Even in this board where I can say that I’m a two-headed half-martian half-black trisexual nymphomaniac ( not that there is anything wrong with it ) without anybody raising an eyebrow ( the few that complain are righteously beaten, defeated, humiliated, ignored, banned, slain, killed or are called unpolite ) any sugestion of sex with animals is treated with disgust.
Why is that?
What if anything is wrong with it?
What if the animal concedes or even wants to do it?
PS. I tried hard to resist but I’ve got to say it so you wont get the wrong idea. I never did it. I know people who do it though.
This is a joke right?
I would say that beastiality is wrong in the same sense that sex with children is wrong. Lack of understanding of what they are getting themselves into. For example, A dog licking your dingie because you have it out does not constitute consent. The dog may be licking it for the same reason he licks your face. (to get the poo off his tongue of course! )
Tengu if you think that an animal like a dog cannot be understood when concenting something you’ve never raised puppies.
But okay, assuming you’re correct what if the animal starts the sexual engagement?
But DDG, the people on this board usually react quite naturally to things forbbiden by the Bible.
Having witnessed (accidentally, of course!!!) several acts of human/animal sex, I can safely say this:
What the heck are those people thinking?
I am pretty openminded, and I guess if you want to get friendly with your dog/goat/wombat/weasel/horse/pig/
cow/whatever, that’s you’re issue to deal with- I have to concur on the “ability for informed consent” deal- but man, I’ll stick with the seven sexes of humans, thank you.
Jees, wouldn’t the smell just knock you out? I have to have a shower before and after and sometimes during sex.
Please, please do not film or post any of this stuff. There’s more than enough wierd on the internet already.
b.
OBTW, this is total hearsay, but I’m told that there is a culture in which it is considered acceptable to have sex with animals as long as one doesn’t eat them afterwards. (wtf???)Anyone have a cite for this?
Because we are conditioned to. From birth, our society and our language system teaches us that human/animal are two binary opposites; that they shouldn’t mix. Like many binary oppositions, one is presented as superior to the other. (Humans as superior to animals)
My second point leads on to my main reasons for being wary of bestiality - because I don’t understand why someone would sleep with a dog (even if it were a very attractive dog) if they could sleep with a human. Which leads me to wonder what is wrong with that person that they would choose a possibly non-consenting animal over a responsive person.
But hey, maybe the dog was just there, and they were just horny …?
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?
On the contrary - if you think they CAN, you fail to understand a rather fundimental aspect of language. They can make their demands known, but nudging your master until they get your food, or the door until you’re let out is a far cry from expressing informed consent to sexual relations.
And to continue the ‘cannot consent’ aspect: Since you’ve used dogs, specifically in your example, dogs are pack animals. They, based upon the observed dominance plays within packs of wild canids, don’t consent to anything. They either lead, or follow the Alpha. If they’re too weak to win a fight with the Alpha, they remain a follower, and do what the Alpha wishes, because that’s the way things are. In a master/pet relationship, the master is the Alpha of the pack. The dog does what the master wants because they HAVE to.
If you did this to a human, it would be considered sexual harrassment, or even, under certain circumstances (If the victim’s a child or mentally handicapped), rape.
‘But they started it!’ is a common defense of the child molestor. The analogy continues validly even further than that. (See above.)
Dude, Tengu, you’ve got to be kidding. I’ve read accounts of gay men getting their dogs to fuck them in the ass. And what kind of meaningful consequences do these animals have to consent to? Due to issues of culture and sociality, you can destroy a human being’s life by having sex with them. Conceivably, forcing yourself on an innocent animal could be seen as cruel (although the Fromesiter’s point about lack of consent in the slaughterhouse was an excellent one), but I don’t think it is impossible to tell when some animals are up for it.
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.
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
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.
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
You owe every straight person on this board an apology.
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.
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:
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.
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?)
)
