MedVision ad

Bestiality in Australia (1 Viewer)

A High Way Man

all ova da world
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
1,605
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
But don't bestialists equate a sexual relationship with an animal to one with a human? It's counter-intuitive not to apply the concept of consent.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
A High Way Man said:
But don't bestialists equate a sexual relationship with an animal to one with a human? It's counter-intuitive not to apply the concept of consent.
You're assuming that they have the mens rea for rape? Well I don't think so, even when they do have sex with an animal I imagine they probably think of it as having the same cognitive abilities as they do.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
A High Way Man said:
How would we know, for sure, if bestiality is consensual?

I'll say I'm against rape of all kinds, ha
The reason consent is necessary in human relations, is because sex without consent is always harmfull to a person.

The dog obviously can't give consent ever, but does this mean the sex is harmfull?
I'm pretty sure most animals would love it.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The gubbament makes me register my relationship with my labrador as if it's a common car. It's like we're second class citizens.
One day I hope that people will get out of the dark ages and acknowledge the deep and personal connection we share. My dog and I love eachother. I just hope than one day folks will call this a marriage and not a registration
 
T

Troy2287

Guest
Enteebee said:
Animals aren't able to consent to heaps of shit we do to them, should that also stop?

The fact that they're incapable of forming relations shouldn't matter either because let's be honest, heaps of people go into sex not looking for any sort of relationship... for instance people going to a prostitute, should prostitution be banned?[/quote]

I thought prostitution was already illegal..
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Iron said:
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?
It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
KFunk said:
It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
And animals will have to be bred and
slaughtered
right?
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
KFunk said:
It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
Not to mention that monogamy is not necessarily the default setting for human beings. For both males and females, outward monogamy is the default setting only because we necessarily have to invest a huge amount of time into our offspring; thus female ovulation is hidden. However, that doesn't stop a solid ~10% of the population of either gender from being promiscuous; there are large genetic advantages to it, and the cost/benefit ratio is quite low if you don't get caught.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Kwayera said:
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.

And, ah, condom?
I already explained that a condom does not neccessarily negate the general unhygienicness of the act of engaging in intercourse with an animal of a different species. Moreso, it's not as if a dog in the sexual stupor which comes from weeks of deprivation is particularly willing to allow it's owner to place a condom over it's penis, and then patiently ensure it's on for the whole duration.

At the point at which a human would suffice for an animal is a point of extreme sexual tension and deprivation to the point of cruelty. And for what reason? A few seconds of sexual gratification for the owner? That's highly immoral.

Also, the polio vaccine theory has generally been debunked by the scientific community, I just threw that in there for diversity of arguments, or theories. We don't know for sure either way how that epidemic was transfered via one species to another, and is now so widely prevalent in sub-saharan Africa.

And finally, I'm sorry, letting your pet go to a dog park and "do what comes naturally" is extraordinarily irresponsible. My desexed female was essentially "raped" (i.e. forced by a larger, entire male dog) until we pulled the dog off. So to make that argument shows your extreme ignorance and lack of foresight.
So you support bestiality, but not two dogs having sex? And you're calling me insane. Please, do society a favour and end yourself.

I do not believe it necessarily hurts the animal to perform sexual acts on it, except in the case of desexed females that generally lack the capacity to become aroused.
The conditioning or preparation as you call it involves sustained sexual deprivation. An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species. Concede that fact.
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Enteebee said:
I'm a speciest, I think anyone who claims not to be is a liar. The question is really how much right we afford to animals in recognising their merits as fellow creatures.
Yeah, I'm sure we're all speciest. However, the question of whether we ought to be is still pertinent. We have rejected plenty of social norms in the past - why not another? Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.

Kill the iconophiles.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Originally Posted by Iron said:
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?
That's an excellent idea Doctor.
 

A High Way Man

all ova da world
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
1,605
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
sam04u said:
An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species.
Needs to be investigated. I'd be very disappointed in animals if the opposite was true.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
KFunk said:
Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.
Agreed

edit: Actually maybe.
 
Last edited:

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
KFunk said:
Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.

Kill the iconophiles.
News to me old boy!
How does that square up with doing medicine?
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Miles Edgeworth said:
The really irritating thing is I understand the flaws in my own argument and I understand the 'specious' (excuse my mild pun) reasoning behind it; however it isn't cruelty for cruelty's sake. Animal testing has had an impact in over 80% of medical developments over the past 100 years.

It's more of a utilitarian argument made on the level of cognisance and sentience in other beings (Something we however, cannot validly quantify). I therefore base the argument on the somewhat dehumanising one of natural selection... blah blah blah. I don't make the argument from species ignorance but from pragmatism.
You shouldn't use pragmatism (which is value-relative) as a cover word for anthropocentrism. If you're comfortable with a speciest utilitarian calculus, fine, but it makes me uneasy.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
KFunk said:
You shouldn't use pragmatism (which is value-relative) as a cover word for anthropocentrism. If you're comfortable with a speciest utilitarian calculus, fine, but it makes me uneasy.
Why value life and not non-life?
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
sam04u said:
I already explained that a condom does not neccessarily negate the general unhygienicness of the act of engaging in intercourse with an animal of a different species. Moreso, it's not as if a dog in the sexual stupor which comes from weeks of deprivation is particularly willing to allow it's owner to place a condom over it's penis, and then patiently ensure it's on for the whole duration.

At the point at which a human would suffice for an animal is a point of extreme sexual tension and deprivation to the point of cruelty. And for what reason? A few seconds of sexual gratification for the owner? That's highly immoral.
Why would it necessarily be unhygenic? One assumes that a person having sex with an animal would ensure that both are relatively clean to start off with. Heck, even horse breeders are scrupulous (to the point of overkill) about the hygiene of their animals.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that animals suffer the same mental effects of "sexual deprivation" that we do. They don't. Where are you getting this "weeks of deprivation" bullshit? Animals that are willing to have sex with humans, and that wouldn't be all that uncommon, wouldn't have to be TRAINED to do it. Animals that were unwilling would necessarily use their teeth to make that point clear - and that has happened, as well.

Also, the polio vaccine theory has generally been debunked by the scientific community, I just threw that in there for diversity of arguments, or theories. We don't know for sure either way how that epidemic was transfered via one species to another, and is now so widely prevalent in sub-saharan Africa.
Actually, yes, we do. Read some stuff by Stephen J O'Brian and his ilk.

So you support bestiality, but not two dogs having sex? And you're calling me insane. Please, do society a favour and end yourself.
Just because I'm saying there's nothing inherently cruel about it, doesn't mean I condone it. And what I am saying is that unplanned matings between dogs, without a damned good reason to produce pups, is irresponsible, and any owner that IS responsible would desex their animals to prevent this from occuring.

The conditioning or preparation as you call it involves sustained sexual deprivation. An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species. Concede that fact.
First of all, how does it involve "sustained sexual deprivation"? Are you saying that between human sex, "sustained sexual deprivation" during foreplay is akin to torture?

And second, how do you KNOW that animals do not enjoy sexual acts with their owners? That's right, you don't, not unless you can quote the scientific research that unequivocally SAYS so.


EDIT: And quite often animals enjoy sex outside their own species. That's how hybrids occur. QED.

My bullshit detector is ringing.
 
Last edited:

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ur_inner_child said:
I quoted it in a very "we can fall in love" way
UIC why are you one of the only sane women which posts in this section of the forums? ^^;
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top