Why is it perfectly legal to butcher and eat an animal, yet we have laws against having sex with an animal? Even most libertarians would argue against bestiality, on the grounds that an animal is incapable of giving informed consent; but what animal gives informed consent to being slaughtered?
No, I’m not a member of PETA, and yes, I do eat meat. I’m just wondering about this apparent hypocrisy in our culture. You’re allowed to kill and eat an animal, so long as you don’t “abuse” it, but you’re definitely not allowed to have sex with it, even if the animal might actually enjoy it. Does bestiality somehow violate the “rights” of the animal, yet killing it and eating it do not?
Killing and eating an animal is an ancient and functional human custom, having sex with/“raping” an animal is not. Morals are founded on custom.
I guess some would characterise it as abusing an animal for your pleasure versus following natural order of taking a life to extend your own(ie for survival).
I’ve always found bestiality to be an odd topic. Personally, I think if the animal isn’t abused, and is willing, there shouldn’t be a problem with it. Some would say that animals can’t ‘consent’ in that sense, but there are some where it’s pretty clear what they have in mind (Think of a dog humping someone’s leg. They aren’t mistaking those jeans for another dog…).
I can see three reasons as to why people would think it should be outlawed:
Health issues. As mentioned before, it’s possible to get diseases from doing it. Then again, it’s probably easier to get diseases from having sex with other humans. I think this one is pretty weak, personally.
Animal rights. There’s the common talk about the animal not being able to consent, which I already addressed above. Obviously, I think the abuse of the animal for this purpose should remain illegal, but I don’t think sex is always abuse, like some.
Public morality. This one seems particularly bad to me. “Public morality” is the reason behind a lot of the stupid laws on the books, especially sexual ones (Such as making certain sexual possitions illegal, or the recently-overturned laws against homosexual sex). Considering the extremely small portion of the population it would affect, I don’t think it’s going to cause problems scrapping it.
I’m sure there’s probably more, but I can’t remember any off the top of my head.
Well, for starters, killing an animal for meat is usually done as humanely and efficiently as possible-well, hopefully.
On the other hand, we have laws against torture of animals. As for diseases, uh, I hate to say this, but didn’t AIDS develop because of some people uh…having relations with um…lower primates?
[Dr. Ruth] If you’re going to have sex with an animal, use a condom! [/DR]
Specifically, it’s new diseases I’m worried about. There seems to be a large and dangerous supply of unknown organisms out there. IANA microbiologist, however.
I don’t really see why the two are comparable in the first place. Why might killing an animal logically make having sex with them ok?
Bottom line, I’d say, is that historically, people have usually needed to eat animals to survive. (I’m a vegetarian myself, but I hope my point makes sense.) Having sex with them has never been necessary and is not for any reason.
There’s a remarkably large amount of human behavior that is not necessary. In fact, pretty much everything other than eating, drinking, sleeping, and reproducing.
I’ve seen some sexy E.T.s in my day, (think Star Trek, not Necronomicon), and if I decided that I’d like to engage in sexual activities with one of them, that’d be our business. Maybe I’d get more than just a dry hump of a pants leg like what Rover gets.
Yes, we do unnecessary things. I don’t really see the connection, since the question is “why not have sex with animals if we can eat them?”
I might also add that killing animals in a humane manner has become something of a cultural value for people (going back at least as far as the kosher rules in Judaism). Having sex with animals strikes me, and I think most people, as very inhumane.
It’s not part of the social contract we have with animals. IT’s not something that goes on. Animals may hump each other for social reasons (usually not friendly) but a panther doesn’t rape a deer.
It’s normal for creatures of one species to eat creatures of another. You might be able to get a panther to attempt sex with a deer by raising a panther from kittenhood with deer, but that’s not normal.
Only the human imagination could come up with something like this.
Let me emphasize that I do not seek out bestiality porn. That said: With the Internet being what it is, I have stumbled upon animal porn while looking for . . . cough . . . more normal material, and it always seems to be a male canine mounting a female human.
So obviously consent is not a problem, considering that the dog is actively going at it. And if there were really a basic physical incompatibility, then stuff like that wouldn’t be possible in the first place.
What social contract? The status quo is not a social contract.
Judging by the stuff I’ve come across on the 'Net, it does go on, and sometimes someone even films it.
Who said anything about rape?
It’s normal for creatures of one species to rip open the belly of creatures of another species and begin consuming them while they’re still alive. It’s normal for some creatures to eat their own young. Just because something is common in nature doesn’t mean it’s “good” or “right” for us humans. Likewise, it’s not normal for animals to construct machines to fly with. Does that mean we shouldn’t build airplanes?
Only the human imagination could come up with things like computers, too. Does that makes computers somehow wrong?
Also, I seem to recall that dolphins often attempt to have sexual contact with divers (usually in captivity), so I guess it’s not only human imagination that can come up with this kind of stuff after all.
What about when the animal is the one doing all the work, as in the cliché bestiality porn with a dog humping a woman ahemdoggy style? It seems obvious that the animal has given consent in that case.