I’m all for beastiality if it keeps the pervs away from humans. If you have sex with animals, you’re missing that moral compass that is characteristic of all serial killers, and I’d much rather have them abusing animals than kidnapping children.
humans4life
A classic argument- It’s cruel to have sex with animals, but acceptable to kill and eat them?
I think animals can show their lack of consent just fine. Dogs growl, snap, attempt to move away etc when you do something they don’t like. I assume horses do similar things.
I agree that bestiality is illegal just because of the ick factor.
Is the sheep cute?
Wouldn’t want an ugly one.
Indeed. If you follow the elaborate construction of social standards for “consent” farther down the train of thought, it becomes ridiculous even for human interaction. Saying that a pair of horny teenagers who are happily going at it are capable of consent one day, but weren’t the day before, is nothing but a convenient legal fiction.
For that matter, the entire fuss about educated consent is assuming there’s some innate property of the act of sex that necessarily makes it a long-term commitment. That argument only holds water when a child might come out of the act. Once a barrier to procreation is in place, be it contraceptives or a species divide, sex really is just sex and the “educated” part of consent ought to disappear entirely.
I doubt that. Most people already let dogs lick their faces and hands, feed them from their hands, clean up their urine and feces etc. If the dog has a zoonotic illness, chances are you’ve already got it too.
And if it is just a gateway for human rape?
Don’t most serial killers start with hurting animals and when they no longer find satisfaction htere they move on to humans?
but mostly ick!
IOW, in the case of the slave (and the minor, the employee, the student, etc.) : submission is not equal to consent.
I agree, animals can suffer pain and distress, but are not themselves moral actors. The “immorality” of bestiality would not be based on it being lesive to to the animal’s dignity, but on a notion that sex may only legitimately happen between moral equals and thus the human is acting wrongly (which may be just a fancy expression of an ancestral legacy of a species mating only with its likes). I can’t get too worked up about it, really.
Dogs aren’t the only animal around.
I see bestiality as a bit like pedophilia. To be discouraged as it annoys the object of “affection.”
But I think there’s also a philosophical argument to be made that bestiality is using a living thing for a kind of masturbation, & is thus symptomatic of an selfish sexuality.
Preach it brother!
damn, I probably shouldn’t have said that
I agree with everyone else, ie: “Ick… shouldn’t be illegal”
But there are positive effects too!
For example, the Swedish minister of Agriculture talking about it in the parliament.
When he said “Let me give you a few examples…”
That just has to have been the most awkward moment in the parliaments history.
(The clip is in Swedish, sorry)
Franckly, I don’t see the difference. We kill both domesticated sheeps and wild lions, so I’ve no moral issue with people fucking either (and want to watch the movie in the second case)
But why should the unequal power element matter for sex when it doesn’t for other things?
Having slaves work in fields was wrong, even if they didn’t object, but we don’t think having oxes working in fields is immoral.
The problem here is that you make a special case for sex that doesn’t apply to anything else we do to animals or have animals do.
Well, gross, no doubt about it.
However, a male dog mounting a female human seems to have consented about as clearly as possible, no? Obviously it’s a bit different if it’s a male human penetrating an animal (either female or male); however, given the size of the animal they may not even notice, as has been mentioned.
So, from that point of view I guess it’s fine, but really gross.
Could you please explain what moral code or religious precepts that position derives from, or is even consistent with? Thanks.
Damn.
As utterly repugnant as I find this discussion, and as difficult a time I will ever have interacting with the pro-bestiality folks in this thread going forward, I must say you have a point there.
That said, it’s naive to say that bestiality is not animal cruelty in a vast majority of cases. Though a running theme here has been that most large mammalian vaginas are simply inured to their invasion by puny human phalli, perhaps the most cited news item in Dope history emphatically argues otherwise. There was a similar story out of Indianapolis a few years ago about several men who had sex with a goat; I can’t find it right now, but I understand the goat required serious medical attention.
It’s wrong, people. It’s just wrong.
This link goes into a bit more detail about the negative consequences for the unluckiest horse in South Carolina: HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost
Sure- and it’s one that is pretty much despised here on the Dope, which is why a lot of Dopers can’t raise a real moral objection to “consensual bestiality”- the ban on “Abominations” in the Bible (OT & NT)- the very term “Abomination”, and the Hebrew & Greek corellaries, pretty much means “It’s ICKY!!!”
I’m convinced that if we didn’t have a lot of Dopers who were sexually abused as children, there’d be a lot more SDMB pussyfooting about the wrongness of active pedophilia also. We already have a vocal minority who ho-hum about adult consensual incest.
Could you give us an English translation of what he said?
Indeed. As **Der **mentioned, the animal reacts as it will to pleasant or unpleasant stimuli. There is no moral dignity to violate (which is a constituent element of the censure against pedophilia, slavery or sex with the impaired: in those cases a human’s normal capacity to be a moral agent is incomplete, denied or diminished even if conceivably physically “pleased”)
As animal cruelty, whereby in our society we believe that we may exploit animals for work, food, research, etc., but we’re expected to do so without inflicting wanton or neglectful pain or distress – it has nothing to do with consent.
And also there’s the case of a so-called "zoophile"who PREFERS sex with animals and convinces him/herself that it’s somehow “love”: there you have a major behavioral deviation.
But as a “malum per se” independent of circumstance? That’s merely the “Ick” factor IMO
Yikes - I hope you don’t think I’m pro-bestiality - blargh!!!
And I agree emphatically - if an animal is physically injured either by a stick, or a hand or a penis or being drop kicked off a balcony, the perpetrator is a douche-bag of the highest order.
And the ‘but we kill them and eat them’ argument is dumb. I, personally, am a vegetarian; however, even for meat eaters out there - fast, safe, humane ways to slaughter animals for food is big business. I work at a vet school and when we have Temple Grandin visit it’s standing room only (for those who don’t know, she’s one of the primary authorities on humane animal handling in the food industry).
Purposefully going out of your way to hurt an animal just makes you an asshole (and yes, having sex with an animal that’s a size where your wang is going to rend it in half is purposefully hurting it.)