The right to have sex with an animal?? (2 Viewers)

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Not really, why is it uncomfortable?

I've thought this for a long time.

I am fully aware that I've been indoctrinated to believe in certain taboos and cultral norms and I've realised for many years that most of them are utterly illogical.
The same taboos/norms/mores which you refer to are the root of the discomfort.
 

fauxpas18

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
21
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Even if animals could 'consent', why would anybody want to?

There are enough fucking humans to go around. Fuck zoophiles and those who engage in bestiality. Dirty scum.
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Even if animals could 'consent', why would anybody want to?

There are enough fucking humans to go around. Fuck zoophiles and those who engage in bestiality. Dirty scum.
Who cares why they want to, we are discussing if they legally should be able to.

Not everyone fits inside your little box of "normal sexual behaviour"...is there any moral or logical reason why they shouldnt be allowed to satisify their sexual desire?
 

fauxpas18

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
21
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Who cares why they want to, we are discussing if they legally should be able to.

Not everyone fits inside your little box of "normal sexual behaviour"...is there any moral or logical reason why they shouldnt be allowed to satisify their sexual desire?
What was that? Sorry. I just spewed a little all over my keyboard.

Satisfying yourself with an animal?

Logically, a human has sex with a human, and an animal has sex with an animal.
Exploiting animals to fulfil your sexual desires is lowly and FUCKING DISGUSTING.
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
If you think bestiality should be illegal, then logically you should also agree that killing animals for food should be illegal and should have similar penalties.
This is my inclination - both bestiality and slaughtering are wrong.
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
This is my inclination - both bestiality and slaughtering are wrong.
I can respect definitely respect that position. In fact, I've tried to come up with a logical justification for killing animals for meat in modern times and have failed. The same goes for owning and training animals in captivity.

All I can do is admit that treating animals in such a cruel way is wrong, and that I'm prepared to do it anyway for my own personal enjoyment.

However, would you agree that some bestiality, for instance sex with larger animals where hurting the animal is not an issue, is possibly acceptable, or at least more acceptable than slaughtering?
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
What was that? Sorry. I just spewed a little all over my keyboard.

Satisfying yourself with an animal?

Logically, a human has sex with a human, and an animal has sex with an animal.
Exploiting animals to fulfil your sexual desires is lowly and FUCKING DISGUSTING.
Yes, biologically it makes sense for humans to only have sex with other humans (also only of the opposite gender).

Are you saying that sex is disgusting unless it is for reproduction?

There is a legitimate concern about animal cruelty, but that does not mean it is always wrong period.

What if it could be shown that both the animal and the human were enjoying it? Why would you want to stop them doing something that is mutually beneficial?
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
However, would you agree that some bestiality, for instance sex with larger animals where hurting the animal is not an issue, is possibly acceptable, or at least more acceptable than slaughtering?
Sure, if there is a reliable way to determine whether the animal is 'up for it'. As I am not an animal whisperer I can only but speculate that this would be fraught with difficulty.
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Yes, biologically it makes sense for humans to only have sex with other humans (also only of the opposite gender).

Are you saying that sex is disgusting unless it is for reproduction?
People regularly have sex with themselves and with inanimate objects for recreation.
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
What was that? Sorry. I just spewed a little all over my keyboard.

Satisfying yourself with an animal?

Logically, a human has sex with a human, and an animal has sex with an animal.
Exploiting animals to fulfil your sexual desires is lowly and FUCKING DISGUSTING.
"logically, boys should only have sex with girls, ya know, because of nature and reproduction and that, and sexual behaviour that is outside of reproduction is wrong"

yeah it used to be illegal for a man to have sex with a man too.

If something isnt harming another human, i have no real problems with that behaviour, whatever it happens to be. We know that legally, animals have very few rights and that what they think or feel doesnt matter, because we are allowed to kill them and eat their bodies. Therefore it makes sense to allow people to have sex with them too if thats what they want to do.

I would also support necrophilia being decriminalised, as well as.... well pretty much any form of sexual behaviour as long as it is with two consenting adults if both are human, or that it doesnt harm any other people if its with an animal/ inanimate object.
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
If something isnt harming another human, i have no real problems with that behaviour, whatever it happens to be. We know that legally, animals have very few rights and that what they think or feel doesnt matter, because we are allowed to kill them and eat their bodies. Therefore it makes sense to allow people to have sex with them too if thats what they want to do.
This logic of consistency which you are using to interpret and extrapolate the law is quite rediculous. Unless you equate the law with right it doesn't make sense to insist on extending the law as far as consistency permits. To me it seems to be a relatively simple matter to acknowledge that the raising and killing of animals of for consumption (primarily in the form of food and clothing) is strongly culturally engrained and for the most part has been accepted throughout the recorded history of human civilization. Furthermore, animals and such derivative products are incorporated into various rituals (the sacrifice, the feast) and in many cases are attended by an overlay of symbolic meaning, e.g. of wealth, luxury and abundance. If we add to this not only red meat producers, but also the extraordinarily powerful companies whose products depend on red meat - I need only cite McDonalds here - and their lobby groups it is easy to realise that the likelihood of significant (i.e. doing more than adding 0.2 m^2 to the size of a cage) legislative change restricting or prohibiting the slaughter of animals is very low.

If we acknowledge the historical-cultural nature of our treatment of animals, and the current economic forces which ensure the perpetuation of this form of treatment, I fail to see how one can reasonably argue that from the law concerning slaughtering we can conclude that bestiality ought to be permissible. Given your 'pro freedom' stance I'm sure there exist dozens of laws which restrict freedom to which we could apply your 'consistency argument' for extension of the law in order to further restrict freedom. In such cases I'm sure that you would realise how faulty this form of argument is.

It is one thing to say 'I permit the killing of animals' therefore, a fortiori, 'I permit bestiality' - I can certainly see the validity in this form of subjective moral reasoning. But I think it is rediculous to reason that 'it is the case that current legislation permits slaughtering' therefore 'we ought to extend the law to permit bestiality'. Firstly the law is not necessarily right, and at best, I would suggest, is an imperfect approximation (no doubt a select few philosophers of law would disagree with me here). Secondly, if a given law is acquired through tradition and longstanding cultural practice and is resistant to change, e.g. on account of cultural rituals and economic forces, then it is possible to accept the continued existence of a law, in a realistic fashion, whilst denying its ultimate claim to right or further extension.
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
P.S. for the sake of revealing stance and bias, I am a vegetarian.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
jennyfromdabloc said:
If you think bestiality should be illegal, then logically you should also agree that killing animals for food should be illegal and should have similar penalties.

Before some idiot says "but we need to eat animals," this is 100% untrue. Humans can get all of their nutritional requirements from plants, and in fact to do so is far more efficient in terms of cost, land usage and environmental impact.
I doubt there's enough mung beans around to satisfy world hunger. Corn doesn't provide all the nutrients we need. Furthermore I'd suggest that animals can be killed for meat without causing them a great deal of suffering. I see no problem with killing an animal if only because we have no moral duty to them (but also because we need to eat them - suck a chode), but to cause them pain before we eat them is quite wrong. Similarly, having sex with a hamster is going to cause it suffering and so too should it be regarded as wrong.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Yes, biologically it makes sense for humans to only have sex with other humans (also only of the opposite gender).

Are you saying that sex is disgusting unless it is for reproduction?

There is a legitimate concern about animal cruelty, but that does not mean it is always wrong period.

What if it could be shown that both the animal and the human were enjoying it? Why would you want to stop them doing something that is mutually beneficial?
Alright, then what say you about marriage with animals then? Would that be the next logical step?
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
This logic of consistency which you are using to interpret and extrapolate the law is quite rediculous. Unless you equate the law with right it doesn't make sense to insist on extending the law as far as consistency permits. To me it seems to be a relatively simple matter to acknowledge that the raising and killing of animals of for consumption (primarily in the form of food and clothing) is strongly culturally engrained and for the most part has been accepted throughout the recorded history of human civilization. Furthermore, animals and such derivative products are incorporated into various rituals (the sacrifice, the feast) and in many cases are attended by an overlay of symbolic meaning, e.g. of wealth, luxury and abundance. If we add to this not only red meat producers, but also the extraordinarily powerful companies whose products depend on red meat - I need only cite McDonalds here - and their lobby groups it is easy to realise that the likelihood of significant (i.e. doing more than adding 0.2 m^2 to the size of a cage) legislative change restricting or prohibiting the slaughter of animals is very low.

If we acknowledge the historical-cultural nature of our treatment of animals, and the current economic forces which ensure the perpetuation of this form of treatment, I fail to see how one can reasonably argue that from the law concerning slaughtering we can conclude that bestiality ought to be permissible. Given your 'pro freedom' stance I'm sure there exist dozens of laws which restrict freedom to which we could apply your 'consistency argument' for extension of the law in order to further restrict freedom. In such cases I'm sure that you would realise how faulty this form of argument is.

It is one thing to say 'I permit the killing of animals' therefore, a fortiori, 'I permit bestiality' - I can certainly see the validity in this form of subjective moral reasoning. But I think it is rediculous to reason that 'it is the case that current legislation permits slaughtering' therefore 'we ought to extend the law to permit bestiality'. Firstly the law is not necessarily right, and at best, I would suggest, is an imperfect approximation (no doubt a select few philosophers of law would disagree with me here). Secondly, if a given law is acquired through tradition and longstanding cultural practice and is resistant to change, e.g. on account of cultural rituals and economic forces, then it is possible to accept the continued existence of a law, in a realistic fashion, whilst denying its ultimate claim to right or further extension.
Ah good point. That is a very well put together response. So would it be fair to say that we as a society generally allow the killing, torture, raising in bad conditions and the eating of their bodies so it is not much more of a leap to say that in order to be consistent with this behaviour of treating animals a possesions, society should also permit sex with animals?

for the record, i am not a vegetarian and in fact i love eating meat, but i find the way we treat animals very disturbing and despite years of thinking on the issue and searching for an answer, i have yet to find one that satisfies me. I want to keep the status quo because i like meat, but animals are not fundamentally that different from humans that i can easily justify keeping them as slaves, torturing them, killing them and eating their bodies.

If we as a society allow that sort of behaviour, having sex with an animal [assuming it is large enough that you arent physically harming it by doing so] does not seem like it is outside the box of acceptable ways to treat an animal.
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
I doubt there's enough mung beans around to satisfy world hunger. Corn doesn't provide all the nutrients we need. Furthermore I'd suggest that animals can be killed for meat without causing them a great deal of suffering. I see no problem with killing an animal if only because we have no moral duty to them (but also because we need to eat them - suck a chode), but to cause them pain before we eat them is quite wrong. Similarly, having sex with a hamster is going to cause it suffering and so too should it be regarded as wrong.
Yes there are plenty of high protein vegetables we could grow in place of meat. If we used land to grow vegetables instead of meat it can provide about 10 times as much food per unit of land, since energy is not wasted by the animals converting the food they eat into energy.

Read more about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

Although it is possible to slaughter animals more humanely, it almost never happens, and most meat that we eat comes from animals that are treated extremely cruelly in large factory farms. If we were to treat animals humanely the price of meat would have to skyrocket.

Why is pain the only problem here? Slaughtering a perfectly healthy animal that could live for many more years is also cruel. Is it okay to kill humans, as long as you do it in a way that causes them little or no pain?

Alright, then what say you about marriage with animals then? Would that be the next logical step?
Yes. That would be completely fine.
 
Last edited:

David Spade

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,315
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Wrong if it causes harm to the animal

Some chick sucking off a horse is not causing it harm so it is ok
Someone fucking a chicken is causing it harm and thus wrong (i dont know but i assume a chicken would be harmed by a cock being jammed up it)
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Why is pain the only problem here? Slaughtering a perfectly healthy animal that could live for many more years is also cruel. Is it okay to kill humans, as long as you do it in a way that causes them little or no pain?
Yes, except for the fact that it causes problems external to that person. :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top