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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Don’t know for certain if you were referring to my thread (but I remember you participating over there :)), but that’s quite a succint rendition of the issue I was trying to examine.
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:
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!”
**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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Z, I was going to say the same thing, but you’ve said it much better.
This thread is a perfect example of how far we’ve slid down the moral slope. Even thirty years ago, I don’t think there would have been any defenders of such a despicible act.
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?
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.
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.
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]
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.
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”???
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
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?
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.
hey mekhazzio you said somthing about drawing naughty pictures of dragons, and that sounds intriguing.
where do you put those up, if at all? your homepage is an invalid link.
