. . yes. I said that killing and fucking are not equal. I understand where I was confusing. With my statement “sexual gratification != eating to live,” I did not mean to imply that it is required to eat animals in order to survive. But the fact is that having sex with an animal is entirely for personal sexual gratification, whereas people eat animals for food. These two are not equable.
I did not say a thing about the morality of killing animals.
Nor did I say a thing about the relative moralities of killing animals versus screwing them. I merely pointed out that arl’s analogy was a faulty one. DDG:
But she was beggin for it, yer honor!
Aw, c’mon . . . how often am I going to get the chance to plug Stile? Hey, I could cite Missy B, too, if you want.
Actually, wow, that is exactly it but in an entirely different page.
Andros, “,” I did not mean to imply that it is required to eat animals in order to survive. But the fact is that having sex with an animal is entirely for personal sexual gratification, whereas people eat animals for food. These two are not equable." What? Animals derive no pleassure from sex, its all one way eh? New one on me. And since we don’t, as you admitted, need to eat animals to live, then what else besides pleasure would we do that for? You’re confusing me here. How is it morally acceptable to unnecessarily kill and eat animals to relish in their flesh then to let them live and fuck them when they seem willing? Having read many testaments of bestiality I’ve found the people to love their animals very much. It isn’t seen as necessarily comparable to a human-human relationship, but all the sexual issues addressed clearly related how animals might not want to have sex but will submit anyway and how to tell the warning signs.
Abuse is not implied in this case, and it definitely isn’t the majority opintion of bestiality proponents.
Why not? You haven’t provided an argument as to why they are not. You’re just saying, “They aren’t.” I have pointed out reasons why they are equatable. Having sex with an animal is entirely for personal sexual gratification, whereas people eat animals entirely for personal taste bud and stomach gratification. It’s just substituting one pleasurable sensation for another, and I don’t see why that one particular variation in motive renders the two activities incomparable. It’s quite a good analogy, actually, and if you think it isn’t, provide a reason besides, “It isn’t.” Or refute my reasons. I don’t care. Just say something of substance, one way or another.
There is no law against wringing a chicken’s neck just to watch it dance around with it’s head dragging on the ground and that’s pretty cruel, if you ask me.
Which state is this in, Biggirl? I thought at least most places have some kind of law against senseless cruelty to animals.
Sorry all, I was away for the weekend. Tzel, ARL, I guess I’m still not sure where you’re getting the idea that I’m making a moral judgement on eating meat. Maybe this will help: I look at the difference between killing for food and fucking for sexual pleasure to be similar to the difference between murder and torture. Are they both wrong? Yes. Are they equally wrong? I don’t know, but it’s irrelevant. Are they the same thing? No, no, and again no. Perhaps they are equally morally wrong, perhaps not, but they are, IMO, two different things, and must perforce be dealt with separately. Thus, murder != torture, even though they are both wrong.
“Ah,” you say, “fucking my dog isn’t the same as torture!” Maybe your dog enjoys it (though I continue to argue that unless he can speak or write english we can never know for sure), but I suspect that the chicken doesn’t get much out of it. Or the lamb, or, for that matter, the lhasa apso.
I’m sorry, but it strikes me that hurting another creature for pleasure is wrong. Whether or not other things are also wrong is irrelevant.
I don’t think it is irrelevent at all. The majority of people in this country do not accept your position that killing an animal for food is wrong. The majority do accept the idea that bestiality is wrong. There is a serious question as to how, if possible, those two positions can be reconciled.
The subtext to this issue is that much of the historical opposition to bestiality is likely religious in nature. In our society many people have rejected this type of objection to the actions of other people. This prompts the question regarding bestiality.
My limit of understanding another life form is not matched by their ability to speak english. But I don’t think you strictly meant that we can “never” know, just that there are times where we could very well be mistaken.
Clearly, however, I think most people have had a dog hump their leg. Allow me to pose: how could something like this could be misunderstood? I’ve seen female cats in heat, pushing their parts way up in the air, saying “God just MOUNT ME.” I don’t think we’d be doing them a diservice to play a little if one were so inclined.
Of course, I don’t know where one would find a cat large enough though there are large enough dogs for such a feat. As well, I don’t know that women can successfully mate with male dogs, but what the hell, if you want to why not try it?
Most species are ready to do it quite a bit. It is not really uncommon to see one male dog trying to hump another, as well. To quote Cecil, “Animals always do it for fun.”
The food issue is still relevant to me: we’ve already decided we own them, now its just a matter of why we pretend we don’t.
I suspect I’m going to regret getting into this, but from what I understand from my vet, animal behaviorists, and dog trainers, ‘humping’ by a dog frequently is very misunderstood. It can be sexual (as when it’s a male dog and a bitch in heat) but when it’s a a dog humping something that’s not a bitch, it’s a signal of dominance. Male dogs hump each other, but without penetration, to exert and indicate their dominance/submission. If your dog starts humping your leg, it means he’s trying to dominate you - in terms of pack psychology, he thinks he’s more important than you are. It has nothing to do with how sexually attractive he thinks you are.
What really would be wrong with sex with a dead animal? Sure, I mean it REALLY can’t consent, but then it isn’t alive either so who cares?
Uhh.
Of course, there is the matter of freshness as I’m sure a mortician or two could contest to. I had the “opportunity” to service an intercom system at the County Coroner’s office when I leved in Cleveland area…or should I say, I had the “opportunity” to be there when they were getting ready to transfer a dead body.
It stinks.
But if that’s your thing I see it as fundamentally equal to doing it with a stuffed animal, using sheepskin condoms, and so on.
But god, the stink. And whatever bacteria now get to flourish with impunity. Really, though, as a hijack I think we should quit with the whole grave business and allow cannibalism after death. The meat probably wouldn’t be as good as say, fresh veal, but I’m sure it would make a decent sausage if combined with a little pork and choice spices.
Felice, hmmm, that might be, but my last dog surely wasn’t the dominant type over me. That poor little guy was the typical cartoon dog, always hanging his head and just barely peeking up at you. I don’t know why he did that, either, because I never hurt the cutie. He still humped me from time to time…maybe trying to regain the control he thought he should have?
As well the whole dolphin thing I brought up earlier…I mean, look at what we do with these things. We make them jump through hoops, stay in smallish pools. Other animals at zoos, too, though they are treated nice enough aren’t exactly in the best of environments. It is very clear to me that on a rather large scale we clearly own and assert our ownership of animals. We eat them. We wear them. We lock them up, we shoot them. We take their homes to put ours up. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just love them??? Or should we get along but not THAT well? I mean, at least pregnancy isn’t a concern.
[sub]sometimes I am just TOO liberal[/sub]
Felice: Sure, that’s what they say, and in some contexts, that may be the case, but, like aynrandlover, I have had my dog hump my leg quite often, and she is definitely not the dominant type. It’s just unsettling for many to think that an animal wants to fuck them, so no vet, behaviorist, or trainer is going to say to their soccer mom customer (not sayin’ you’re a soccer mom, but that’s one group of people that these professions will deal with), “Yeah, your dog wants to jump your bones,” but in some cases, that just might be the case.
andros, if I’m reading your post correctly, you seem to be (indirectly) agreeing that you think eating animals is wrong? Am I correct? Well if this is the case, then you have salvaged your argument against bestiality, on at least one level.
You see, if your original line of reasoning applies equally well to both activities, as I hold that it does, then it would be expected that you apply the logic to that activity as well. If not, there are essentially two possibilities. You would either have to believe that the reasoning is invalid, which would invalidate your argument against bestiality as well. Or else you would have to believe that the logic is somehow incompatible with meat eating, in which case there would have to be some reason for this difference. Otherwise, we would have to conclude the first possibility, in which case, you wouldn’t even accept the argument that you put forth, which would seem to weaken it somewhat.
Well, humping can actually indicate a number of different things in dogs…I mentioned dominance up front because that’s what it usually means when MY dog tries it. (But he’s got dominance issues anyway.) A ten-second google search turns up a zillion pages discussing the non-sexual implications of canine humping: try this one for instance: http://www.wagntrain.com/BodyLanguage.htm
My only point is that just because a dog is humping doesn’t mean he’s sexually excited.
Also, on a somewhat different tangent: I believe that those human women who prefer their dog to human partners do not usually engage in intercourse with the canines. How to put this delicately? Well, a dog has a much more …flexible… tongue.
You have NO idea how much I wondered about that tongue thing. It just seems so…obvious? I don’t know. I am always suspicious of single women and dogs. Especially the dogs who are so eager to go crotch smelling? You know the ones!! Where’d they get their training, eh?
But that cold little nose, hahaha. Not being a girl it just wouldn’t be the same (peanut butter or no ;)).
But still, I was talking about mutual sexual pleasure for both owner and beast.
My state has very different rules for “farm animals” and “pets”. It is quite all right to wring a chicken’s neck, but not quite all right to have sex with it. My point was that these rules are not to safeguard the animals, but to stop behavior that is deemed, well, icky.
Our species treats other species any way we damn well please. If it wasn’t for the social taboo against bestiality there would be no laws against it.
And that’s reason enough to think that animals can’t consent. It’s like trying to fuck a drugged-up girl who doesn’t speak English… did she just say, “OK,” or did she mutter something else? If you can’t be sure, then that can’t be consent.
I know Dan Savage did an article on this… you can search the arcives of http://www.theonion.com because I’m too lazy to do it. And for the record, a dog might have a larger tongue, but I think this is one case where the old adage, “It’s not the size that counts, it’s how you use it” REALLY applies.
I knew someone who trained her dog to eat her out. She talked one of my friends into giving it a try. She would spread peanut butter on the region and the dog would lick it off.
Aw, c’mon . . . how often am I going to get the chance to plug Stile? Hey, I could cite Missy B, too, if you want.
I mean, at least pregnancy isn’t a concern.