess it's okay to nail one if you can hold your breath that long (gives new meaning to the term "blow-hole," don't it?).

gobear

05-17-2001, 02:58 PM

Cognitive dissonance, ha! You haven't made any valid point to be refuted, merely a juvenile and wildly inaccurate comparison between homosexuality and bestiality which I treated with the contempt it deserved.

As Gaudere pointed out, one's sexual orientation invloves more than just getting off; it involves a warm, loving, and most importantly, mutually consenting
relationship. I can have a fulfilling relationship based on mutual respect and shared interest with another man, something I can't do with a billy goat.

Now, I'm all for interspecies relationships if there is mutual consent. Capt. Sheridan and Delenn on Babylon 5 made a lovely couple. On Star Trek, there have been many instances of marriages and sexual liaisons between humans and Klingons, the Borg, Ferengi, Cardassians, and so on. They aren't human, and so you'd have to call Tom Paris's marriage to B'lanna technically bestiality, but she's a thinking being that can give consent, something that a farm animal or a child cannot do, which is one of the reasons we rightly condemn sexual abuse of children and animals.

Jodi

05-17-2001, 04:27 PM

GOBOY, with respect, I think you are being oversensitive. KYOMARA did not make a generalized statement about all gay men; he (he?) said he had read accounts of incidents involving gay men. To me, the fact that such accounts would not concern all gay men seems self-evident, but maybe that's just me. In any event, I'll leave him (him?) to defend himself.

Before going on, I want to be clear that I am in no way advocating bestiality. But then I am no fan of the "any thing goes, so long as no one is being hurt" school, nor do I subscribe to the moral relativism that allows for tolerance of all things under the label "to each his or her own." I think that some things just ain't right, and under that heading I personally would place bestiality -- which, moreover, does not pass my own personal "yuck" test in any event. That said . . .

GAUDERE:

The thing is, heterosexuality and homosexuality are more than just sexual behviors. They also define the sort of people you have intimate emotional connections with.

True, but they do not have to be more than just sexual behaviors. Not all sex is based on "intimate emotional connections" -- sometimes it's just hot monkey love (pun intended). If a person wants no strings attached sexual gratification, what would be wrong with getting it from an animal, aside from the issue of consent? Moreover, a person could have intimate emotional connections of the human variety and also be literally screwing the pooch. And, of course, some people cannot or will not form intimate emotional connections at all.

The rest of your argument asks whether a relationship with an animal could ever be the equivalent of a relationship with a person, and I agree that emotionally it could not -- any more than a relationship with your own right hand could be. But that is not what the OP asked; it asked "what's wrong with bestiality"?

The homosexuality tie-in, to the extent there is one, IMO is this: If we can say, as I personally do, that some things just ain't right (or natural), then we must see that others might legitimately feel the same way about homosexuality (or, for that matter, anything but plain vanilla missionary hetero sex, and not too much of it, either) -- ie, that it simply is wrong, for inarticulate reasons. (Note that while I personally think that bestiality is wrong, I do not feel the same about homosexuality.) If, on the other hand, we must be able to articulate reasons for why a practice is "wrong" or else assume it is okay, then why is bestiality not okay?

Even if we do kill and eat animals, torturing them purely for our own pleasure is unpleasant. I'd look more kindly on someone who raises and kills dogs for food than on someone who raises them to rape them.

This assumes, of course, that sex with an animal is always physically unpleasant for the animal -- akin to "torture." ("Rape," of course, refers to sex without consent and implies a being able to give consent in the first place, which an animal does not have. And, as has been pointed out before, we don't ask their consent for anything else we do to them.) Assuming we are talking about, say, the apparently consensual participation of a male dog, or the apparently indifferent participation of a female cow (as opposed to the torture and death of, say, the infamous hamster), why is the practice wrong? The same goes for GOBOY's construing bestiality as "cruelty to animals." Is it, always? If the animal is not harmed and, to the contrary, by all evidence seems to enjoy it, then why would it be?

GOBOY --

As Gaudere pointed out, one's sexual orientation invloves more than just getting off; it involves a warm, loving, and most importantly, mutually consenting
relationship.

Again, not always. In fact, in the "why I like being gay" thread, one of the positive things listed about male homosexuality is the availability of sex without strings -- something that many women cannot or will not do, though it is by no means unknown (or even uncommon) in the straight world, either. Besides, the OP was not asking about the social/cultural baggage (okay, baggage is a bad word, but I can't think of another -- accoutrements?) of being a "bestialist." It merely asks if the practice of bestiality is wrong and, if so, why.

No one has yet given a good answer to this question. The only answer I've seen so far is "because animals can't consent to having sex," which to me is a non-starter in that we don't worry about them consenting to anything else we might choose to do to them, good or bad, pleasant or painful. (This in turn devolves to a question of extending "personhood" or quasi-personhood to animals, which is IMO a whole 'nother debate.)

Again, my personal answer to "why is bestiality wrong?" is "Yuck -- it just is." But I fully recognize that this is not a terribly satisfactory answer, so I'd still like to see if anyone can come up with a better one.

beagledave

05-17-2001, 05:24 PM

Again, my personal answer to "why is bestiality wrong?" is "Yuck -- it just is." But I fully recognize that this is not a terribly satisfactory answer, so I'd still like to see if anyone can come up with a better one.

WAG about societal mores here..

Sex with animals is at the extreme end of a continuum of sexual objectification. A one night stand, not even knowing the name of the partner..is in a sense, a type of sexual objectification as well...but perhaps we humans think that even in THAT scenario, there is "some" sense of human bonding.

Folks who think bestiality is "ewww" (count me in that crowd also), would probably not see any bonding happening..

Also include (at least perceived) hygiene issues..and species order as well..

Not to get too ewww, but do we lump all animals in the bestiality category equally...is primate sex worse that say, canine sex?

Shit, now I gotta go scrub my brain... :p

Gaudere

05-17-2001, 05:52 PM

Moreover, a person could have intimate emotional connections of the human variety and also be literally screwing the pooch.True. I suppose how I see bestiality as different from homosexuality and heterosexuality is the capacity to form genuine emotional/intellectual/sexual relationship. I'm drawing a line between sexual behaviors and sexual orientation. To desire to have sex with creatures or items with which you can never have the same sort of relationship that you can with a fellow human is different from choosing to have sex without that sort of relationship yet still having the capacity to do so. When you have sex with a dog or a knothole, there is no chance for the sort of relationship you can have with another person. Even in a one-night stand, I think there *is* a recognition that this is another person there that you don't get when you're screwing a wet-vac or beagle. Overall, I suppose my core objection to bestaility is that I suspect it may be or become a substitute for a genuine relationship with another person, and I don't think that will lead to good mental health. It's too easy to project your own desires on something that can't talk or think well enough to correct you, and the dog can hardly object when you "read its mind" and see it as being the ultimate partner that you can't find among humans. From what I've seen among the people who form emtional attachments to their animal lovers, their animal partner is often completely unrealistically percieved, full of deep thoughts and eternal, perfect, undying love. Even the most determined romantic usually can't have that view of a human partner forever, since a human partner can speak his/her mind.

The Eww Factor, for me, seems to be more based on the inability to have a relationship or equals (or at least close to equals) than the species difference. I have the same sort of "eww!" reaction to someone who would have sex with a severly retarded (to the point that they cannot understand languange) mute human, even if the human seemed willing. Do you?

But that is not what the OP asked; it asked "what's wrong with bestiality"?I wasn't really answering the OP, except in my final comments. I was arguing against the direct equation of homosexuality and bestiality that Zaruthra seemed to be getting at.

This assumes, of course, that sex with an animal is always physically unpleasant for the animal -- akin to "torture."Well, that is why I mentioned consent (although I'm using the term much more casually than goboy). If you sodomize an unwilling creature, I would consider that torture, unless that animal's anus is so big it doesn't hurt it. If having sex with animals does not impair your ability to form relationships with fellow humans and is not a substitute for a relationship and it doesn't hurt the animal and the animal wants to have sex, I cannot really call it immoral. Just...ewww.

[Edited by Gaudere on 05-17-2001 at 05:55 PM]

beagledave

05-17-2001, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
you don't get when you're screwing ...... beagle.

:eek: :eek: :eek: Hey missy...dems fightin' words !!!!

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
I was arguing against the direct equation of homosexuality and bestiality that Zaruthra seemed to be getting at.

Gaudere, you will impress me mightiliy if you can point out any mention of homosexuality I may have made in my two or three posts to this thread. Why do you see the resemblence, when I made no mention of it?

Furthermore, you and goboy still haven't answered my question. Couldn't I argue that--although bestiality is a nasty practice for all the excellent reasons you've given--it's still just a matter applying your own values to someone who can't help feeling the way they feel, and who ought to have to right to accept himself and express his own erotic beastial nature without fear of society's condemnation?

And to make sure you're consistent in your rebuttal, I'd remind you that we've already established that (1) the act may not necessarily be unpleasant for the animal, (2) as an insentient being, the animal isn't able to give "consent" in any case, and (3) we already have a precedent of using beasts to satisfy our desires--that of hunger, of course.

Come on, Gaudere, goboy, answer the quetion. Don't disappoint me.

_________________________________

Originally posted by beagledave
Not to get too ewww, but do we lump all animals in the bestiality category equally...is primate sex worse that say, canine sex?

I have this picture of beagledave wavering in a dark, dripping alley of some exotic foreign locale, as some dodgy-looking fellow fellow in a trench coat, half-hidden by shadows, whispers, "Come on, meester, hyoo know you'd like to, they ain't so different from people, right? Only two dollar! Just close yer eyes an' tink of yer girlfriend!"

Jodi

05-17-2001, 06:31 PM

GAUDERE --

True. I suppose how I see bestiality as different from homosexuality and heterosexuality is the capacity to form genuine emotional/intellectual/sexual relationship. I'm drawing a line between sexual behaviors and sexual orientation.

I see that, of course. The question is whether the sexual behavior of bestiality is wrong and, if so, why.

Overall, I suppose my core objection to bestaility is that I suspect it may be or become a substitute for a genuine relationship with another person, and I don't think that will lead to good mental health.

See, and my objections are way more visceral (and forceful). I think too much masturbation is not a good idea and potentially inhibiting to perfect mental health. Same with prostitution, IMO. They are things to which I have personal philosophical objections, but they are not in the same class of omigod-that's-just-wrong that bestiality is. Moreover, to the extent I can at all articulate why I object to bestiality, I can say that it has more with being concerned with the animal, and seeing the act as a misuse of an animal, as opposed to concern over the user's mental health. Maybe that's really it for me (thinking as I type): It's exploitative. But then -- again -- so are most other uses of animals. So I don't know.

The Eww Factor, for me, seems to be more based on the inability to have a relationship or equals (or at least close to equals) than the species difference.

Again, my "yuck factor" is much more visceral.

I have the same sort of "eww!" reaction to someone who would have sex with a severly retarded (to the point that they cannot understand languange) mute human, even if the human seemed willing. Do you?

No. Let me see if I can explain it. On a visceral level, I think I would find having sex with any (living) human less repugnant than bestiality. On a philosophical or intellectual basis, I would be much more outraged by non-consensual sex with a person incapable of consenting -- but not in small part because we do, as a society, recognize that we generally should not do things to our fellow humans without their consent. In other words, having consent is the norm for human interaction but -- again -- we never concern ourselves with animal consent, so why should we just in the area of sex?

If you sodomize an unwilling creature, I would consider that torture, unless that animal's anus is so big it doesn't hurt it.

Sure, but not all sex, with people or animals, is painful sodomy. It is possible to encourage male animals to perform sexual acts that, in their dumbness, they are apparently perfectly happy to perform. It is possible for men to have sex with female animals of sufficient size that the animal apparently doesn't care either way. Give a cow a warm mash at one end and she probably won't care what you do to the other, so long as you don't hurt her.

If having sex with animals does not impair your ability to form relationships with fellow humans and is not a substitute for a relationship and it doesn't hurt the animal and the animal wants to have sex, I cannot really call it immoral.

So provided that the sex is just casual and the animal is apparently not hurt, your answer to "what is wrong with bestiality" is "nothing"? They why is it "ewww"?

I realize I may be asking you to articulate something you really can't -- welcome to my world! Again, I can't say why I think bestiality is wrong wrong wrong. But I feel very strongly that it is.

andros

05-17-2001, 06:44 PM

Also sprach Zarathustra:

Gaudere, you will impress me mightiliy if you can point out any mention of homosexuality I may have made in my two or three posts to this thread. Why do you see the resemblence, when I made no mention of it?

Oh please. If I talk about a former head of state who diddled and intern in his big, oval-shaped office, you'd know who I was talking about, wouldn't you? Don't be deliberately obtuse, hon, it's not becoming in a civilised discussion.

You know full well what you intended with the following:

What if I were to argue that being attracted to animals is simply a part of one's innate sexuality? . . . .

To deny you were attempting to use an argument similar to one you believe to be used in support of homosexuality is rude, disingenuous, and just plain jerky. Geez, if you cannot make a point without cowering from your own beliefs, how the hell do you expect anyone here to respect your arguments?

Jodi

05-17-2001, 06:44 PM

When I spoke of philosophically objecting to masturbation, I meant of the staying-in-the-house-all-day-to-play-with-yourself, being-best-friends-with-your-hand variety. I have no more objection to healthy self-love than I do to healthy hetero- or homosexual love. If anyone cares.

Manda JO

05-17-2001, 06:55 PM

Gaudere:

But there do seem to be unsurmountable barriers to prevent that sort of relationship from occurring between a man and a doberman or a vacuum cleaner.

Overall, I suppose my core objection to bestaility is that I suspect it may be or become a substitute for a genuine relationship with another person, and I don't think that will lead to good mental health. It's too easy to project your own desires on something that can't talk or think well enough to correct you,

You know, we have had alot of threads about vibrators here on the SDMB: how to get them, which ones to get, how to use them effectivly, how good they are. No one has ever suggested that using a vibrator implys there is anything off about oyur sexuality.

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by andros
Also sprach Zarathustra:

Gaudere, you will impress me mightiliy if you can point out any mention of homosexuality I may have made in my two or three posts to this thread. Why do you see the resemblence, when I made no mention of it?

Oh please. If I talk about a former head of state who diddled and intern in his big, oval-shaped office, you'd know who I was talking about, wouldn't you? Don't be deliberately obtuse, hon, it's not becoming in a civilised discussion.

You know full well what you intended with the following:

What if I were to argue that being attracted to animals is simply a part of one's innate sexuality? . . . .

To deny you were attempting to use an argument similar to one you believe to be used in support of homosexuality is rude, disingenuous, and just plain jerky. Geez, if you cannot make a point without cowering from your own beliefs, how the hell do you expect anyone here to respect your arguments?

It's called playing devil's advocate, and it's a common rhetorical device. And I notice that you also choose to dismiss my question without answering it. Grasping at straws, hon?

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 07:19 PM

This is a bit of a hijack, but I'm reading the first chapter of Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae, and I find some curious resonances between that reading and this thread. I don't want to make any representations about the book's view, though, since I'm just starting on it. Has anyone else here perused this tome?

andros

05-17-2001, 07:19 PM

It's called playing devil's advocate, and it's a common rhetorical device.

Yes, and to deny it is called being dishonest. Thanks for playing.

And I notice that you also choose to dismiss my question without answering it. Grasping at straws, hon?

Er, no. I don't see where I've dismissed your question at all. I haven't responded to it, sure, but that in no way means I don't think you have a valid argument. I do, in fact, and Ii'm interested in seeing others' responses to it.

Here, let me help you with that chip you're carrying . . .

Gaudere

05-17-2001, 07:27 PM

No. Let me see if I can explain it. On a visceral level, I think I would find having sex with any (living) human less repugnant than bestiality.Hm...we must have different viewpoints here. I see them as roughly equal.

On a philosophical or intellectual basis, I would be much more outraged by non-consensual sex with a person incapable of consenting -- but not in small part because we do, as a society, recognize that we generally should not do things to our fellow humans without their consent.I suspect that if a human was so retarded that they couldn't understand language, we'd do a lot of things to them without their consent. Maybe not eat them, but we'd force-feed them medicine or food if necessary, dress them without their consent, take them around as examples to seminars on retardation, etc. And I'm pretty much OK with doing such things even if the person is not legimately able to give consent and may even be objecting, but sex with that person is just ...eww. I guess I think sex always *should* have at least the potential for genuine connection, however slight.

I think what I am objecting to is sexual activities that could mimic genuine relationships but have NO chance of developing into one. Masturbation, fine, you're not fooling yourself that your relationship-based needs are being met. But sex that is almost-kinda-sorta like sex with anouther person but can *never* develop into a mature relationship, like sex with animals, sex with severely retarded people, etc., I tend to have the Eww Reaction. Because you can fool yourself into thinking you're getting all you need from that, but you will never get a relationship of any sort, ever, comparable to that with an adult human. Even in a one-night stand there is a human connection there that could be pursued. Even with hookers there's a chance! But with animals, severely retarded people, no. And I have the same sort of concerns for any of those.

So provided that the sex is just casual and the animal is apparently not hurt, your answer to "what is wrong with bestiality" is "nothing"?My answer is that I have grave doubts that the sex will remain casual, just basically using the animal to masturbate. If you have sex with an inanimate objects or masturbate, you generally can't fool yourself that there is some sort of relationship going on (objectum-sexuals being a notable exception). Someone who fucks an apple pie I may find amusing, I won't feel the ookiness I feel about bestiality. There's very little chance anyone will fool themselves that they have a relationship with an apple pie. But with a warm furry animal/severely retarded person that loves you in his/her way, that you take care of, that *does* have emotions...I can see some confusion possibly happening, a good chance that it is going to be a substitution for a relationship with an adult human of full sentience. And in fact, in my rather limited online readings about bestiality, the animal does often become a substitute. Why have a relationship with a human when your dog is always there and loves you?

Your objection seems to be that it's bad for the animal; my objection is (I think) that I consider it highly likely to be very bad for the human. Given the powerful taboos against bestiality in our society, anyone who has sex with animals likely has trouble forming satisfactory human sexual/emitional relationships in the first place, and so may give up on it entirely if s/he can convince themselves that his/her needs are being met by the animal.

Manda JO
You know, we have had alot of threads about vibrators here on the SDMB: how to get them, which ones to get, how to use them effectivly, how good they are. No one has ever suggested that using a vibrator implys there is anything off about oyur sexuality.When I was speaking of the vacuum cleaner, I was thinking of the people who *do* have relationships with inatimate objects. Ms. Berlin Wall, and suchlike. I have no problem with mastubation, assisted or not, so long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to have a relationship with a person.

Zarathustra:
It's called playing devil's advocate, and it's a common rhetorical device.Pretending you didn't imply what you did imply is a common rhetoical device? I see it as dishonesty. There's no point in dishonest debate.

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by andros
Er, no. I don't see where I've dismissed your question at all. I haven't responded to it, sure, but that in no way means I don't think you have a valid argument. I do, in fact, and Ii'm interested in seeing others' responses to it.

OK, I misunderstood. Sorry.

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
Zarathustra:
It's called playing devil's advocate, and it's a common rhetorical device.Pretending you didn't imply what you did imply is a common rhetoical device? I see it as dishonesty. There's no point in dishonest debate. [/B]

OK, I was dishonest. Once again, sorry. Now that we've got that out of the way, your answer to the legitimate point I've made is what? Or if it's not a legitimate point, why not?

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

05-17-2001, 07:50 PM

Virologists realize that diseases that "jump" the barrier between species are particularly dangerous. This is because the virus is not well adapted to it's new type of host organism. A well adapted virus will not kill it's host, because that tends to limit it's opportunities to reproduce & spread to other hosts. A poorly adapted virus tends to be far more lethal.

Many animal species have STDs or other illnesses unique to their own species.Domestication of animals provides many opportunities (sp?) for transmission of diseases between Man & his farm animals. Bestiality is (obviously) one of the most effective ones. It is also the single most easily preventable one--i.e. Don't Bugger The Beasties.

It is worth noting that many religious prohibitions in the Old Testament function as a hygene code, even if that was not their intended purpose.

Comments?

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Virologists realize that diseases that "jump" the barrier between species are particularly dangerous. This is because the virus is not well adapted to it's new type of host organism. A well adapted virus will not kill it's host, because that tends to limit it's opportunities to reproduce & spread to other hosts. A poorly adapted virus tends to be far more lethal.

Many animal species have STDs or other illnesses unique to their own species.Domestication of animals provides many opportunities (sp?) for transmission of diseases between Man & his farm animals. Bestiality is (obviously) one of the most effective ones. It is also the single most easily preventable one--i.e. Don't Bugger The Beasties.

It is worth noting that many religious prohibitions in the Old Testament function as a hygene code, even if that was not their intended purpose.

Comments?

I think that even if one used a condom, many people would still have that "ewww" factor. But you may be onto something; many of our most ingrained taboos and customs (such as incest and the disposal of the dead) seem to be connected to primitive recognition of some hygenic and genetic dangers.

But we live in an era where all such taboos are coming down, being recognized for the artificial social constructs that they are. It's now offensive to suggest that any suggestion that some irrefutable facts of nature should dictate how humans behave. Fundamentally, bestiality may currently be no more wrong than mixing meat and milk products, engaging in bigamy, implanting a man with a baboon's heart, operating gay bathhouses, or using dead people in art exhibits.

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Zarathustra
Originally posted by Gaudere
Zarathustra:
It's called playing devil's advocate, and it's a common rhetorical device.Pretending you didn't imply what you did imply is a common rhetoical device? I see it as dishonesty. There's no point in dishonest debate.

OK, I was dishonest. Once again, sorry. Now that we've got that out of the way, your answer to the legitimate point I've made is what? Or if it's not a legitimate point, why not? [/B]

BTW, the more I think about it, the more I realize I really have been hypocritical. There's no excuse for taking an idea and pushing it to its logical extreme, and then effecting a pretended sincerity. That's one reason Jonathan Swift--that dishonest fucker--has always been held up to such scorn, right? A modest proposal, my ass.

galt

05-17-2001, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by andros
You know full well what you intended with the following:

What if I were to argue that being attracted to animals is simply a part of one's innate sexuality? . . . .

To deny you were attempting to use an argument similar to one you believe to be used in support of homosexuality is rude, disingenuous, and just plain jerky.

He didn't deny that. He denied what he was accused of, which is equating homosexuality and bestiality.

The same logic can be used for the justification of two seperate things without those things being equal.

Kyomara

05-17-2001, 10:52 PM

To answer you're question, goboy, you're being oversensitive. I have enough gay friends (and vague gay tendencies) that I don't think to post an official disclaimer every time I tell a story about something a gay man did. The point is not that he was gay, but that he had what I view as consensual sex with his dog. Multiple dogs, in fact. As I recall, he rated different dogs on penis size and warned that St. Bernards' penises get a big knob at the head when erect and can get stuck.

My language was perhaps a bit rough ("a gay guy who got his dog to fuck him in the ass" might have been more politely written). I'm sorry if I mislead you.

As for having a loving relationship with an animal...doesn't "love" vary from person to person and species to species? As long as the human being gets what he/she wants from a loving reltionship (sexual gratification and warm furriness) and the animal gets what they want from a loving relationship (sexual gratification, fancy feast or gravy train, and the occasional belly rub), who is to say that this is not love?

Ben

05-17-2001, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Kyomara
BTW, the stuff about gay men getting their dogs to fuck them in the ass was taken from the internet "somewhere," and may be unreliable.

Did these accounts cite Tim LaHaye?

-Ben

Ben

05-17-2001, 11:20 PM

I know it's rude to post when I've only skimmed the thread, but I don't have time to read it now and I want to make a few points before I forget:

1. What about sex between two sentient but grossly different species? Say, humans and the Horta?

2. Suppose I had a special, very realistic shooting gallery in which babies (indistinguishable from the real thing) were the targets. Would it be immoral to play in such a gallery?

3. What if there were a holodeck in which you could have sex with simulated animals, corpses, or children. Would it be immoral for someone to use such a holodeck? After all, no one gets hurt, and there is no potential for transmission of disease. Nonetheless, I would maintain that it is still immoral to use it, and I'd like to see what other people think.

-Ben

Mekhazzio

05-17-2001, 11:33 PM

I'm baffled. Do any of you have pets? Comparing animals to inanimate objects is just...boggling. Does spoken language matter so much to you, that you cannot understand anyone or anything without it? It's like we're coming from two different worlds - you people talk as if it's an obvious fact: animals are just moving rocks, and here I think it's just as obvious that they're more than that. I just don't see where y'all are coming from.

And a hearty chortle goes to Superdude. " very few animals have sex for any reason other than procreation." Get out of the house more ;)

Zarathustra

05-17-2001, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Kyomara
As for having a loving relationship with an animal...doesn't "love" vary from person to person and species to species? As long as the human being gets what he/she wants from a loving reltionship (sexual gratification and warm furriness) and the animal gets what they want from a loving relationship (sexual gratification, fancy feast or gravy train, and the occasional belly rub), who is to say that this is not love?

I am hoping, hoping, hoping that you will eventually reveal yourself as a fellow Swiftian . . .

Jodi

05-17-2001, 11:53 PM

GAUDERE --

I suspect that if a human was so retarded that they couldn't understand language, we'd do a lot of things to them without their consent. Maybe not eat them, but we'd force-feed them medicine or food if necessary, dress them without their consent, take them around as examples to seminars on retardation, etc. And I'm pretty much OK with doing such things even if the person is not legimately able to give consent and may even be objecting, but sex with that person is just ...eww. I guess I think sex always *should* have at least the potential for genuine connection, however slight.

The difference, of course, is that we humans have traditionally (and continually and IMO justifiably) exploited animals in any number of ways -- without any concern regarding consent and without even really caring what is objectively best for the animal, as opposed to best for us. (I mean, I support medical testing on animals in certain cases, but you can hardly say that's in the animal's best interest. I eat meat, and not because I think it's good for the chicken, fish, or cow.) We tend severely retarded people for exactly the opposite reasons -- not out of selfishness but out of a societal expectation that such people ought to be taken care of, because they are human. By extension, they should not be exploited, sexually or otherwise. No such rationale for not exploiting animals exists. To me, the situations are not even comparable.

I think what I am objecting to is sexual activities that could mimic genuine relationships but have NO chance of developing into one.

I respect this as your viewpoint, but I don't really understand it. I mean, I do not generally concern myself with the abilities of my fellow humans to form relationships, to the point of wishing to limit their ability to act freely in their better interests. If the closest (non-sexual) relationship a person has is with an animal, that doesn't bother me in the least. If a person is so into animals that it interferes with their ability to interact with humans -- no skin of my nose, so long as the relationship is not sexual. It's the sex that makes it wrong, IMO, and that is the point at which I personally think society continues to have the right and ability to say "nope; that's beyond the pale."

Even in a one-night stand there is a human connection there that could be pursued. Even with hookers there's a chance! But with animals, severely retarded people, no. And I have the same sort of concerns for any of those.

It seems to me to be very artificial to have an "ew" reaction to something based solely on the absence of a possibility of a meaningful relationship, and further based on the chance that the participant might be deluded in believng such a possibility exists. (So masturbation, with no chance of even believing there might be a relationship, is okay, but bestiality, because a small chance of delusion exists, is not -- regardless of whether a person really does suffer from that delusion or not.)

My answer is that I have grave doubts that the sex will remain casual, just basically using the animal to masturbate.

Why not? The majority of adults understand the difference between a casual hook-up and a relationship. Some are perfectly able -- and even happier -- having only a series of casual hook-ups without any sort of "strings" at all. I frankly find it a little paternalistic to condemn a practice based on the assumption that a person who is sexualy exploiting, say, a poodle, will not realize that no true relationship can ever blossom between them and Fifi. I think it far more likely that people who engage in bestiality are knowingly exploiting animals for their own gratification, with little if any concern for the animal and few illusions that they will have to follow up the date with a call the next day.

If you have sex with an inanimate objects or masturbate, you generally can't fool yourself that there is some sort of relationship going on (objectum-sexuals being a notable exception). Someone who fucks an apple pie I may find amusing, I won't feel the ookiness I feel about bestiality. There's very little chance anyone will fool themselves that they have a relationship with an apple pie. But with a warm furry animal/severely retarded person that loves you in his/her way, that you take care of, that *does* have emotions...I can see some confusion possibly happening, a good chance that it is going to be a substitution for a relationship with an adult human of full sentience.

And I either give people far more credit than you do, or far less. I love my dog very much. I do not value her as I do a human -- any human. My interaction with her does not cloud my understanding that I cannot have a platonic "relationship" with her like I can have with a human -- even though I love her more than most humans. If I can draw this distinction in a non-sexual context (a pet is not a substitute for a human friend) -- and I think most people can -- then why couldn't a person draw the same obvious distinction in a sexual context (a pet is not a girlfriend/boyfriend/lover/spouse)?

And in fact, in my rather limited online readings about bestiality, the animal does often become a substitute. Why have a relationship with a human when your dog is always there and loves you?

Why have any sort of human relationship if your dog is always there and loves you? Because interaction with a dog, sexual or not, does not constitute a "relationship." I think where you don't give people enough credit is by assuming they would not realize that. I assume they do; I assume they know full-well that using an animal for sex is just that -- using it. Where I run in to trouble is in attempting to articulate why that particular use is wrong, especially in light of the myriad other ways we use animals, many of which I have absolutely no problem with.

Your objection seems to be that it's bad for the animal; my objection is (I think) that I consider it highly likely to be very bad for the human.

I respectfully suggest that to elicit an "ew" reaction, it may well be more than that. There are lots of things that people do that are very bad for them, from not wearing helmets to smoking to having unsafe sex. Do all of those make you go "ew"? If the "ew" is that it's sexual, does the thought of unprotected sex make you go "ew"? It's not very smart, and indeed often is borderline delusional, as well.

Given the powerful taboos against bestiality in our society, anyone who has sex with animals likely has trouble forming satisfactory human sexual/emitional relationships in the first place, and so may give up on it entirely if s/he can convince themselves that his/her needs are being met by the animal.

Again, I think this is a huge assumption of self-delusion, when I think it's far more likely that people who have sex with animals do so knowing full-well that it is not a relationship; they do it, I suspect, because it scratches some innate itch, or is convenient, or is thrilling in its taboo-breaking naughtiness.

Kyomara

05-18-2001, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Zarathustra
[QUOTE]I am hoping, hoping, hoping that you will eventually reveal yourself as a fellow Swiftian . . .
No, I'm pretty much serious. All these folks are saying bestiality is cruel because it's "non-consensual" and may cause damage to the animal's psyche. Well how can you allow an animal a capacity for consent and consciousness and deny its capacity for affection? Animals don't care. Not dogs and cats, anyway. The male of those species will take it wherever he can get it.

Drastic

05-18-2001, 12:54 AM

I find the differences between the level of discourse in this thread and the other current one on anal sex being wrong, wrong wrong!!! pretty interesting.

A visceral "ewwwww" reaction is what I think all judgments against it come down to--in both threads. "Consent" issues are window-dressing over the fundamental ew, just as "unnatural" issues are window-dressing over a fundamental ew (with the difference that the arguments around the consent tack tend to be a whole lot more coherent and credible than the unnatural tactic).

As far as I'm concerned, people have the right to feel ew about whatever, and the right to feel yum about whatever, so long as they're not hurting anyone besides themselves (I honestly, callously if you will, don't give a damn if someone's inflicting emotional harm on themselves by shutting out people to instead make Fido an even happier dog) and whatever they're yum about isn't in my space. If they're torturing the animal for their jollies, it's a different story; I think penalties for animal cruelty should be much higher than they are.

Zarathustra

05-18-2001, 02:33 AM

If I read Drastic's and Kyomara's arguments correctly, then we seem to be approaching a consensus that one should go with whatever floats one's boat, as long as no sentient being is hurt.

So this is where moral relativism brings us. Once we deride and reject the "eww" factor--that is, the deep-down, in-the-guts knowledge that something is wrong, because that's not what nature intended--for one type of behavior, then we open the door to rejecting the "eww" factor for all other types of behavior where it applies. And it looks as if any remnant of the "eww" factor in regard to bestiality--or at least the knowledge that others still harbor that feeling--causes some posters to go through amusing rhetorical contortions in an effort to assert that no, bestiality and homosexuality are not justified on rather similar grounds.

Drastic

05-18-2001, 02:57 AM

Oh, I dunno I'd call my position moral relativism, at least not by rejecting the eww factor. My position against animal cruelty, for instance, is, when I look honestly into it, merely an ew as well--after all, I'm certainly not going to become vegetarian, even though the meat industry does some undeniably cruel things. It just happens to be an eww I feel more strongly about. I can't justify it by anything other than, treating an animal cruelly just for the enjoyment of it is wrong.

SterlingNorth

05-18-2001, 03:57 AM

Wait a sec???

Having sex with animals is OK simply because we eat them?

brought up first by The Fromster, echoed by others...
Um...why does the animal have to consent to it? We slaughter cows, pigs, chickens, even ostriches (sp?) without their consent. We want to eat them. Sure, we could survive on a diet consisting soley of plants, but then, but we want to eat meat. What's the difference with sex? It's an animal, it is not human, it has no cnociousness (that we know of), and it's not exactly capable of higher though. If I chose (not that I would) to use a cow to relieve myself of sexual tension, how is that any different from killing it and using it to sate my hunger?

Ask yourself this, if the pack of starving dingoes could ask you, "Jolly good day, sir. We've been traveling these here plains for quite a long time, and we are a bit famished. We'd like to inquire or you a favor. Could we rip your flesh from the bone, as so we could dine on it and not perish?"

Predators would not ask the permission of their prey, for no sane, healthy animal would give consent to their own demise.

That said, there is a fundamental difference in the relationship between predator-prey and sexual partners. Same goes for vegeterians (that wheat didn't ask to be baked into bread).

Of course with that said, I don't have an answer as to what I think of sex with animals or sexual relationships with animals. This is the first time I'm thinking about it, and I'm in the "Ewwwwww!!" phase. But I do not think eating:shagging is a very good analogy.

SterlingNorth

05-18-2001, 04:04 AM

Ask yourself this, if the pack of starving dingoes could ask you, "Jolly good day, sir. We've been traveling these here plains for quite a long time, and we are a bit famished. We'd like to inquire or you a favor. Could we rip your flesh from the bone, as so we could dine on it and not perish?"

I looked over this statement four times before posting and saw nothing wrong with it. Yet the instant I make it permanent on the board, I see I need to revise it.

I wanted you to ask yourselves this:

if the pack of starving dingoes could ask you, "Jolly good day, sir. We've been traveling these here plains for quite a long time, and we are a bit famished. We'd like to inquire or you a favor. Could we rip your flesh from the bone, as so we could dine on it and not perish?" would you let them?

Dijon Warlock

05-18-2001, 04:17 AM

I think the point is why is it wrong to "shag" them without their consent, but not to kill them without their consent? Surely, killing is more harmful than a bit of a tickle (so to speak). So let's ask you a modification of your own question: if the pack of dingoes gave you the option of being shagged or killed for food, which would you prefer?

nickc

05-18-2001, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Zarathustra
If I read Drastic's and Kyomara's arguments correctly, then we seem to be approaching a consensus that one should go with whatever floats one's boat, as long as no sentient being is hurt.

So this is where moral relativism brings us. Once we deride and reject the "eww" factor--that is, the deep-down, in-the-guts knowledge that something is wrong, because that's not what nature intended--for one type of behavior, then we open the door to rejecting the "eww" factor for all other types of behavior where it applies. And it looks as if any remnant of the "eww" factor in regard to bestiality--or at least the knowledge that others still harbor that feeling--causes some posters to go through amusing rhetorical contortions in an effort to assert that no, bestiality and homosexuality are not justified on rather similar grounds.

Except when the 'eww factor' does not occur. A taboo is a result of social/cultural brainwashing, thus, taboos are not universal. And even if the person is raised in a society where the taboo applies, I don't think it's necessary that the result be that the person is disgusted by it.

There are always people on the margin of society. I'm not implying that we should accept them, simply because they are there, but the least we could do is be tolerant, assuming it hurts no HUMAN being.

Also, the consent of a pet? Come on. The argument seems to be that if the dog does not express willingness in a coherent manner, then it should not be done. In other words, there's no chance you can fuck your dog, sorry. This is ridiculous. I'm not saying the dog can't communicate that it doesn't want something to be done, but consent? That's a bit extreme. If we accept that to be reality, then we'll have to wonder if the dog is just allowing you to have sex with it because it doesn't want to hurt your feelings, or it felt compelled. :)

reprise

05-18-2001, 04:44 AM

The most common objection I have read so far in this thread (apart from the Bible tells me so one, which is meaningless to anyone who isn't a Christian) is the lack of potential for an ongoing emotional relationship.

You guys are kidding surely. In Western society we form very deep emotional attachments to our animals - to the extent that they have their own clothing ranges, cemeteries, and hotels.

I'm pretty neutral in the bestiality debate, but I object to anyone using the "emotional relationship" argument to defend theit particular viewpoint.

galt

05-18-2001, 04:54 AM

Also, the consent of a pet? Come on. The argument seems to be that if the dog does not express willingness in a coherent manner, then it should not be done.

What if the dog wags his tail the whole time? :)

Zarathustra

05-18-2001, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by nickc
There are always people on the margin of society. I'm not implying that we should accept them, simply because they are there, but the least we could do is be tolerant, assuming it hurts no HUMAN being.
[/B]

Maybe YOU can answer my question, then. If your son or daughter expressed an interest in gettin' it on with the animal kingdom, would you discourage them? And why (or why not)? And don't be glib, tell me honestly--would you accept the idea of one of your children having sex with an animal, assuming they were old enough to make such a decision? How about you other guys, esp. those with kids?

And more generally, if you knew of someone who allowed their Doberman to penetrate him anally, do you think any kind of therapy could help him stop? Or should he even be encouraged to stop? What if he wants to stop but feels he can't help himself?

OK, that's elaborated into a couple of questions, but I'm really interested to know the views of you and other posters here.

Mekhazzio

05-18-2001, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Jodi
I think it far more likely that people who engage in bestiality are knowingly exploiting animals for their own gratification, with little if any concern for the animal

You could not be more wrong. You obviously have no understanding of the matter and have never talked with anyone who does. You may not comprehend it, with your "animals == moving rocks" outlook, but for quite a lot of people, there is much more to it than just a quick furry fuck. Almost without exception, it's long-term rather than one-night-stands, and quite a few go to great lengths to take care of their pet-lover-mate-whatever. They call it "zoophilia" for a reason: it encompasses more than just sex.

Be careful when you're waving that broad brush around based on your own assumptions on a topic you know nothing about.

Zarathustra

05-18-2001, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by nickc
Except when the 'eww factor' does not occur. A taboo is a result of social/cultural brainwashing, thus, taboos are not universal. And even if the person is raised in a society where the taboo applies, I don't think it's necessary that the result be that the person is disgusted by it.

But wouldn't you agree that many societies share taboos, and usually for good social, biological, or psychological reasons? Many people would recoil at the thought of killing someone, or having sex with their mothers, but maybe not all. A few may be exempt from the "eww factor" of those (AFAIK, universal) taboos, but they're still subject to social pressures to avoid the behavior in question--and it's a good thing, too. Or don't you think so?

Some taboos might look silly on the face of it when you only consider each person as an island unto himself, and when the direct consequences of actions aren't immediately apparent. But broken taboos still have a way of turning around and biting us in the ass--as someone mentioned, bestiality might be a great way to introduce virulent new pathogens into human populations. And isn't there an ancient Jewish taboo against feeding cattle the leftovers from carcasses of other cattle (or something like that)? Following that seemingly silly taboo might have prevented the outbreak of mad cow disease.

nickc

05-18-2001, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Zarathustra

But wouldn't you agree that many societies share taboos, and usually for good social, biological, or psychological reasons? Many people would recoil at the thought of killing someone, or having sex with their mothers, but maybe not all. A few may be exempt from the "eww factor" of those (AFAIK, universal) taboos, but they're still subject to social pressures to avoid the behavior in question--and it's a good thing, too. Or don't you think so?

Some taboos might look silly on the face of it when you only consider each person as an island unto himself, and when the direct consequences of actions aren't immediately apparent. But broken taboos still have a way of turning around and biting us in the ass--as someone mentioned, bestiality might be a great way to introduce virulent new pathogens into human populations. And isn't there an ancient Jewish taboo against feeding cattle the leftovers from carcasses of other cattle (or something like that)? Following that seemingly silly taboo might have prevented the outbreak of mad cow disease. [/B]

I agree. I am wondering if these taboos are actually the result of some innate human instinct, or a social thing. Although, I suppose if the taboo exists in society at all, it could be argued that it's a result of instinct. But then again, there are lots of stupid taboos, one being sodomy, as was mentioned before. Oh well.

Yeah, I suppose disease could be a pretty good reason not to have sex with your dog :) That being said, I still do not mind is someone wants to do that, as long as they aren't sneaking into my backyard to rape my pet.

The whole feeding cows their friends and neighbors thing is really sick, and I would think that would have been a taboo even without some ecclesiastical command. Although, it does seem to be an extremely efficient way to save money.

beagledave

05-18-2001, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by reprise
The most common objection I have read so far in this thread (apart from the Bible tells me so one, which is meaningless to anyone who isn't a Christian) is the lack of potential for an ongoing emotional relationship.

You guys are kidding surely. In Western society we form very deep emotional attachments to our animals - to the extent that they have their own clothing ranges, cemeteries, and hotels.

I'm pretty neutral in the bestiality debate, but I object to anyone using the "emotional relationship" argument to defend theit particular viewpoint.

Come on. We form deep emotional attachments to our children as well..yet most folks recognize that there are different kinds of emotional bondng between children-adults and adults-adults.

Gaudere

05-18-2001, 09:51 AM

I respect this as your viewpoint, but I don't really understand it. I mean, I do not generally concern myself with the abilities of my fellow humans to form relationships, to the point of wishing to limit their ability to act freely in their better interests.Well, I don't generally support harmful delusions. Harmless delusions, fine. But if someone thinks that their dog has a relationship with them that is equal to the relationship that a person can have to another person, well, I think they're fooling themselves to their ultimate overall harm. I would not impose my belief on them unless asked, but I *would* believe that they are doing themselves harm to expect the sort of reationship form an animal that they could from a person. I'm not trying to prevent people from having non-abusive sex with animals, but if their relationship with animals is interfereing with their ability to have relationships with people I think the relationship is a bad idea.

It seems to me to be very artificial to have an "ew" reaction to something based solely on the absence of a possibility of a meaningful relationship, and further based on the chance that the participant might be deluded in believng such a possibility exists.::shrug:: I don't. Anyhow, my objection based on the absence of any possibility for a relationship is why I think bestiality is a bad idea, it doesn't explain all of my "ew" reaction. Part of the "ew" reaction is just the generalized "that's not my thing" feeling that I have towards, say, scat. Even if I think they're both icky, bestiality is the only one where, if asked, I would probably express a feeling that it might not be a really good idea. However, since I feel approximately the same "ew" reaction towards sex with a severely retarded person and sex with an animal, I do think my objections are based on the inbalance between the partners and the inability to form any sort of relationship the equal to that with a fully mature human. Artificial or not, that *does* seem to be what it's based on.

Why not? The majority of adults understand the difference between a casual hook-up and a relationship.Because given our dire taboos against bestiality, I tend to think that someone who engages in it has a strong likelihood of using it as a substitute for a relationship with other people. (In a society with a more lax attitude towards bestiality, I think casual hook-ups would be more likely, and so I might have a more accepting attitude towards bestiality in general, but I think I would still frown on actual sexual/emotional relationships with animals.) Most humans seem to need/want emotional and intellectual connections, as well as sexual ones, and tend to look for those emotional/intellectual/sexual connections in sexual partners. I don't know of anyone who fulfills their emotional/intellectual love needs in one place, and their sexual needs in another. It is possible, but I don't think it's the way we tend to be wired, so I am inclined to think those who habitually practice bestiality in this society do often become emotionally involved with their partners. I don't know, I have no hard statistics; this is just a general feel I get from the readings I have done on bestiality. Mekhazzio might have more input on this, although s/he may be disinclined to support me on this since I am currently arguing that human-animal relationships are not the equal of human-human relationships and are generally a Bad Idea. ;-)

coffeecat

05-18-2001, 10:27 AM

I had sex with my cat.

OK, now that you're all paying attention, it wasn't quite the way it sounds. I held an object for her to rub her bottom against, because she was in heat, and I felt sorry for the poor thing. Clearly, I didn't rape Cookie by letting her rub against a chopstick. She made her wishes-hell, her desperation-very clear with long sultry meows and by scooting her butt across the floor. I didn't get any pleasure out of it; I don't swing that way. But suppose I had? Would Cookie have suddenly become non-consenting? Suppose instead of a cat, it was a female animal large enough to be penetrated? I don't think the analogy between zoophilia and pedophilia is a good one. I have yet to hear of a Golden Retriever who needed 20 years of therapy for incest-related PTSD.

Superdude

05-18-2001, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by coffeecat
I had sex with my cat.

Well, maybe this is just me, but I wouldn't sleep with my cat. I don't know where she's been, for one thing. And you're not just sleeping with your cat: You're sleeping with every cat your cat's ever slept with. All nine lives. And the last thing I need is to come down with genital ticks or something. Although...sandpaper tongue... :)

Jodi

05-18-2001, 12:42 PM

MEKHAZZIO contends that I am wrong to believe that bestiality is exploitive, and knowingly so:

You could not be more wrong. You obviously have no understanding of the matter and have never talked with anyone who does.

This criticism is difficult to refute. I know very little about bestiality and care even less. This thread probably constitutes the longest discussion I've ever had on the matter. I personally doubt that most people are having sex with animals thinking that it's anything other than exploitive and unhealty, but I also know from professional experience that people can delude themselves into thinking sexually abusing a child is okay ("I love her; I would never hurt her; she likes it"), so maybe GAUDERE is correct and the same thing can and does happen where animals are concerned.

You may not comprehend it, with your "animals == moving rocks" outlook, but for quite a lot of people, there is much more to it than just a quick furry fuck.[/quot]

I have never said, and do not believe, that animals are the equivalent of "moving rocks." In fact, I'm certain I care more about them than a person who would stoop to having sex with one. But then it is almost easier to attack a person for what he or she didn't say than to actually address yourself to what he or she did say.

[quote]Be careful when you're waving that broad brush around based on your own assumptions on a topic you know nothing about.

Gosh, may I have inadvertantly insulted someone who has sex with animals?? Let me take a moment to see if I can work up an ounce of dismay or regret.

Nope.

Zarathustra

05-18-2001, 01:17 PM

I don't know of anyone who fulfills their emotional/intellectual love needs in one place, and their sexual needs in another.

I think this is rather disingenuous, if not "dishonest". You suggest that it's possible to get one's "emotional/intellectual love needs" fulfilled in a toilet stall, or a roadside rest station, or a viewing cubicle at a theater showing fist-fucking films? Come on, you may not be acquainted with them personally, but you should know damn well that many people--heterosexual and homosexual--get their kicks from unattached, unemotional, purely physical sex, after which they may or may not go back home to a stable wife or partner for a sense of security.

Originally posted by Gaudere
I would not impose my belief on them unless asked, but I *would* believe that they are doing themselves harm to expect the sort of reationship form an animal that they could from a person. I'm not trying to prevent people from having non-abusive sex with animals, but if their relationship with animals is interfereing with their ability to have relationships with people I think the relationship is a bad idea.

Since you judge it to be a Bad Idea, and you say that you would "impose" your belief on them if asked, would you encourage such a person to seek out therapy if they said "Gaudere, I'd like to break this habit of bestiality, but I seem to have some compulsion that makes me unable to stop"? Do you think it's possible for therapy to help them with such a problem, if they're willing? I'd really like an answer to my question.

Gaudere

05-18-2001, 03:36 PM

I think this is rather disingenuous, if not "dishonest". You suggest that it's possible to get one's "emotional/intellectual love needs" fulfilled in a toilet stall, or a roadside rest station, or a viewing cubicle at a theater showing fist-fucking films?Not really, but at least there's potential. I'd be unlikely to consider healthy someone who has never had any human sexual relationships besides anonymously in toilet stalls too. And even in a one night stand I think there's a recognition that this is a fellow human that you simply don't get with an animal.

Since you judge it to be a Bad Idea, and you say that you would "impose" your belief on them if asked, would you encourage such a person to seek out therapy if they said "Gaudere, I'd like to break this habit of bestiality, but I seem to have some compulsion that makes me unable to stop"?Number one, my use of "impose" in that instance refers only to the fact that I would volunteer my opinion on the subject if asked, not that I'd force someone to submit to electroshock therapy or something. Let's keep that clear.

If someone is deeply unhappy with part of their life, of course they have the right to attempt to change it. Or perhaps they cannot change their desires, but need therapy to help them deal with their unhappiness with it. Anyone who hates something they do, yet cannot stop, probably would benefit from some sort of therapy, to decide if the problem is due to self-loathing, other people's predjudices, or an utter inability to practice the behavior in a healthy manner, and come up with ways to hopefully improve the quality of their life.

I think it is *possible* for someone to practice bestaility in a healthy manner. However, sex and love and emotion and intellect often are all tangled together, and I consider the practice of bestaility to have a high potential for resulting in choosing to fufill your needs through a relationship with an animal that I would think exists primarily in the person's mind. Particularly in this society; given the strong taboo against it, anyone who would have sex with an animal would have to likely feel very strongly about it, it wouldn't be just, "Hey, here's a warm place to put my penis!" So I suspect that someone who wants to have sex with animals so badly that they'll ignore the taboos against it probably feels *very* strongly about the animal, or is unable to form anything even approaching a fulfilling human relationship, and that seems to me to make attempting to make the animal into more than a masturbatory aid rather likely. Now, maybe I'm wrong; maybe there are large numbers of people who have healthy human relationships but who sometimes screw/be screwed by animals on occaision, but I'm not thinking it very likely for the reasons I've given. However, if someone has solid and happy human relationships and just occasionally gets horny and slips it to a nearby cow (in a non-abusive manner, and with protection), well, it's not my thing, but if he's healthy and happy with the situation I don't really think it's doing him any harm.

(And are you still pretending you're not drawing parallels to homosexuality here, O Mr. J. Smith? I forget.)

Zarathustra

05-18-2001, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
I'd be unlikely to consider healthy someone who has never had any human sexual relationships besides anonymously in toilet stalls too . . . However, if someone has solid and happy human relationships and just occasionally gets horny and slips it to a nearby cow (in a non-abusive manner, and with protection), well, it's not my thing, but if he's healthy and happy with the situation I don't really think it's doing him any harm.

So having sex with a dog and getting some anal lovin' from a stranger in a toilet stall are equally OK, as long as one has a loving human relationship to go home to? Interesting. What kind of parallel are you drawing?

And what's with the "J. Smith"? Is that the name I registered under at the SDMB? I forget. If so, why are you mentioning it in this thread?

Gaudere

05-18-2001, 07:00 PM

So having sex with a dog and getting some anal lovin' from a stranger in a toilet stall are equally OK, as long as one has a loving human relationship to go home to?Um, no, "anal lovin' from a stranger" would be superior, for the reasons I listed above; you are connecting at least on *some* level with a person for whom there is a possibility for a relationship while with animals there is not such possibility, anyone who breaks the bestiality taboo yadda yadda yadda. And of course, if one is in a loving relationship, there are the issues of emotional/physical faithfulness, safety, etc. that must be considered as well. So I'd hardly say that meaningless sex outside a relationship is "OK" unless your relationship is such that it will not be harmed in the slightest by that, which is possible in a relative rarity of cases, IMHO. I'm saying it's not necessarily unhealthy to have occaisional utterly meaningless sex (actually, more like aided masturbation) with *no* possibility of a relationship if it doesn't harm your ability to form relationships, not that as long as you are in a relationship you can boink whatever you want.

And what's with the "J. Smith"?Whoops. Swift. A reference to your comparing yourself to the author of A Modest Proposal. I can tell you that if he posted his proposal on the MB and I said, "Ok, so you want to discuss the way the poor are treated, well, I think blah blah blah..." and he said, "Who said anything about treating the poor badly? I'm talking about eating their babies! C'mon, debate that," I'd be equally peeved. Most days I prefer to debate people's actual arguments, not stalking horses.

[Edited by Gaudere on 05-18-2001 at 07:22 PM]

Zarathustra

05-18-2001, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Gaudere
I can tell you that if he posted his proposal on the MB and I said, "Ok, so you want to discuss the way the poor are treated, well, I think blah blah blah..." and he said, "Who said anything about treating the poor badly? I'm talking about eating their babies! C'mon, debate that," I'd be equally peeved. Most days I prefer to debate people's actual arguments, not stalking horses.

I'd find that rather droll, myself. I take your point, though. I thought my comparison was transparent enough that there wouldn't be any confusion, but you're right, as the thread moved on I should have been more straightforward.

What interests me is how individuals and society relate to unconventional or taboo behavior, especially in regard to the justifications offered for each. For example, do zoophiles consider themselves zoophiles from birth, and their zoophilia something about themselves they have no choice but to accept? And how does that compare to the justifications given for homosexual behavior? That's not to equate the two behaviors, or say one or the other is right or wrong. So I wasn't being all that Swiftian in my original question--I am interested in the question for its own sake.

ladyfoxfyre

05-18-2001, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
A. The Bible says it's wrong.
B. There is no Point B.

That's an open-minded opinion. "My book says that you are wrong, so you are!". I must say that I am continually amazed by the religious bigots in this world.

Mekhazzio

05-19-2001, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Gaudere
Mekhazzio might have more input on this, although s/he may be disinclined to support me on this since I am currently arguing that human-animal relationships are not the equal of human-human relationships and are generally a Bad Idea. ;-)

I don't agree with your Bad Idea conclusion, no, but I'm not trying to say it's the same thing. Obviously, there's a substantial difference...my argument is just that there is a relationship to it. Most folks in this thread have been taking it for granted that animals are mindless automatons who have no feelings, needs or desires, and that it's impossible for a human & animal to connect at -any- level. It certainly is possible, and does happen. Just writing it off as "furry masturbation" is misunderstanding the issue at a basic level.

As for if an animal relationship is "the equal" of that with a human...well, like most qualitative comparisons, that's largely a matter of opinion. I'm personally of the opinion that a very good human relationship is, indeed, superior, but I consider myself extremely lucky to have found a human (and two of them, in fact) with whom such a relationship is possible. Also, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread, the animals with whom I feel particularly 'connected' to -- well, the ones that can be found -- would all consider me more of a lunch than a lover. This is actually part of the bond I have with aforementioned humans, but this is getting into an entirely different topic, so I'll leave that for a different thread ;)

Now, as to the blanket statement that -all- human relationships are better, that I certainly wouldn't agree with. Some, even the average human relationship can be...destructive is a very mild term for it. Personally, I'd consider no relationship to be much better than that, so a relationship with an animal, particularly the more intelligent ones, can be substantially healthier and more fulfilling. I've heard some bad tales, yeah, but I've also heard some stories from people that are entirely happy with their mate at a deep level. Is it self-delusion? They certainly don't think so, and I believe the people I've talked to are levelheaded and know what they're talking about. In the long run, who are we to judge someone else's experience with life?

I don't expect anyone to understand zoophilia unless they have at least some connection to it within themselves. What bothers me is the kneejerk condemnation, because it's completely unjustified -- and I think that most folk doing it would realize that if only they knew more about it and/or talked with those for whom it's a very real part of life.

I offer some basic links for general education here. For obvious reasons, it's generally not made very public, and I'm very reluctant to broadcast private sites in an open forum like this, so my sources here are just those I've found in some quick web searching. If you wish to do your own searches, I suggest using "zoophilia" instead of "bestiality" (which will often just get you to porn sites) Be aware that what you find will quite often go into the...shall we say...technical aspects of the matter.

http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/lotcaf/yiffle/sexuality/zoophilia/
http://sg.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Bestiality/
http://sd.plushie.org/zrnet/indexz.html
http://www.dolphinsex.org

Gaudere

05-19-2001, 03:28 PM

Zarathustra:
As for the justifications generally used for zoophilia, we'd really have to ask a zoophilic (Mekhazzio?), but I still stand by my previous belief that there is a HELL of a big difference between a relationship between two sentient, mature people, of any sex/genetics/race, than between a person and an animal. I believe that the reason arguments for homosexuality and arguments for zoophilia may appear to have a lot in common is that people who argue for homosexual rights do not often expect to be challenged on the zoophilic angle, so their arguments may get a trifle sloppy (if you include caveats for every possible attack, your points get rather convoluted and tedious, and there's no point in confusing the issue without good reason). So yes, the arguments may be similar, but I think there are significant, insurmountable differences betwwen sex with humans and sex with animals that invalidate any perfect parallels that someone may attempt to draw between the two.

For example, do zoophiles consider themselves zoophiles from birth, and their zoophilia something about themselves they have no choice but to accept?I suspect it is much like that, though I have almost no acquiantance with the zoophilic culture. But I think that someone who would reject the very strong taboos aginst bestiality likely has felt very strong leanings that way for quite a while.

Mekhazzio:
Most folks in this thread have been taking it for granted that animals are mindless automatons who have no feelings, needs or desires, and that it's impossible for a human & animal to connect at -any- level.I don't think animals are mindless automatons. I do connect with my cat...but not in any way like the manner in which I connect with a fellow human, and I think I'd be doing both of us a disservice to try to make her take a human's role in my life, or try to make *me* take a cat's role in her life. I don't think, as Jodi does, that non-zoophilics care more for animals than zoophilics; but I do think that non-zoophilics can care for animals in a different, more realistic way, one unclouded by sexual desire and all its attendant baggage (baggage that an animal cannot understand or return, IMHO).

Yes, there are crappy human realtionships too. But all the descriptions of zoophilic relationships I have seen have been based on a great deal of projection and idealization, and I wouldn't think that healthy in a human relationship either, and in them there *is* possibility for a mature realistic emotionally/intellectually fulfilling relationship that is impossible in a human-animal relationship.

For example, from one of the sites linked to: "This was more than just a horse, this was a special being, a kindred spirit, an entity that shared his passion for life. [...] But this was no ordinary animal, either. He was overcome by feelings which shocked him at first. It wasn't his obvious love for this animal, that wasn't new, although the strength of the emotion was. It was an almost overpowering desire to experience a further understanding, a further joining with the animal that seemed to be able to look straight into his soul...No human had ever evoked this kind of emotion in him before. More than love, it was something he couldn't explain. Not lust, even though he looked at the stallion's beauty with obvious appreciation, but such a deep caring that he didn't know the words for it, nor did they matter at that moment...He had never felt anything like this with any human lover, ever....He didn't know whether to go on or not, but then he felt it in the air and in his head--the feeling of love coming from this animal, as if the stallion were consoling him, telling him that it was ok, that their love was strong...and then he had no question....He quickly removed the rest of his clothes and stood naked in front of his lover, who looked at him with a look of appreciation and genuine love. he trusted this horse completely, more than he had evertrusted any being before...." (It goes on at some length in this vein in various places; I've chopped it down a bit for brevity's sake.) Anyhow, woo...major unrealistic view of an animal, major projection, major substitution of an animal for a human relationship going on here. My Ew Reaction seems to be partially based on the concept of an animal/nonsentient lover taking a fully sentient human lover's "place" and the feeling that such a thing is Wrong. However, I don't think my feeling of wrongness is simply outdated superstition; I do think the zoophilic relationship can be a danger to the emotional and physical health of both the human and animal, due to the human trying to make the relationship and the animal into something it simply cannot be. The ability to connect in a satisfying emotional and intellectual relationship with another person is a vitally important part of most human's psyches, so I see something that intereferes with that ability by replacing it with a delusion of a relationship to be a Very Bad Idea.

labdude

05-19-2001, 04:28 PM

Google returns 32,800 hits for "gay bestiality."
Google returns 114,000 hits for 'bestiality."

So someone must be into it.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

05-19-2001, 04:58 PM

There is a viral disease called Feline Immune Deficency Syndrome . Yes , it is related to A.I.D.S. No, unlike A.I.D.S., it is not always fatal... to cats.

It is possible for a cat to have F.I.D.S. & not appear "sick".

As I stated earlier in this thread, diseases may "jump" the species barrier.

As far as I know, this has never happened to any human being.

Please, do not create a precedent.

'Nuff said.

The Fromesiter

05-19-2001, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by SterlingNorth
Ask yourself this, if the pack of starving dingoes could ask you, "Jolly good day, sir. We've been traveling these here plains for quite a long time, and we are a bit famished. We'd like to inquire or you a favor. Could we rip your flesh from the bone, as so we could dine on it and not perish?" would you let them?

Predators would not ask the permission of their prey, for no sane, healthy animal would give consent to their own demise.
[/B]

Well, if I were to come across said ravenous dingoes and were to be asked that very same question, I would respond with the sound of my gun being fired.

I am a human being. I have a large, complex brain capable of higher thought. I can go down to my local Wal Mart and buy a gun. I could then use my new gun on anything that tried to harm me. Animals do not have the abilty to think on a higher plain or to invent things, therefor I can eat them because my teeth are bigger and my claws are sharper.

It's not a question about permission. It's a question about the thing with the physical or mental advantage. And in the case of my and my cat/dog/snake/emu I win. I can therefor do whatever I want to it. I don't, however. I happen to enjoy my cat's presence very much, and she is my companion on many a late night spent reading late at night to finish off a book, but if I so chose, I could use her to get me off. I think it's sick and disgusting, but the point is that I could, and there is nothing out there to stop me.

Mekhazzio

05-21-2001, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Gaudere
As for the justifications generally used for zoophilia, we'd really have to ask a zoophilic (Mekhazzio?), but I still stand by my previous belief that there is a HELL of a big difference between a relationship between two sentient, mature people, of any sex/genetics/race, than between a person and an animal.

Yes, it's substantially different. However, I can't even begin to agree at all with a blanket statement that ALL human relationships are better than ALL non-human relationships.

No, I am not personally into it much in action, but plenty in spirit. I'll give a little background on myself to help explain my stance on things: I've dabbled a little in bestiality (canines are nice :)) but not to any great extent, for my real true animal lust is towards dragons -- obviously this presents a problem. All the creatures on this earth that have similar appeal all tend to either not mindo eating people, or have various sorts of germ residents that are unfriendly to mammals :( I also don't have the means to, say, carefully raise and tame an alligator or monitor from hatching, and that, by itself, raises problems -- it would kind of haunt me that it would just be "submitting to more training". So I content myself with just making naughty drawings of dragons, and roleplaying such with kindred spirits thanks to this nice internet thing ;)

But I think that someone who would reject the very strong taboos aginst bestiality likely has felt very strong leanings that way for quite a while.

Pretty much, yeah. Taboos don't take much root when you think about the topic and wonder why in the world said taboo exists. To get a feel for this, take any personal fetish you feel -very- strongly about, and ask yourself if you would still have or practice said fetish even if you grew up in a society where it was taboo. My guess is that it's very likely ;)

(baggage that an animal cannot understand or return, IMHO)

Everybody has opinions ;) This is mainly where I don't agree with you -- I feel, from my short dabblings and from having my own pets, that it can, in fact, be possible. Yes, it's very different from that of another human, but it's there. Not necessarily better or worse taken overall but just different. Sure, a zoo relationship can be a bad thing, and it's not terribly uncommon for it to be such. On the other hand, human relationships can be pretty darn bad themselves, and that's not uncommon either (in fact, I'd hazard to say it's MORE common than successful relationships) It's easily possible for someone to screw themselves up with simple, natural mistakes (that we've all made, and hopefully realized before going too far) when it involves something so emotionally overpowering as love and sex. But, in the end, at least with a zoo relationship you don't have to worry much about things like being left with a child, being stalked by a spurned lover, or any of the other things people do to make each other's lives miserable.

As for classifying a zoo relationship as inherently being a textbook example of projection...well...it's as much so as in any human relationship, really. I've seen a lot of people, including myself, try so hard to "make it work", fooling themselves into a deep bond with someone completely foreign, that I agree it's a problem -- but not one unique to zoos. This is also an issue where it may just be a difference in world views: what you see as patently impossible (and therefore must be projection) may, to someone else, be perfectly clear. Someone may feel spiritually attached to animals in general, or a specific type in particular (like me and my dragons), and have feel a close kinship to them...perhaps in a manner similar to, say, someone "having a close relationship to Jesus Christ". Spirituality is a foggy concept. More than a few cultures of the world have respected, revered and worshipped animals, even the ones that are seemingly only waiting to be eaten, like cows.

The world is viewed through the eyes of the observer, and so we all have a different tint of reality. This is, IMO, just a case where different people see, feel and experience different things. Maybe I'm just biased (seeing as how I share the zoo tint myself), but I can't see anything inherently wrong or bad about bestiality/zoophilia. I think it has its own merits and pitfalls, but generally isn't much of an issue to the rest of society any more so than sexual preference or polyamory is. But these are also things that society likes to make a big deal of, and I tend to question other strong taboos too, so perhaps I'm just far too much of an oddball to listen to. You be the judge ;)

I don't really mind clashing opinions. I expect them, since I seem to be the only person currently posting that understands the dissenting viewpoint on zoophilia. This makes me feel somewhat obligated to share the other perspective on the topic, and to be honest, I'm actually enjoying it. It's so very rare to actually be able to rationally discuss things like this, I'm happy for any opportunity ;)

Gaudere

05-22-2001, 09:42 PM

But, in the end, at least with a zoo relationship you don't have to worry much about things like being left with a child, being stalked by a spurned lover, or any of the other things people do to make each other's lives miserable.Human relationships aren't always easy, becuase they *are* intense, and they *are* relationships with a person of your own species and intelligence and autonomy. A realtionship with a housebound, sterile, severely retarded person dependent upon you for all his needs would also prevent you from having to worry about prengancy or stalking...but does that mean a relationship with such a person is superior or equal or even approaching a relationship with someone more on your level? I think what you sacrifice--the loss of a partner who can be your equal--is *far* too high a price to pay to avoid the chance of unhappiness. Heck, a dog can break your heart by rutting after Fifi next door, or screwing your best friend, so maybe you should avoid a relationship with animals, too.

An animal can't leave you pregnant, but it also can't help you have and raise a family. An animal won't say mean things to you, but it also will never discuss things with you, talk out any problems, plan your future together or say "I love you." Some human relationships are bad, I agree (though I think if the majority of your relationships are unsatisfying, you should be a little more picky before you get into one). But an animal can never think or communicate on anywhere near the same level as you, which I think means it is fated to never be anywhere near as fulfilling as a relationship with a person of approximately the same degree of sentience.

As for classifying a zoo relationship as inherently being a textbook example of projection...well...it's as much so as in any human relationship, really.I don't believe you can say this with any authority. Animals cannot tell you if you have misconceptions about them, except to the most limited degree and only if your misconceptions are blatantly obvious to their limited intellect. It's not like my cat could effectively communicate anything to the contrary if I believed she just saw me as a food-giver, or if I thought she felt some sort of deep abiding love, or if I thought she was a space alien, while a human could quickly and unambiguously disabuse me of (or confirm) such notions if I felt that way about him. In the story excerpts I quoted, and the readings on zoophilia I have done, they are full of such examples of people absolutely convinced of an animal's deep attraction/love of them. Do you think the horse was really looking at the man's body with sexual attraction? He's a damn horse, I doubt he was looking at the man's naked body and going "woo, I gotta git me some of that." But the man could pretend he was, and the horse couldn't tell him different. *People* can actually talk to each other and have approximately the same level of intelligence; it makes all the difference in the world regarding communication. Animals don't even have the exact same instincts humans do, nor can they think on the same level as humans and they can't communicate with absolute clarity the thoughts they *do* have. This seems to me to make misinterpreting what the animal is feeling when in a relationship *much* more likely than it would be in a relationship between two humans, who *can* talk to each other, whose minds *are* at approximately the same level, and who have their instincts and human culture in common.

malkavia

05-23-2001, 06:26 PM

You'll have to forgive me.. I kinda sped through the latter half of this thread but I didnt see one mention of something that seems KEY in this argument:

Animal's are not slaves to the same sort of moral/ethical bullshit that humans are.

A dog isn't trained from day one to think "Eww.. if my master touches me here, he's a bad bad man."

It's entirely possible (And was discussed in a thread awhile back) that children wouldn't be traumatized if their upbringing consisted of an entirely different basis of what's "good" and "bad".

But that is neither here nor there. Fact is: The dog doesnt see the difference between licking your face and licking your hoohah.

Consent (when not in regard to outright physical pain) is a result of social conditioning. Animal's were lucky enough to escape such uselessness.

And yes.. I speak from experience. (I wouldnt have mentioned this but its in the TMI thread somewhere and I didnt want it biting me on the arse sometime later in this discussion. *smirk* Geez.. I'm an experimental girl!)However.. I dont suggest it because most peoples minds would never let them rest after the fact.

People have issues.

The real travesty is trying to project those issues onto perfectly happy animals.

seawitch

05-23-2001, 07:11 PM

I've been following this debate with great interest. I've repeated some of the more intelligent points to friends (giving credit where due, of course, lest the Plagarism Police come after me). Everyone started out feeling quite superior.... except no one could come up with a logical reason it was wrong. Like myself and so many other posters here, it boils down to the "ewww" factor - reasoning that originates in the gut, not in the brain.

It has been interesting, though, to see what the reactions are to the "but it's OK to grind them up, right?" point. Even those who are vegitarians for ethical reasons had to admit that we, as a group, use a wide variety of animal products. Food uses are really only the tip of the iceberg. We are all fairly reluctant to admit that animals are here to be used. (Whether you agree with the ethics of that use or not, it is their current function in our world.)

I think this dose of reality is hard to take because it interferes with our image of ourselves as benevolent and harmless - good, moral people who wouldn't hurt anything. Surely, "Nature red in tooth and claw" doesn't apply to us. We're hairless and frail and above all, kind and ethical. Omnivorous predators? Us?

Once this ugly thought is dragged out into the open, I've seen two differing conclusions.

1. Bestiality is uncomfortable because it underscores our role as the dominant animal, and makes us face the fact that humans ain't so nice after all. Animal shelters and ASPCA aside, we use animals as we see fit. We just try to be nicer to the cute ones. (Ouch, I know.)

2. Bestiality is uncomfortable because it elevates the animal partner to equal status - if your dog makes his consent and affection quite clear, he somehow becomes more than a pet. Now the problem seems to be the reverse of #1 above - it softpedals our role as the dominant animal, and we might have to give up some of our control.

I am finding it highly amusing that most folks want to be dominant, just as long as no one mentions it.

Personally, I have the same "ewww" I started with. I've just been forced to admit that I might only think it's ooky because I was taught to think that.

pepperlandgirl

05-23-2001, 08:39 PM

Maybe it's a matter of power. As a pet owner, you have absolute power over that pet. You can decide if a pet lives or dies. You can decide when it eats, sleeps, shits, and exercises. Now take that relationship and elevate it to a sexual one. It's the ultimate power trip, because short of physically fighting back (In which case, you have the power to kill that animal), a pet cannot stop you. It's not a matter of giving and receiving, or sharing. It's a matter of, "I'm your master, I can force you to do this. If you don't, I can kill you."
That's not healthy.
If you are claiming that animals have the same feelings, needs, etc as humans, then you have the duty to not exploit them. They may have feelings, but they do not have "thoughts". To quote Jimminy Kricket "You are a very special animal, you are a very special being. You can think! You can reason! You can read!" You can also completely control an animal.
I think the zoophilia/pedophilia parrallel is a fair one, because in both cases it's not about consensual sex, it's about power. When one can't force (rape) an adult, one can force (rape) a child. If one won't do that, one could force (rape) an animal. I don't think it's about love, relationships, feelings, or needs. It is about power--who has it and who doesn't.

Dijon Warlock

05-23-2001, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by malkavia
It's entirely possible (And was discussed in a thread awhile back) that children wouldn't be traumatized if their upbringing consisted of an entirely different basis of what's "good" and "bad".Don't know for certain if you were referring to my thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41049) (but I remember you participating over there :)), but that's quite a succint rendition of the issue I was trying to examine.People have issues.

The real travesty is trying to project those issues onto perfectly happy animals.I would agree with this, and also agree with it if you substituted "children" for "animals". Slight bit off topic, but thought I'd pop it in here. It's amazing how similar the arguments surrounding pedophilia and bestiality are, although I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
Originally posted by seawitch:We just try to be nicer to the cute ones. Drew Carey had a bit about this in his routine several years ago. Something about why are we always nice to cute animals in the movies? "Free Willie, my ass....Free Willard! Now *there's* a movie you'll never see made!"

malkavia

05-24-2001, 01:13 PM

[b]Dijon[/b/, yes.. I think it was that thread. And at the time, I was -completely- disgusted with the argument, but after awhile I had to admit, you did have a point.

However, I think that in todays society as it is, there is a HUGE difference between bestiality and pedophilia because, well, children will inevitably run acrossed moral issues sooner or later. Pets will not.

But if you strip away the aspect of society altogether, yes.. you have the same situation. Because well.. then children wouldn't really have many distinguishing marks between animals.

malkavia

05-24-2001, 05:18 PM

I'm getting awfully bold in my old age, no?

*insert Har Har.*

Sorry about that.

Dijon Warlock

05-24-2001, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by malkavia
Dijon, yes.. I think it was that thread. And at the time, I was -completely- disgusted with the argument, but after awhile I had to admit, you did have a point.Well, that in part is why I really tried to get the issue discussed. As a commercial that used to run on local radio pointed out (it talked about death and was an ad for a funeral home, I think), we tend to not talk about things that disturb us, and as a result they don't tend to get dealt with very well.However, I think that in todays society as it is, there is a HUGE difference between bestiality and pedophilia because, well, children will inevitably run acrossed moral issues sooner or later. Pets will not.Very true. Still, a lot of moral issues (when really hammered on, such as has happened in these threads) prove to have not so much a basis in reality as a basis in simply tradition. If that's the only reason for their condemnation (i.e.: society condemns it so it must be wrong and thus worthy of condemnation), maybe it's time for re-evaluation.But if you strip away the aspect of society altogether, yes.. you have the same situation. Because well.. then children wouldn't really have many distinguishing marks between animals. Also true, but I don't believe they would have as many distinguishing marks from adults, either. The lines we draw are in reality much, much blurrier than we'd like to admit.I'm getting awfully bold in my old age, no?:D :D :D You could try shooting for "candor" next time. ;)

ssj_man2k

05-26-2001, 03:09 AM

Some people have been saying that animals don't have conciousness or emotions. Anything living has some form of conciousness, or "waking" state. But not all have emotions. It has been proven (and don't ask me to cite this, cuz i know i'm right, and i'm lazy) that animals such as cats, dogs, horses, apes, dolphins, and anything smart enough to learn a trick has emotions. Heck, apes are smart enough to learn sign language!! My point is, they have basic emotions.

Why do people do bestiality? Because there is something wrong with their mind. Either they have a sickness that can be cured, or they have been tortured and rejected by society, and just need some good ol' fasion lovin'. The thing is, though, bestiality is unnatural. The two participating in the act do not have compatible genes. At least with gay people, they are of the same species.

And, to most people, bestiality is just plain gross. Who wants to see a dog being defiled by some fat old man? Definately not me.

MusicJunkie

05-26-2001, 06:44 AM

ssj_man2k
Here's a nifty sugestion, why don't you actually read a thread before you post in it?
Then again you could come early enough in the thread and be one of the first to be rebutted.

Let's do a recap:

- It's not unnatural, animals do it in nature.( actually I'm not so sure, I think I read it somewhere, but I'll look it up)

- Typing in a computer is unnatural and that doesn't make it wrong.

- You offer no eveidence on why it is done only by sick people.

- The fact you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

PharmBoy

05-26-2001, 08:57 AM

ssj_man2k

05-27-2001, 02:36 AM

I did read the post. And yes, animals do have sex in nature, but do you see a dog and a cat having sex? Bestiality is inter-species sex, which is unnatural.

Have you ever met a normal person who does or enjoys bestiality?

Gaudere

05-27-2001, 03:09 PM

And yes, animals do have sex in nature, but do you see a dog and a cat having sex?The "unnatural" argument is a red herring, as has been noted before. But anyhow, horny male animals will hump almost anything that holds still long enough. A friend of mine lived on a farm, and the male bunnies would hump chickens if given a chance. I don't know now common it is, but I'm aware of at least one instance. Anyhow, how the heck do you think we get mules and hinnies? Horses and donkeys are different species, that's why their offspring is (almost always) sterile.

Have you ever met a normal person who does or enjoys bestiality?Mekhazzio seems quite normal; the only truly "abnormal" thing he exhibits is the bestiality itself, and using that as proof of his abnormality would be a circular argument. So yes, I know an otherwise-normal person who has practiced bestiality.

Even thirty years ago, I don't think there would have been any defenders of such a despicible act.If you wish to support your argument with rational reasons why bestiality is despicable, I'm all ears. I think I've given a good argument as to why bestiality is Not a Good Idea as a general rule, and *also* why it cannot be rationally compared to homosexuality. I personally think it's an icky thing to actually do. However, coming in late to a thread and talking about how despicable something is without giving rational arguments as to why it's despicable does not win many points in my book.

PharmBoy

05-27-2001, 04:41 PM

[/quote]If you wish to support your argument with rational reasons why bestiality is despicable, I'm all ears. I think I've given a good argument as to why bestiality is Not a Good Idea as a general rule, and *also* why it cannot be rationally compared to homosexuality. I personally think it's an icky thing to actually do. However, coming in late to a thread and talking about how despicable something is without giving rational arguments as to why it's despicable does not win many points in my book. [/QUOTE]

What the hell does "coming in late to a thread" mean? Is there some kind of time limit?

When you became a moderator, were you required to leave all brain cells home? The most "rational reason" is that it is a sick and un-natural practice and has been taboo in every major religion since we climbed down from the trees. I guess you think you are being open-minded and tolerant, but if you are going the defend screwing animals as some kind of "lifestyle choice", you've got a few screws loose.

BTW, I don't want any points in your book.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

05-27-2001, 04:47 PM

HELLO!!!!!

Anybody ever heard of Simian Immuno-Defeciency Syndrome?

Why are we debating the attractiveness of hairy beasts that lick their privates, eat their own sh*t, & carry Ghod-Only-Knows what in their bodily fluids?

Has anybody here ever heard the phrase "health risk"???

Gaudere

05-27-2001, 05:08 PM

When you became a moderator, were you required to leave all brain cells home?

[Moderator Hat ON]

Direct personal insults have no place in this forum. If you wish to insult me, do so in the BBQ Pit.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Gaudere

05-27-2001, 05:26 PM

PharmBoy
I guess you think you are being open-minded and tolerant, but if you are going the defend screwing animals as some kind of "lifestyle choice", you've got a few screws loose.See, this is why I mentioned you coming in late to the thread. I suspect you have not read my posts on the subject, which state explictly that I think that bestiality as it is practiced in this society is a Bad Idea.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Why are we debating the attractiveness of hairy beasts that lick their privates, eat their own sh*t, & carry Ghod-Only-Knows what in their bodily fluids?Most of us *aren't* debating the attractiveness of animals. It's not like this is a poll to see whether the posters of GD think Fifi is hot. Almost everybody agrees that the thought of sex with animals causes a strong feeling of revulsion in them. What we *are* doing is debating the moral status of having sex with animals.

Humans also sometimes eat their own shit. Small babies often do, and some adults are sexually aroused by the practice. Many humans would also lick their own privates if it were physically possible, and those for whom it *is* physically possible have been known to do so. As for the possibility of disease, I hope to heck anyone who practices bestiality is also practicing some sort of safe sex. There is a risk, I'm sure, and the practice of bestiality is not one I'd condone *anyway* for the reasons I've given, but I have no idea of the relative safety of sex with humans versus sex with animals. If you have a cite that shows the likelihood of catching a sexual disease from an animal as compared to one's chances of catching same from a human, I'd love to see it. Arguing that people shouldn't have sex with animals since they can catch diseases from it is only a good argument if it is easier to catch diseases from animals or the diseases themselves are more virulent. The prospect of "new" diseases crossing over the species barrier due to sex with animals is not a good one, I agree, but I wish there were some facts as to the liklihood of this happening. Can humans only catch sexual diseases from apes, or can they get them from dogs, chickens, dolphins, etc? I have no idea, and it would be a useful thing to know in this debate. Is the "disease" argument the whole of your moral objection to bestiality, and you would not object to someone having sex with an animal if they used protection and the animal was tested for disease?

Gaudere

05-27-2001, 06:18 PM

Addendum: Bosda, I think your point about the possibility of introducing new diseases is a good one, and I think you or someone else mentioned it before and I don't feel I gave the argument the attention it deserved. It *is* immoral to expose humankind to new, possibly fatal diseases. However, everything we do has some element of risk, and you need to know how great the chance for an undesirable thing happening to determine the morality of an action. For example, there is a chance that when you fly a kite that the kite will crash into a person with enough force to kill them. And when you shoot off a large firecracker and point it towards a group of people, there's a chance you'll kill one of them too. But only the second would I consider immoral, becuase the chance of someone getting hurt was great enough. With the kite example, the chance of hurting someone is so slim I cannot consider it immoral.

Now, you could say to a practicer of bestiality, "Do you really need to get your rocks off so bad that you'll risk transmitting some horrible disease?" But the zoophile might argue that, "well, there's a chance someone will die if you fly a kite, too, so why doesn't everyone give up kite-flying?" So I really wish there was more hard data on the subject; otherwise it's rather hard to convince a zoophile to stop without being able to show that they *are* genuinely putting other people at risk.