I don't think it is mistreating it, in fact many animals may be happier if they're getting regular sex from their owner.... as opposed to the extreme psychological trauma which can happen later in life to victims of pedophilia.
No, no, and again, no. SIV was transferred to humans when tribal Africans started hacking apart and eating great apes. EATING, not fucking.sam04u said:Perfectly.
Also, can't you like spread diseases through this sort of thing? I mean I have heard there is evidence of AIDS being created by a man having sex with an animal.
An animal has to be deprived of sex for it to even consider a human.Enteebee said:I don't think it is mistreating it, in fact many animals may be happier if they're getting regular sex from their owner.... as opposed to the extreme psychological trauma which can happen later in life to victims of pedophilia.
If you remove rape, abuse, STIs, pregnancy, and social stigma then it is not so big a deal.Enteebee said:Pets are allowed to have sex with each other right? Would you allow children to have sex with each other?
SIV? Don't you mean HIV? Or is HIV the transferred version of the virus?Kwayera said:No, no, and again, no. SIV was transferred to humans when tribal Africans started hacking apart and eating great apes. EATING, not fucking.
But even if I accepted this (I don't) people keep pets that don't get to have sex with any other creature, either you should be against this and mandate that owners must make sure their pets can get some sex in their lives or you should happily accept their owners providing for them such relief.sam04u said:An animal has to be deprived of sex for it to even consider a human.
In no way are they happy, or prefer sex with humans. Unless ofcourse through orders, and commands, they're conditioned to. Much in the same way you can train a cat to use a toilet seat to do it's business. Arguing that it prefers a toilet seat is infact completely wrong.
And as such, training an animal through deprivation, to have sex with a human is mistreating the animal.
But they don't necessarily get hurt.Miles Edgeworth said:I agree with this post. Woohooo. This sums up my beliefs except for the weighted statement against homosexuality.
SIV = Simian (primate) Immunodeficiency Virus. It's where we got it from; SIV has "transferred" to humans quite a few times separately, starting around the 1800s. So no, not polio vaccine.sam04u said:SIV? Don't you mean HIV? Or is HIV the transferred version of the virus?
Not exactly sure, but if you've heard the various theories, some have argued that HIV spread through the mass use of faux Polio vaccines by an American scientist, either intentionally or unintentionally.
There are many arguments. But it's also a fact that diseases can be spread through man/beast sexual intercourse.
Second one I disagree, you don't feel a bond with any of your pets?ur_inner_child said:I and others would probably stress these two the most:
- "Animals are not sapient, and therefore unable to consent." (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)[51]
- "Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships with humans."
You're a speciest, but so are the majority who make the same argument as you.Miles Edgeworth said:If anyone is seriously against medical research on animals that saves lives and helps humanity grow as a species then they are an immoral and inhuman bastard that has left all sense by the wayside to succumb to overly emotional tosh.
If we kill a million rats to save one life, then let that life be saved.
Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of 10 women to each man. Wouldnt that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogomous sexual relations - as far as men were concerned?KFunk said:You're a speciest, but so are the majority who make the same argument as you.
Well... for instance you ever seen a dog humping somone's leg? Do you really think they'd be all that bothered if the person started doing more to them? Seems to me they'd like it more than be hurt...A High Way Man said:Why hurt the animals even *more*? Though, I'd be interested in studies detailing the emotional response of animals during interspecies sex.
Dude, are you insane? First of all, the "oh let them have one litter" argument is entirely false, as even that one litter hugely increases the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer. Second, animals don't feel sexual "desire" like we do. They don't pine for it, and they ONLY want it when their hormones demand it. There is no "love" in the equation - not even in sex between monogamously paired animals such as wolves. Desexed animals don't "pine" for sex (especially females) because the act of desexing removes the organs that CREATE the hormones responsible.sam04u said:You mean preventing them from reproduction? That's very different from preventing them from enjoying sexual contact. Even still, it's preferable in my opinion to allow them to enjoy all of lifes pleasures. A female of any species should be allowed to reproduce atleast once.
Fair enough, but that doesn't prevent them from enjoying (as much as they do, I'm not sure exactly) the experience. It's apart of life, and as such they shouldn't be deprived of it.
I agree. Perhaps a great many of the female feral cats should be prevented from reproducing, but not from enjoying (as much as they do) sexual activity.
If a dog humps my leg then aren't I the victim of interspecies rape/sexual assault?. Personally I would find it quite disgusting, but for the record I dont really have a connection with pets of all kinds.Enteebee said:Well... for instance you ever seen a dog humping somone's leg? Do you really think they'd be all that bothered if the person started doing more to them? Seems to me they'd like it more than be hurt...
I don't think the question of consent can exactly be applied to animals. I think it should be looked at more in terms of whether the animal is in pain or not.A High Way Man said:If a dog humps my leg then aren't I the victim of interspecies rape/sexual assault?. Personally I would find it quite disgusting, but for the record I dont really have a connection with pets of all kinds.
How would we know, for sure, if bestiality is consensual?
I'll say I'm against rape of all kinds, ha
Physically? Probably not, as long as the right amount of "preparation" was done (as with any human), and as long as the size proportions are.. acceptable. An animal such as a dog is quite clearly able to defend itself if it felt the need, and in many times, I suppose, that is not the case.Enteebee said:Kwayera, do you think it necessarily hurts an animal to perform a sexual act on it? That seems to be the point of contention and you're without a doubt the most knowledgeable person when it comes to zoology on this forum, so I'd really like to hear your opinion.