God dammit they don’t even have boobs!
But, I saw a documentary a few years back on More Four, about bestiality, which featured an elderly farmer who has sex with his donkey.
His defence was that the donkey was consenting, since it was large enough to hurt him if it objected - logic which, assuming it is not hobbled ‘during’, I cannot fault.
There are loads of large animals: horses, cows, large dogs, that could inflict massive pain on anyone trying to have sex with them against their will.
So obviously he wasn’t hurting the animal if it just accepted his ministrations.
It probably didn’t even notice.
So, he could kill it, eat it, hunt it, but not have sex with it.
Any thoughts?
I’m against it on ick grounds, but those kinds of arguements don’t carry much weight in the Dope.
I think bestiality, like any form of animal cruelty, is not so much wrong as a place where society has to draw a line. It’s a tough line to draw. We eat them without the animal’s consent, so why should we need their consent for anything else up to and including sex or torture?
The only rationale I can figure is that since some animals seem very human-like, we’re prohibiting the act of hurting human-like beings (because they include us). I suppose that’s why they call it being ‘inhumane’ to animals.
So is sexual congress with animals inhumane? It’s disgusting, for certain, but for large animals probably not painful. Barely noticeable, even. Is it like rape? Animals really have no sense of sexual agency, identity, or autonomy, so probably not. So I’d say bestiality ought only be illegal when it causes the animal torment. In the farmer’s case I’d accept the reasoning that a large animal could avoid contact if it was experiencing torment.
That said, I don’t think it ought to be illegal so long as the animal is either 1. Willing, in the case of male animal/ human female; or 2. large enough to either not care/ notice or move away, thus giving some sort of passive consent in the case of human male/ female animal. What is unacceptable is forcible contact that harms the animal or restraints that do not allow for a “choice” to decline that contact. That falls into abuse as far as I’m concerned.
Ick grounds pretty much define the arguments against same sex marriage. Some posters can stretch those quite a ways.
As to the OP, I would say it’s pretty gross, but I can’t really see the government needing to get involved if there isn’t cruelty (like a dude fucking a chicken to death).
A horse isn’t degraded or dehumanized by getting fucked. It’s probably fairly unimpressed.
I’ve no moral qualm with bestiality. We kill animals for food, stuff and fun, who ride on their back, we have them pulling chariots or moving heavy stuff, we made them jump in circles of fire or juggle with balls, and so on. So, why not fuck them too? I hardly see how it is somehow more cruel than any of those other uses we have for them.
IMO, the general ban on bestiality is purely based on the ick factor.
Here is an argument that not all bestiality need be abusive, from Peter Singer, whose book *Animal Liberation * heavily influenced the animal liberation movement: nerve.com®
A description of some of the responses: Shag the Dog
And Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and President has been quoted as saying:
If it’s between Billy Bob raping Mary Sue or diddling a sheep, I’d rather he go for the sheep. Overall though, while I’d rationally argue that bestiality is minimally acceptable, it’s not a topic that I feel like putting any effort into arguing. If it’s illegal, I don’t see it as having a great effect on anything.
(When bestiality is illegal, only criminals screw the pigs.)
I don’t regard it as automatically wrong in an ethical way; the consent argument is flawed because animals can’t consent to anything at all by human standards, including sex with each other. I do think it’s a bad idea because it’s a good way to introduce new and interesting diseases into the human population. Well, unless you cook the animal before having sex with it.
You do realize that people make the same argument against homosexuals, interracial couples, and all sorts of other things right? I personally find abortion protesters holding disgusting signs and making their children do so as ick as beastiality. Does that mean I get to revoke their right to free speech? I realize that the comparison is flawed here.
Bestiality is icky to me for a lot of reasons, but in my mind the main reason bestiality is immoral is because animals don’t have the standing to consent to a sexual relationship with a human being. I believe there’s something morally wrong with humans having sex with creatures of lesser intelligence or sentience. If this alien species is at least of comparable intelligence to humans, and we’re talking about consensual relations between two adult members of the species (or whatever the aliens’ equivalent to “adulthood” is, in the sense of fully developed mental faculties), then I don’t have any moral objection.
If they look like sheep or dogs or whatever, then there’s certainly an “ick factor” for me, but that’s not the same as a moral objection. In fact I feel strongly that people have a right to engage in sexual relationships that I may personally find icky.
Ask the same questions about bestiality with un-domesticated animals and I think most would agree that you could not get past the animal defending itself violently. So, what makes it different for domesticated animals? That they don’t object? Of course they don’t - they’re domesticated!
This is the key objection for me. Just as in human law, the unequal power element is very germain to discussions of rape (it’s about power), and sexual harassment (he’s my boss/teacher/uncle, I didn’t want to get fired/flunked/he threatened me). Domesticated animals may not have cognition of it but it is inherent in the structure that the human has ultimate power over the animal. Think of the slave owner who thought of their slaves as domesticate animals, was it OK for them to have sex with their slaves as long as the slave “didn’t object”?
Sapience makes all the difference Icarus. As far as we can tell an animal is totally and completely incapable of making such a decision. However they can show displeasure with a situation through body language, moving away, biting, kicking etc…
Actually, I don’t think your comparison is particularly flawed. IMHO, the ick factor is never sufficient as a sole reason to ban something. Banning something must be based on demonstrable harm to others. To others, not just the perpetrator.
Reminds me of the old joke where a male mouse is screwing a female elephant and she doesn’t even notice. At some point the elephant is stung by a bee and lets out a loud bellow. At which point the mouse says “yeah…take it ALL bitch!”…
As for the ick factor…IMO anything regarding sex besides maybe the exchange of Valentines gifts is icky when you get right down to it.
Yes, it’s always wrong. Society wouldn’t and shouldn’t allow something like for example, two women giving a pig a hand job 'til he ejaculates. Much less the filming of it. Certainly it wouldn’t be broadcast nationwide on television.
Link may or may not be safe for work, it’s hard to say. On the one hand it is two women giving a pig a hand job, on the other hand it’s been broadcast on basic cable in the middle of the afternoon: The Daily Show, May 18, 2000: Swine Song.
No, because the slave really did object. As I see it, consent in the human meaning of the word is simply a nonissue with most or all animals; they simply don’t have the mental equipment for it. To consent, or to not consent. They enjoy things, or they don’t, or they are indifferent; but they lack the self image and conscious purposes that make consent in the human sense meaningful.
And as an aside, if we take the “animals can’t consent therefore bestiality is immoral” line of thought seriously, a direct implication is that if a dog humps your leg you are sexually assaulting him. After all, he can’t consent so the fact that he wants to do that is irrelevant.
