Carnivorousness vs. Bestiality

Great Debates
41

** robertliguori**

Because that’s a strawman and we do care.
We also care if a condemned criminal is going to be executed, that’s why we don’t allow them to be raped as well. There is a world of difference between a death that is as painless and stress free as practical and raping an individual before that death.

DrDeth

Yes, that’s right. All prisoners are also slaves, even in the US. A person clearly only has a right to freedom contingent upon accepting certain responsibilities. Do you believe that the right to freedom should be granted irrespective of responsibility?

No it’s not, sorry. As I already pointed out, animals do not have and can not accept responsibilities and as such they have no inherent rights. The only rights they have is what we grant them. If we choose to grant them the right to a life without being raped then we can. If we choose not to grant them a right to life then we do not need to.

We routinely remove the right to life of mass murderers. We routinely remove the right to not be enslaved of mass murderers. On moral grounds we do not allow them to be raped or otherwise tortured (at least we do not consent to this). If we feel it is necessary to kill or enslave a person or an animal we do so. The same applies to animals. Morally we do not and IMO can not rape or otherwise torture them.

I will answer your question with a question clairobscur. Why do we grant mass murderers one of these “rights” (not being raped) and not another (not being imprisoned)? . Why do we grant the severely retarded one of these “rights” (not being raped) and not another (not being imprisoned)?

For me personally the answer is morality. I would not tolerate state sanctioned rape of prisoners or the mentally deficient any more than state sanctioned rape of animals. It is not morally justifiable no matter what rights the individual has refused to accept or denied to others.

True ** Sam Stone**, but this also applies to not raping women and killing infidels. Does this mean that people only object to rape and stonings because ot the ‘Eww’ factor? I don’t. I object to them on moral grounds.

What is your evidence of this?

I already addressed this ** Joe Random**. Animals can not and will not accept responsibilites by and large. The same is true criminals and even the criminally insane. Why allow criminals to be free from rape, but not free from murder and slave labor?

That isn’t different at all. By applicaton of this definition of consent a twelve year old is able to “give consent” to others of their own species by way of, well, trying to have sex with them. The law doesn’t see it this way.

So why is a 12 year old boy attempting to hit on a human not giving consent? After all, it is the excact same behavior that the animal would use with one of its own species to initiate intercourse.

I assume you are implying that age of consent laws are invalid, ie so long as an individual consents there can be no rape?

So if a farmer decides to get friendly with his 12 year old daughter, and the girl doesn’t try to get away, then it’s not rape, is it? After all, you just stated that female animals go to great lengths to avoid rape, so if she’s not avoiding the farmer, then it can’t be rape, right?

Do you understand the concept of inability to consent? It’s not about whether consent is given, it’s about whether the consent can ever be valid. You seem to be arguing that a mentally competent 15 year old human can never give consent, and yet an 8 month old gerbil can. Is that what you are saying?

No, and you can’t refuse to extrapolate anything.

If you can provide evidence that any animal will mount a human the first time it is given the opportunity I will believe you. Not humping legs, actually mounting. I don’t buy it.

My question is why you are happy to apply this standard to 8 month old gerbils, but not to 14 year old girls.

My point is that 14 year olds can give consent. Not to the same degree as adults, but to the maximum degree of which they’re capable.

If that level of consent is sufficient to allow them to have make out sessions with each other, then why not with grown men?

You don’t seem to be grasping the concept of age of consent and power positions. Most people will tolerate their 13 year old dating and kissing another 13 year old. No sensible parent will tolerate a 25 year old dating and kissing a 25 year old. As others have pointed out the power relationship between a human and an animal is even more extreme than the relationship between 25 year old and a 13 year old, even to the point of being labelled slavery.

Would you allow prison guards to have sex with inmates?

My point is that prisoners can give consent. Not to the same degree as free people, but to the maximum degree of which they’re capable.

If that level of consent is sufficient to allow them to have sex with their spouses during conjugal visits, then why not with prison guards?

I can only assume that you believe that sexual relationships between guards and prisoners, psychiatrists and patients, teachers and students, step parents and children and other relationships with highly skewed power bases is perfectly acceptable.

I don’t. I consider it to be morally wrong. The differential power base is morally acceptable in all those cases. I doubt anyone would disagree with me. Exploiting it for sexual gratification is not. The weaker partner in such an unequal relationship can never validly consent, or perhaps I should say that we can never be even reasonably certain that they have actually consented as opposed to being coerced.

42

Does he leave the grocery store first? Otherwise it’s just icky. :smiley:

Personally SimonX I fail to see the difference between those acts and someone having sex with a pair of leather shoes. Apparently quite a few people do exactly that. Not to mention the people who have sex with arrange of other leather products. Until a few decades ago condoms were frequently made of leather. Then there are the people with gelatine fetishes. Same basic act: having sex with part of a dead animal.

Not my cup of tea, but then neither is homosexuality. What consenting adults do on the privacy of their own kitchens is no one’s business but their own.

43

Blake
If someone wanted to bone a chicken before he de-boned it, would it be okay for him to have sex w/ it if he wrung its neck first?

If not, would it be okay for him to buy a chicken from the grocery store and have his way with it? What about just some boneless, skinless breasts?
and

Contrary to the implications of your post many animals actually fulfill the responsibilities that are placed upon them. They earn a living, provide sustenance for thier families, avoid dangers, contribute to th esocial welfare of their group etc. Most animals are quite capably responsible for their lives and livelyhood.

44

Blake,
Zoophilia is okay as long as you kill the animal first?

45

** SimonX** you are conflating mandatory responsibilty to human society and other responsibilities. A wolf may well fulsill the role of father/mother provider. That does not allow it to serve jury duty, be conscripted in a war, pay taxes and other less well defined responsibilities. Basically those animal responsibilities do not contribute to my society. As such my society does not confer the rights that go along with those resposnibilities.

You do not get rights simply from fulfilling those resposnisibiliies you wish to. You must fulfill them all. Timothy McVeigh fulfilled may responisbilities, including military service. He was enslaved and then executed for failing to fulfil one very important one: don’t assault people without just cause.

Animals fulfil some resposnibilities. They don’t fulfil them all, and indeed can not. As you say, most animals only take responsibility for their own lives and wellbeing, not that of soceity. Simply keeping oneself alive however one sees fit is scarcely abasis from which to derive rights.

Morally, yes. In the US yes it is even legal I assume. No one has ever been charged with having sex with a stuffed bear. No one has ever been charged for ejaculating in a leather shoe.

Why should such acts not be morally sound, so long as they pose no threat to public safety?

Mentally sound is another question, but do you you have any basis for judging such acts immoral/unethical?

46

It just seems odd that necrozoophilia(?) is OK but plain ol’ zoopfhilia is a no-no.

I mean, howd’ya figger?

47

Apples and oranges. You’re comparing the behavior of the juviniles of one species to the adults of another.

Animals that have reached sexual maturity are adults, and can be considered competent to give consent (if you feel that the concept of consent even applies to non-humans).

Because the 12 year old is not an adult.

Nice strawman. However, sex between humans in tangled with emotional and social baggage that does not exist in the rest of the animal kingdom. As far as animals having sex with each other, it makes sense to make the age at which an animal is sexually mature as equal to the age of consent.

You just love your strawmen, don’t you. According to societal norms (and depending on jurisdiction) a 12 year old human is not able to give consent. A full grown sheep, on the other hand, is able to give consent.

You are the one who stated “Animals, at least the females, go to great lengths to avoid being raped”. This would imply that a sexually mature animal which does not try to avoid sexual contact is not being raped.

Pretty much. Humans are bound by our own, odd little system of morals, in which sexual maturity does not automatically allow for consent. That’s probably a good thing, since humans are often not mentally and emotionally developed enough when they reach puberty to give informed consent.

On the other hand, an animal is generally as mentally mature as it’s going to get before it hits puberty, so puberty in non-humans is a natural dividing line at which they can be considered able to give consent.

No what? No, animals that have reached sexual maturity are not adults? Of course they are! And of course I can refuse to extrapolate. You’re not just comparing apples and oranges, you’re comparing apples and bricks.

I mean, how can you justify extrapolating mental damage to juvinile humans into mental damage to adult non-humans? For one thing, the psychology of non-humans is completely different, and for another, juvinile humans are not equipped to have sex, while adult non-humans are.

Replace “children who crawl on the floor” with “naked woman crawling on the floor” and it’s obvious that the male dog’s propensity to mount things would lead to penetration.

And don’t tell me that a dog will mount children, but would somehow avoid mounting a nude adult. Dogs will mount just about anything, and if you put a nude woman in the picture, you end up with intercourse initiated by the dog.

Because 8 month old gerbils are adults, and 14 year old humans are not.

Incorrect. A 14 year old can not give consent to the maximum degree of which they’re capable, because they will be more capable to give consent when they are adults.

However, an 8 month old gerbil can give consent to the maximum degree of which they will ever be capable. Do you see the difference?

Hoo boy, that’s another can of worms altogether. Suffice it to say that they shouldn’t have makeout sessions involving actual sexual contact, but since they are, presumably, at comperable levels of sexual development, any mental or emotional damage is likely to me minimized.

If you wish to further discuss children having sex with adults, I suggest that you start a different thread.

Basically, there comes a point where sexual contact can result in an abuse of power when dealing with humans. Since animals don’t have the same sort of connotations when it comes to sex, then the same safeguards really shouldn’t apply. One should, instead, look at how the animal treats sex, and come up with rules accordingly.

Of course not, but it’s not sex’s fault, it’s all the other baggage that goes along with sex. Baggage that is either different or nonexistant with animals.

I agree with you when only humans are involved. However, relationships between humans and animals works completely differently than relationships between humans. We tend to anthropomorphise way too much when it comes to animals, so few people even consider that things might be completely different from the animal’s point of view.

For instance, you might view a dog as a pet, and you it’s master. However, the dog probably views you as its pack leader, and from the canine point of view, having sex with the pack leader is perfectly normal.

48

Are you saying that you would make it a crime to have a leather fetish? Why? Who does it hurt? What pain does it cause? What business is it of yours if someone gets her jollies from having sex with parts of dead animal? How is a leather fetish immoral?

I tend to work under the assumption that something is moral until it can be demonstrated immoral, rather than the opposite. If something is neither demonstrably immoral nor illegal I figure it’s none of my damn business if don’t have to see it.

49

To those who say that animals can not consent:

Wouldn’t this mean that every time animals have sex, it’s rape? If they can’t give consent, then that’s what it would be, right? And if that’s so, then it really wouldn’t be any different if it’s two dogs going at it, or a dog and a human…?

50

joe random

Comparing the mental processes of a 12 year old human and 1 5 year old gerbil is never going to be perfectly valid since the gerbil will have a lower mental capacity and less capacity for reason. Surely you can’t be arguing that having a lower mental capacity enhances the gerbil’s capacity to consent?

Cite! I do not believe that is true. This seems to be special case pleading which I will get to later.

Why does that makes sense for animals, but can’t be applied to humans? This seems to be special case pleading which I will get to later.

Cite!. Please demonstrate that according to societal norms a full grown sheep is ever able to give consent. This seems like an argument form assertion.

So a sexually mature animal of the species Homo sapiens which does not try to avoid sexual contact is not being raped? Why does this argument apply to animals but not to people? This seems to be special case pleading.

Is that based on any reasoning or facts that yo can produce, or is this simply argument from assertion?

No it is not completely different by any stretch of the imagination. Much of what we know of human psychology has been extrapolated from animals, from Pavloc to Wundt to the leading lights in current comaparative human psychology.

It is somewhat different, but to refuse any extrapolation is special case pleading.

So are you arguing that any adult of any species can give consent irrespective of social conditions or mental capacity?

I do see the difference. I assumed you meant the maximum degree to which they were then capable.
The trouble with this argument is that we need to apply it to the mentally deficient. .By your reasoning a 14 year old with brain damage can give consent to the maximum degree of which they’re capable, because they will not be more capable to give consent when they are adults. SO having sex with a retarded 14 year old is acceptable by this criterion.

It seems that if we are to concede your point that an organism is capable of consent when their ability to provide consent reaches its zenith, we must also concede that the more retarded an individual, the younger they may give consent.

Clearly the maximisation of consent is not a valid yardstick without some lower limit on cognition and intelligence. A limit that no animal ever reaches.

Kissing in this context is sexual contact. You are apparently arguing that no one below the age of 16 should kiss because it is morally wrong. This is not a viewpoint I endorse, nor do many others.

This seems to imply that you believe that t is strictly levels of sexual development that is important That it is not the level of cognitive ability that defines consent.

Is it in your opinion acceptable to have sexual relations with a severely retarded 16 year old, since she has reached the maximum level of sexual develoment?

And as I pointed out this isn’t supported by anything. It is in fact contradicted by the attempts of female animals to avoid rape. It seems animals do have the same connotations.

Basically **joe random[/b[ you seem to be saying that ability to consent is a function of sexual maturity, irrespective of mental ability. If an organism has reached sexual maturity then it can consent irrespective of social conditions or cognitive capacity. I reject this entirely. A severely retarded person can not consent.

You also seem to be utilising the fallacy of special case pleading.

On one hand you say that we can extrapolate animal desires from our observation of their behaviour and comparing that to human behaviour their behaviour. You say that a dog mounting human is clear evidence of consent because a human doing that is consenting. You are arguing that we can assume comparable mental process from comparable behaviours in comparable situations.

Then you say that we can’t extrapolate in reverse. We can’t say that since most sex in unequal relationships is damaging and painful to humans we should assume it is so for animals that behave in the same way. In this case you want to plead that In this case you argue that we can’t assume comparable mental process from comparable behaviours in comparable situations.

You say that we can extrapolate from human behaviour insofar as you accept that since adult human females in the face of aggressive rape try to avoid it. You then go on to say that since “Animals, at least the females, go to great lengths to avoid being raped. This would imply that a sexually mature animal which does not try to avoid sexual contact is not being raped” .

Then you say that we ican’t extrapolate the converse. Insofar as you accept that human females in unhealthy, painful and damaging relationships with unequal power bases often actively participate in and even initiate sexual activity despite the pain and inability to consent. You then go on to say that this would not imply that a sexually mature animal which does not try to avoid sexual contact is not giving concent and not feeling pain.

You say that the age f consent for animals in a human-animal relationship is based on sexual maturity and maximisation of consent potential, but I assume you are arguing that arguing that this is not the case for humans.

This is special case pleading through and through, and is logically invalid. Either we can or we can not extrapolate animal experience and mental state from human conditions in comparable situations. You can not logically construct an argument where we extrapolate animal mental state when it comes to enjoyment of sex, but that the same mental state is not able to be extrapolated when it comes to the negative aspects of sex.

51

** Phoenix Dragon** Do you believe that a 13 year old can not consent? Wouldn’t this mean that every time 13 year olds have sex, it’s rape? If they can’t give consent, then that’s what it would be, right? And if that’s so, then it really wouldn’t be any different if it’s two 13 year olds going at it, or a 14 year old and a 40 year old man…?

52

So what is it about the critter being alive that makes it wrong to know it biblically?

53

Because a living creature can feel pain.

54

So if the animal feels no pain, (eg the dog humping the woman), then it’d be alright?

55

Blake,

An animal’s ability to consent seems a rather nonsensical argument since if they can’t consent to having sex with humans, they can’t consent to having sex with each other. Therefore all animal husbandry is morally wrong. Is it morally wrong to mate asses with horses?

Also, what precisely constitutes sex? If a dog humps my leg, am I morally responsible if I let him keep at it?

And just because this is probably my one chance to post this and have it be relatively on-topic: http://dolphinsex.org

56

You guys are missing the whole point here. The discrepancy is solely the result of concern for public health. After all, how would you know if you were eating an animal which someone had had sex with? If you eat (or have sex with) said animal, you are effectively having sex with every person or animal that the animal in question has ever eaten or had sex with, and all of their former lovers and food, ad infinitum…
…or something like that?

-FK

57

That’s right they can’t consent to having sex with each other. Two 13 year olds can’t consent to having sex with each other either, but they frequently do. Does that make it morally right for you to have sex with 13 year old?

I fail to see the link here. Is it morally wrong for two mentally deficient people to have sex? I don’t believe so. It isn’t desirable any more than any other activity that poses a risk, but it isn’t morally wrong. These people fail to fully grasp what they are doing and the consequences thereof how can that be immoral? The same applies to animals, only moreso.

Why would it be?

If a mentally retarded but physically attractive 21 year old humps your leg, are you morally responsible if you let him/her* keep at it?

I guess that depends on why the hell you would let him/her*, but the answer is probably yes, though the crime would be a lesser one.

(*: Delete whichever is inappropriate depending on gender/sexual preference.)

58

I assume you’re talking about a 13 yr old human being, but I don’t see the connection between humans and animals or why you think this analogy makes sense. Yes they both can’t consent in the way that an adult human being can, so what? We can’t slaughter babies just because they have mental capacity of animals either.

Think about this: Why is it wrong to for adults to have sex with minors who cannot consent? Specifically, what are the consequences of them being unable to consent? Do these standards apply to animals as well?

I was actually of the understanding that this isn’t a crime. A social worker friend of mine tells me that people who are not officially mentally retarded (but barely so) often have relationships with those who are slightly more affected.

59

That’s it errata! You suggested that an inability of entities to consent made any situation which permitted sex between those entities immoral. (“they can’t consent to having sex with each other. Therefore all animal husbandry is morally wrong). I pointed out that such a viewpoint mandates sex between 13 year old humans to be immoral, and therefore does not seem to be logically consistent with my morality, nor that of the majority of people I suspect.

You made an argument of what constitutes immorality, I pointed out the logical consequences of such an argument is inconsistent with our moral attitude towards sex between minors.

What do you mean ‘so what? This is a debate. If I point out an inconsistency in your position that is sufficient in itself. Why does there need to be any further ‘so what?’’

We’ve been through all that. Do you have anything new to add? If not just use the same answers given above.

I did not mean a crime in the legal sense, but rather in the moral/ethical sense. So can you answer the question: If a mentally retarded but physically attractive 21 year old humps your leg, are you morally responsible if you let him/her* keep at it?

What does this tell you about the morality or perceived morality of allowing horses to have sex with each other compared to having sex with donkeys? Would you say a horse is slightly more retarded than a donkey (or vice versa)? How about a grown woman?

60

The Romans had a law that stated that Virgins could not be executed - this was originally used to protect girls younger than marrying age from death by execution.
To get around this, it became part of the executioners duties (especially in the Early Empire, during purges by Caligula, Commodus and Nero) to firstly rape the young girl, then kill her.

My point ? - Laws can be used to justify much greater evils than those they were inacted to prevent.

Law is nothing without common sense.