You can’t possibly be serious. What’s the problem? Little kids might enjoy your little peanut butter snack too, but … HELLO??? Just because you aren’t physically damaging someone or something doesn’t mean you aren’t abusing it. Animals start out as innocent and trusting as any child. If someone can mistreat an animal, they can mistreat anything or anyone.
I really hope you were just trying to be funny. If not, I hope you don’t have any pets!
It all comes down to what we define as mistreatment or abuse. At one time, masturbation was frowned upon and was deemed ‘self-abuse’. Society chose this label because they could promote THEIR hidden agenda of stamping out masturbation as a fight against so-called ‘abuse’.
And there are ENORMOUS differences between animals and children. If someone did the peanut butter trick to a child, he would eventually catch on, realize that he was being taken advantage of, and feel creaped-out about what happened. A dog could never realize this. They simply don’t have the intellect to figure this out. As far as they are concerned, they are getting a delicious treat. No more, no less.
I don’t own any pets, either.
Well actually I’d say that more than one in eight girls I have “known” end up screaming, “Ooooh, you’re an animal, baby!”.
Ummm. Actually that’s complete crap. Just pretend I never said that. Sorry. Carry on.
-and now for my two cents. I’ve got to say that I agree with Surreal, to a degree. I mean really, if the animal (and presumably the human participant) enjoys itself, how could that be called abuse?
But where do you draw the line in defining the difference between a harmless (even beneficial) past-time and abuse? is masturbating an animal wrong? think about it. Farmers, animal breeders, vetinarians and zoologists have to do it all the time, and you can’t really believe that the animals don’t enjoy it… and is consentual sexual intercourse between a human and an animal any different? Sure, raping an animal would fall under the category of abuse, but how often is this likely to occur with a horny, domesticated animal, especially if it’s male? how can you call a big dog humping a woman abuse? (unless the woman’s not consenting, but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here)
Have you also ever considered that the same people who find bestiality so objectionable (and I’m talking about regular people here, not animal rights advocates) have no problem with the other ways in which animals are abused? Think of livestock. They have no freedom to go where they want or do what they want, and are only kept around for harvesting of their meat and other produce. The only thing the animals gain from this relationship is a dull, short but healthy life. If you put it in terms of a human relationship (which you also have to do in the case of bestiality), how could you not also call this level of exploitation abuse? How is cold-bloodedly raising an animal to maturity and then killing it for food any better than what may or may not be rape?
Whether this means that knocking bestiality means a person is a hypocrite, or merely an ignoramus no doubt varies from case to case.
Back to the main topic of the statistics though, there are several key areas which need to be addressed in order to make sense of the relevant statistics.
True, with a decline in the percentage of the population living in rural areas (at least in wealthy countries) there is likely to be a corresponding decline in bestiality. Remember though, the main reason bestiality occurs in greater frequency in rural areas is because the people there have greater access to animals than their urban counterparts.
Still, you can’t ignore the fact that bestiality occurs in urban population centers too. The only difference is, not everyone can simply walk out to the sheep paddock to satisfy either their curiosity or desire. A person would either have to own a mid to large sized animal (example, a dog) or have easy access to one. Who can say for sure what factors contribute to the rise or decline in popularity of any particular taboo in a society? Certainly, if bestiality were decriminalized and were also no longer a taboo, It’s popularity would increase substantially, and a reliable statistic might be able to be obtained. Of course, unless this ever happens, the statistics will always be unreliable as any kind of true indication of fact. As someone has already brought up, who would admit to something that is both illegal and taboo?
At the present time, there are few if any who could be called an expert on this particular topic, certainly the animal rights groups have no way of knowing the real statistics, and neither would your average person either.
As an experiment, I did a search for ‘bestiality porn’ using Google, and got 200,000 hits. I did the same search for ‘gay porn’ and got 860,000 hits. If you figure this with supply and demand, you could infer that roughly 25% of whatever percentage of the population is gay (a much easier statistic to obtain I imagine) is the percentage of people who are likely to have had sexual contact with animals. Obviously this would have a high margin for error, even if it were any true indication of the real statistics, but it’s the best figure I can offer.
In this case, I can assure you, I am neither. I do not own livestock nor do I engage in sexual activity with animals.
Ignorance is easy to deny, and hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the hypocrite. If you claim to be innocent of either, anyrae, then tell me, what’s your excuse? because intolerance of the unknown sounds like ignorance to me.
You stated in one of your previous posts that you thought bestiality was “animal abuse, and really, really yucky”.
One might also stipulate that exposing you to a point of view you cannot comprehend is abuse of your naiveté, but am I to be labeled the villain for having done so? Abuse is relative to ones perspective, and as you fail to retain objectivity in your analysis of the unknown, the worthlessness of your perspective is made plain to see.
Whatever.
Animals and their emotional lives are not an unknown entity to me. I have a deeper connection to and respect for animals than most other “people” seem to have. So perhaps it is you that is being naive and failing to maintain objectivity, in your perspective. I am coming from the perspective of having a greater understanding of an animal’s capacity to feel, not just physically but also emotionally.
So I should be labeled a hypocrite or ignorant because I understand things that you obviously do not and cannot? O.K. if that makes you feel better about defending such a cruel act, the go for it. I am naive, hypocritical and ignorant–oh yes and intolerant. At least I am not wearing penut butter or having to otherwise trick someone or something into sexually gratifying me.
Objectivity isn’t everything. While witnessing a murder it would surprise me a great deal for almost anyone to view it objectively, and yet I imagine that many of us still would be able to analyze that murder effectively and accurately. If we had to limit our analyses only to subjects about which we had no passion (or even interest), this would be a VERY dull life. For instance, it seems plain that you lost YOUR objectivity to castigate anyrae…
(I must say, by the way, that you made a pretty fair attempt to make anyone who disagrees with your view either a hypocrite or an ignoramus… you must have been the pride of your high school debate team.)
On the other hand, there is at least a third possibility… That someone may view animal husbandry in both the normal sense and in the tittering subtextual sense as immoral.
The point I have not seen raised here is that, like children, animals have no power to consent. That they perform does not imply consent because both animals and children lack the intellectual means to evaluate consequences to properly give consent.
hammerbach-“animals have no power to consent”
You offer them a treat, in this case peanut butter, and they take it. What more ‘consent’ do you need? It is NOT a forced act. It is physically impossible to force an animal to lick something he doesn’t want to.
Animals may not actually say “Why, yes, I’d LOVE some peanut butter”. But you can tell when you see the look in their eyes and their tail wagging that they consent.
The range of behavior considered here exceeds peanut butter licking, but my point still stands: performance does not imply consent from one incapable of consideration. They are happy to eat the peanut butter, but are unable to understand that they are being exploited.
I expect this argument to become moot in the not-so-distant future; here in Maine last year we had a rather embarrassed legislature listen to a man (with his canine “companion”) testify to his love for his dog when a law against bestiality was unintentionally swept from the books along with some obscure and outdated laws. Doubtless, he will someday seek legal marital status for his dog…
If you are correct that they are unable to understand they are being exploited, then how are they harmed.
I suspect you have personal judgement that anyone who does this is a ‘pervent’ and you are intent on seeing that they cannot enjoy canine companionship.
For what it’s worth, I believe that you should have the right to marry outside of your species. Who are you to say what’s ‘normal’ and what’s ‘perverted’. You should allow people to do whatever pleases them so long as they are not harming anyone.
This type of reasoning is what is prevent gays from marrying. It kept inter-racial marriage from happening in the past, and it keeps people from expressing their love for their pets today.
Sorry, my ‘question mark’ key doesn’t seem to be working!
But remember, JUDGE NOT!
Geepers, you’re right! Right and wrong, good and evil, are all irrelevant. Anything you like is fine by me… Honestly, I don’t know how I got so narrow minded. There should never be any standards to stop you doing anything you want to exploit anything you want.
By the way, want to buy a little oceanfront property in Arizona? I’ll give you a great deal…
Actually, I don’t have any control or wish to control what people do in privacy. But I often wonder how such things get to be considered “normal”. Somehow it just doesn’t seem to be “enlightenment” to me.
For good or bad, everyone, including you, makes judgements about others … and don’t kid yourself. If there are folks out there that feel somehow “entitled” to want to marry Dani the submissive Ewe and show Dani some “loving”, go right on ahead. But it would probably be best not to advertise it.
With that in mind, these persons should realize that society at large sets its mores. And if the vast majority of the society thinks the folks bent on “showing their affections” to animal “friends” ought to be locked up and they catch them in the act, guess what is going to happen. The clatter of keys right after the door is slammed shut. Perhaps that is when reality comes rushing in, eh?
Marrage outside of your species??? Are there jewelers that make rings for the cloven (or non-cloven) hoof? It is totally rediculous to even attempt to compare that concept to marriage between inter-racial couples or gay couples. And as far as what is “normal” and who decides, once again it is society at large that decides that.
And how is “harm” defined? If I set up some giant speaker columns outside your residence and blasted music at it 24/7 at sound pressure level great enough to ensure that you’d hear it, but not sustain any hearing damage from it … would that be considered harm? Yeah, sure perhaps you’re not consenting, but because I can’t hear you and I can only see what faces and gesturing you make, perhaps I could be deluded into thinking you’re “happy” and therefore consenting …right?
I don’t doubt that our society at large has a ‘problem’ with inter-species relationships.
At other times throughout history, society has deemed various types of sexual behaviors as ‘abnormal’, ‘evil’, ‘sick’, ‘perverse’, you name it. The list includes…
Pre-marital sex
Oral sex
Sex toys
Bigamy
Masturbation
Anal sex
Bondage
Homosexuality
Inflatable dolls
Incest (even between ADULTS)
Necrophelia
Annalingus
Sadism
Zoophilia
Polygamy
Beastiality
Masochism
And countless more.
Eventually, people will come to realize that these things are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS and that people who do these things are ordinary, everyday folks who are not harming ANYONE.
In any event, this really is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. If you want to debate me, you’ll have to take it to “Great Debates”. But be prepared, you will actually have to provide a REASON <gasp> for why you think something is ‘wrong’.
Can you honestly live that type of lifestyle in this world? The answer is obviously no. You would have to lie, hide and cover up any signs of “interspeicial” sexual relationships. If you didn’t you would face ridicule, rejection and possibly prison.
Is that wrong? I don’t think so, but others might. I think if you are turning to any sexual partnership where one partner has no ability to object, you are in a sexually abusive and sick relationship. Maybe in your opinion it is “your business” and unfair that you have to follow society’s guidelines for conduct. If that is the case you can drop out of society, live as a recluse with your sexually enslaved animals. If you feel that strongly about having sex with animals, then you should devote your life to changing people’s opinions about the issue.
As long as you have to keep it a secret and keep it hidden from the outside world, it will-and rightfully so in my opinion-continue to be wrong in the eyes of society.
You are also wrong about it “not harming ANYONE.” It is harmful to the defenseless animal and anyone who genuinely loves and respects animals and values the role they play in our lives as humans.
Playing devil’s advocate - is having sex with an animal any more abhorrent than slaughtering it for food?
I have to agree with Arnold Winkelried on that one.
I have seen this point of view raised countless times before, in other forums where this topic has come up.
That animals have no power of consent is a fallacy, perpetuated by ignorami and those working under hidden agendas.
Though a dog lacks a human’s intelligence, it possesses both an equatable libido and the capability for love and emotional attachment. A dog may not be able to form complex abstract distinctions, but as I see it, this is a plus - from the dog’s point of view, any consensual sexual relationship will be composed only of sexual attraction and feelings of love, making it superior in many ways to ‘normal’ human relationships, which are invariably fraught with the selfish desires of both participants held in constant flux, which as we all know can end badly.
Intellect is never a necessity in a sexual relationship, and as a relative term, it should be viewed as such. If a dog is only an animal compared to a human because of the relative difference in intelligence, what then shall be the plight of the greatly intelligent? One might stipulate that average humans are only animals compared to me, and thus I am to live my life without love, for the sake of some stupid taboo. I say that if my choice of partners are limited to animals, then I might as well love the animal of my choice.
To answer your statement directly, there is a vast difference between the consequences of exposing adult human sexuality on an animal and a child. For starters, a child is not physically mature and as a consequence may suffer physical harm from penetrative sex, whereas an intact (not neutered) adult animal of sufficient size to accommodate a human, with care, will not. A child has to interact with human society, and can suffer from social stigma and shame associated to the taboo in question, whereas an animal does not, and will not suffer from guilt, regret or other emotional sicknesses. A child may have no power of consent, because it cannot make informed decisions about things which are not yet relevant to its existence, but an adult dog knows everything that is relative to its existence, and probably wouldn’t care what humans besides its master think of it, even if it could understand these concepts, and can hence be considered to be fully informed to the extent which is relevant.
Just as an animal can give consent, so can sexual actions be forced upon a non-consenting animal, as is probably the case with the much stereotyped example of the Sheppard and his sheep. However, a human who forms a genuine emotional attachment and associated sexual attraction to an animal can enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship with said animal, assuming the human knows the animals body language well enough to observe given consent, and the animal recognises the human similarly. This scenario has been given the more appropriate label of Zoophilia.
Quoth anraye:
And I get spam telling me about perpetual motion machines, but that doesn’t make them so. Most likely, if you clicked one of those links, your screen would fill up with content-free windows and crash your browser faster than you could even see what any of them were.
A point to consider, by the way: If animals are incapable of consent, then all animal sex acts would be rape, regardless of whether the other partner is a human or of the animal’s own species. Is it any less morally reprehensible for a dog and a bitch to have sex, than it is for a dog and a woman?