NationStates Jolt Archive

The other day i was reading the column "Savage love" in the on-line service of "Village voice" and several readers had sent letters describing sexual encounters with their pets (mainly dogs). Do you think zoophilia is a matter strictly of the private sphere or should the State intervene and prohibit it? Why? Can men´s best friends become something more?

Animals, like children, cannot intelligently consent, therefore ban it. Although my dog tried to rape my friend once, when the friend was 5 years old or so. But that's dogs for you.

Personally, I believe it's cruelty to animals, but if they want to masterbate to pictures of or infront of their pets, go right ahead.

I don't think it should be allowed, because of the consent issue, and also, because I really think people should try to stick with their own species!

I'm open minded, but not that open minded. Ewww.

I'm not certain. An animal, being unable to consent, in an inteligent argument against it. But, since they are non-sentient, one may argue that consent laws have no place.

I...don't know...

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass. Pun intended. :D

I think it should be treated like any other sort of cruelty towards animals. There should be no special bestiality law.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass. Pun intended. :D

Hahaha...I have no life...

I read that column too, and Dan was right. No informed consent, so it shouldn't be allowed.

weel, but even if you do have the State outlawing it, how do you enforce such a measure? Zoophiles carry out their fetiche being closed doors...

There Animals,

Beat em, walk em, fuck em, it's YOUR WASTE OF MONEY!

Just don't drag it out your front door, or add kids in the mix. If so both Master and Pet should be castrated.

Rich

This is the strangest topic I've seen on here yet.


As for beasitility, I don't agree with it, and really, your just confusing the hell out of the animal.

This is the strangest topic I've seen on here yet.


As for beasitility, I don't agree with it, and really, your just confusing the hell out of the animal.
Well, but isn´t the pet the legal property of its owner? Cant he use it as he seems fit?

As I recall AIDS was acquired from blood swapping of some scientist and a monkey. Even if this wasn't the case, who knows what other random diseases could be picked up or mutated when transferred into humans.
Government should take steps in intrest of health to stop this.

weel, but even if you do have the State outlawing it, how do you enforce such a measure? Zoophiles carry out their fetiche being closed doors... So do paedophiles… we still catch them. Eventually.

Beastiality would be considered an act of animal cruelty and NO YOU CANT DO WHATEVER you want with your pets. This is considered a sexual deviant act and would be considered a crime against nature and a severe psychological disorder as well..someone would likely be labled a sexual predator at the very least for this deviance.

i thought this was called beastiality

I think humans having sex with anything should be illegal. That way, no more humans. World peace.

Humans are an evolutionary dead end. The animals are better than us. Far better. If we had any decency we'd drop dead right now.

Especially you, Golddirk. I knew a priest like you once. He was an asshole.

The End.

Animals can't consent, therefore it's rape.

As I recall AIDS was acquired from blood swapping of some scientist and a monkey. Even if this wasn't the case, who knows what other random diseases could be picked up or mutated when transferred into humans.
Government should take steps in intrest of health to stop this.

Yeah, it's not like people already live with animals and have them in their homes and nothing particular happens. :rolleyes:

Also, that's not how AIDS is thought to have spread at all. It was probably spread when people dealt with the blood of slaughtered monkeys. Shall we ban having pets and abattoirs?

Raventree go to Hell, why don't you help humanity which as you say is a dead end and leave it, for eternity. I can help yer if you like.


You Jammy Goit.

The other day i was reading the column "Savage love" in the on-line service of "Village voice" and several readers had sent letters describing sexual encounters with their pets (mainly dogs). Do you think zoophilia is a matter strictly of the private sphere or should the State intervene and prohibit it? Why? Can men´s best friends become something more?

Why did I know this question would eventually arise following the issue of homosexuality? :rolleyes:


Slippery slope my foot!

Bestiality would be considered an act of animal cruelty and NO YOU CANT DO WHATEVER you want with your pets. This is considered a sexual deviant act and would be considered a crime against nature and a severe psychological disorder as well..someone would likely be labled a sexual predator at the very least for this deviance.
Well, but many countries dont classify it as a crime..mine doesnt.
For many years homossexuality was considered a sexually deviant behaviour and criminalized...couldnt the same happen to zoophilia in countries that deem it a criminal offence?

So do paedophiles… we still catch them. Eventually.

And these "people" should should be listed as sex offenders as well.

I think humans having sex with anything should be illegal. That way, no more humans. World peace.

Humans are an evolutionary dead end. The animals are better than us. Far better. If we had any decency we'd drop dead right now.

Especially you, Golddirk. I knew a priest like you once. He was an asshole.

The End.


You knew a priest who endorsed beastiality? :eek:

And these "people" should should be listed as sex offenders as well. Unsurprisingly, most would agree.
Bestiality (not beastiality) should certainly be proscribed. It's harmful to the animals and they cannot consent… and yes, animals are alive. The empirical evidence is obvious.

Well, but many countries dont classify it as a crime..mine doesnt.
For many years homossexuality was considered a sexually deviant behaviour and criminalized...couldnt the same happen to zoophilia in countries that deem it a criminal offence?

Do not attempt to bait and switch homosexuality into this like some feeble-minded bigot. A consensual act between people has nothing to do with bestiality. This is a completely different issue and mixing homosexuality into it is a fallacy.

I think it's fine as long as the animal provides written consent. Notarized. In triplicate.

Well, but many countries dont classify it as a crime..mine doesnt.
For many years homossexuality was considered a sexually deviant behaviour and criminalized...couldnt the same happen to zoophilia in countries that deem it a criminal offence?
Come on dont even compare homosexuality with beastiality- for one homosexuality involves two (count them TWO ) CONSENTING adults, does the poor animal consent? NO-hence animal cruelty. This is one thing that doesnt necessarily need to have laws to know that this is wrong, wrong, wrong! It would be animal cruelty pure and simple and prosecuted as such. There is nothing deviant about homosexuality whatsoever and I find it despicable to even bring it up in this conversation. This is a very bizare one at that.

a species is defined when the animals of those separate group can nolonger breed. being that that is for breeding, and breeding is only capable of within a species, it should be banned.

Do not attempt to bait and switch homosexuality into this like some feeble-minded bigot. A consensual act between people has nothing to do with bestiality. This is a completely different issue and mixing homosexuality into it is a fallacy.
I used the homossexuality example to make the point that for many centuries homossexuality was considered by many as a sin that offended God and pulic morals...in the three trials against Oscar Wilde for the crime of sodomy, it was construed that his homosexual partener had fallen prey to his superior witt and charm and had not been able to epress informed consent...just sayung that things change...was not playing the bigot here...would be far too fearful to incur in the wrath of the pc patrol.

If animals cannot consent, I'd like to see anyone try and rape a 2000-pound horse without doing anything to it that would otherwise be considered animal cruelty. (ie, beating, tying up etc)

Did the article mention how one gets the animal to stand still? :p

I can't see why anyone would want to and I have to agree with the consensus that it is nonconsensual and hence immoral.

Animals can't consent to having sex with humans (although they might consent if they could), but they also can't consent to being killed for food (and most likely wouldn't if they could). So far the argument against Bestiality is slightly weaker than the arguement against eating meat.

There Animals,

Beat em, walk em, fuck em, it's YOUR WASTE OF MONEY!

Just don't drag it out your front door, or add kids in the mix. If so both Master and Pet should be castrated.

Rich

we're animals too,just a differnt kind.does that mean we can beat and rape each other with no consequences provided we dont do it in public or involve children?

Quite. Apparently, in countries like Belgium the punishment for having sex with your dog is more severe than for putting it on fire.

If animals cannot consent, I'd like to see anyone try and rape a 2000-pound horse without doing anything to it that would otherwise be considered animal cruelty. (ie, beating, tying up etc)
Not only have people have had their way with the horse, but vice versa. There's an article (I've provided the link below) that shows several cases of this happening in the State of washington. It also mentions that a man was hospitalized and later died. But it wasn't because of an angry horse, it was because of a perforated colon. The man had no idea that a foot long shlong
in the poop chute would cause any harm.

The link to the news article can be found here:
http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000981095

Quite. Apparently, in countries like Belgium the punishment for having sex with your dog is more severe than for putting it on fire.

there's one for the random facts file.oh and someone mentioned AIDS coming from monkey blood,well i dont know about that but i do know SARS came from cats.eating them.so if eating animals,something we are meant to do as predators,can give us mutated diseases then having sex with them surely will have bad consequences.for us and them.

we're animals too,just a differnt kind.
All too True.

does that mean we can beat and rape each other with no consequences provided we dont do it in public or involve children?
Happends every goddman day.(check the Death penalty thread)

And for the record my post didn't come out quite as i wanted it to, BUT i'im against the harming of all pets and animals, except for food. (got to eat, and at 39 years of age, i won't be going Veggie any time soon)

Rich

there's one for the random facts file.oh and someone mentioned AIDS coming from monkey blood,well i dont know about that but i do know SARS came from cats.eating them.so if eating animals,something we are meant to do as predators,can give us mutated diseases then having sex with them surely will have bad consequences.for us and them.

Ah don't worry, you have plenty o' sheep to keep you company in Kildare on those long cold winters nights :p :p :p

Happends every goddman day.(check the Death penalty thread)

And for the record my post didn't come out quite as i wanted it to, BUT i'im against the harming of all pets and animals, except for food. (got to eat, and at 39 years of age, i won't be going Veggie any time soon)

Rich

well maybe i should have said without fear of consequences.cos im sure some murderers and rapists do get away with it.just as there are innocent people on death row.but its the best legal system we have,problems or not.althouh this isnt the place for those topics

we're animals too,just a differnt kind.

Yeah, we're the kind that is capable of reason, abstract thought, advanced communication, and invention. In fact, we can even use our inventions (like computers) to communicate in an advanced way about abstract thoughts (like whether or not it should be legal to have sex with animals), although our ability to reason sometimes goes by the wayside (like when we decide that the only reason to ban Bestiality is because we are just another kind of animal).

I'm guessing all of you are vegetarians as well?

Animals don't consent to being killed and eaten, but we do it anyway for our benefit. We must set our priorities straight, our children and our race are more important than animals. Their consensus or non-consensus is unimportant.

And Fass, my original point is this, direct exchange of bodily fluids expecially blood leads to transmission of many various diseases. Having sex with an animal is a very easy way to have this sort of thing happening. It is therefore unhealthy to the individual and the race, therefore government should take action gainst.

Ah don't worry, you have plenty o' sheep to keep you company in Kildare on those long cold winters nights :p :p :p


<.< >.>who have you been talking too......?


jk

our ability to reason sometimes goes by the wayside (like when we decide that the only reason to ban Bestiality is because we are just another kind of animal).

i'd thank you not to insult my reasoning abilities.i wasn't saying that us being an animal is a reason to ban zooophilia/continue to ban it.my point was animals do have rights and we shouldn't be allowed to beat and 'fuck' them

<.< >.>who have you been talking too......?


jk

Lol!
its odd enough to find a fellow countryman on here, never mind a fellow lilywhite ;)

Lol!
its odd enough to find a fellow countryman on here, never mind a fellow lilywhite ;)

too chicken to put ur location on eh?traitor j00 d1350rz n0w!!!oneoneone :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


lol

too chicken to put ur location on eh?traitor j00 d1350rz n0w!!!oneoneone :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


lol

:D :D
Had it on for a while until someone used the fact that i'm Irish to slip in a snide comment... something along the lines of "Ireland eh? So you're probably drunk right now and thats why you..[blaah blah insert insult etc etc]"

Prefer anonimity meself :D :D

:D :D
Had it on for a while until someone used the fact that i'm Irish to slip in a snide comment... something along the lines of "Ireland eh? So you're probably drunk right now and thats why you..[blaah blah insert insult etc etc]"

Prefer anonimity meself :D :D

meh,just tell em at this stage alcohol doesnt affect you.and lets not hijack the thread.

forgiveness please(a la that yakuza guy in the simpsons)

Do not attempt to bait and switch homosexuality into this like some feeble-minded bigot. A consensual act between people has nothing to do with bestiality. This is a completely different issue and mixing homosexuality into it is a fallacy.



*gasp* Name-calling from the oh-so-tolerant Swede? Oh dear :eek:

i'd thank you not to insult my reasoning abilities.

I didn't mean you in particular; this whole thread seems a bit crazy to me. But you're right: that was a cheap shot and I apologize for offending you.

i wasn't saying that us being an animal is a reason to ban zooophilia/continue to ban it.my point was animals do have rights and we shouldn't be allowed to beat and 'fuck' them

But you seemed to imply that we are no better than they, and that is false. We are better. That is why we are the ones discussing whether or not they have rights, and not the other way around. Animals are alive, and they do have feelings and they are to some extent capable of thought, but it is undeniable that our minds are in a different class than theirs. They have no concept of rights, therefore they are not entitled to them.

I don't think it should be allowed, mainly because of their inability to consent...

But hey... what about the more intelligent animals? Chimps have been taught sign language; it's possible that these animals *could* consent. In that case... well, I guess it's up to the two parties to decide. :)

Besides Dog lovers are the first to say that Cats suck, and Cat lovers say that Birds suck, and Bird Lovers say that Mollusk lovers are weird, and Mollusk lovers say,..... :)

i'd thank you not to insult my reasoning abilities.i wasn't saying that us being an animal is a reason to ban zooophilia/continue to ban it.my point was animals do have rights and we shouldn't be allowed to beat and 'fuck' them


You don't need to grant a creature rights to punish those who abuse the poor things. Rights only apply to humans, as we are the only beings endowed with them.

I don't think it should be allowed, mainly because of their inability to consent...

But hey... what about the more intelligent animals? Chimps have been taught sign language; it's possible that these animals *could* consent. In that case... well, I guess it's up to the two parties to decide. :)


When tested by an unbiased individual, the cognition ability of chimps didn't prove to be very reliant.

What people want to do in their own homes (no matter how.. ::shiver:: ) is their own business and we have no right to ban it. It's like banning Catholicism because they (insanely) believe that they eat Jesus's body and blood.

And anyone who says that it is wrong due to animals' inability to consent, you're just a selfish, narrow-minded human supremesist. And I don't like you.

Animals have souls. Deal with it.

I didn't mean you in particular; this whole thread seems a bit crazy to me. But you're right: that was a cheap shot and I apologize for offending you.
thanks,and it is a pretty strange thread

[QOUTE=Spartiala]But you seemed to imply that we are no better than they, and that is false. We are better. That is why we are the ones discussing whether or not they have rights, and not the other way around.[/QUOTE]
hmmm,good point.we certainly are a considerably more complex organism,and we are capable of higher levels of thought than animals,unless they're all hiding something from us,lol.

Animals are alive, and they do have feelings and they are to some extent capable of thought, but it is undeniable that our minds are in a different class than theirs. They have no concept of rights, therefore they are not entitled to them.

that may be true,but if we are to domesticate animals and have them as our pets we surely have the responsibility to take care of their welfare.and as there is no way of knowing if they consent to zooophilia we shouldn'y be allowed force it on them.

thanks,and it is a pretty strange thread


hmmm,good point.we certainly are a considerably more complex organism,and we are capable of higher levels of thought than animals,unless they're all hiding something from us,lol.


that may be true,but if we are to domesticate animals and have them as our pets we surely have the responsibility to take care of their welfare.and as there is no way of knowing if they consent to zooophilia we shouldn'y be allowed force it on them.

I agree that we have a responsibility to take care of the animals (and to take care of the rest of the environment), but I think the best way of doing so is by treating them as property. People have a tendency to look after what is theirs and it seems that most people take care of their animals and the rest of their property as long as they have ownership of it. Problems arise mainly when property is owned collectively, since then the incentive to take care of it is greatly diminished.

Just look at the respective cases of, say, cattle and elephants. Cattle are routinely slaughtered on a tremendously large scale throughout most of the world, and yet they have never faced the threat of extinction. Elephants, on the other hand, are an endangered species, despite the fact that far fewer of them are killed. Now, there are probably a few different reasons for this discrepancy, but I think the main one is that cattle are treated as property whereas elephants are protected by the government. A rancher has an economic incentive to look after his cattle, protect them from thieves and make sure they have a chance to reproduce; a government's only incentive to protect elephants is an abstract ideal that may or may not be held by the electorate (assuming there is an electorate). For this reason, cattle flourish under the guidance of the rancher, while elephants make the endangered species list.

Should animals have rights? Yes: property rights.

1. The consent issue - from a moral perspective, this is the strongest argument. We have no way of ascertaining completely whether an animal has given consent to what the human is doing. To answer the two arguments brought up against this thesis:
a. "If we can kill animals, why can't we rape them?" - You could ask the same question about animal cruelty laws - if we can kill animals, why can't we beat them? There is, however, a terminal flaw in this argument - animals are killed for the purposes of consumption - given that humans were originally by nature carnivores, this is a sort of biological imperative. However, beating or having sex with an animal for personal pleasure is not a built in biological imperative. Certain American Indian tribes treated their animals with the highest respect (meaning no beating or sexual activity) but did kill them for food - an activity always accompanied by a prayer for forgiveness and understanding. Further, the logic that treats animals as so radically inferior to humans that any action is justified to be performed on them is the same logic that justifies human genocide. Jews were "pigs" and Tutsis were "cockroaches" - all one has to do to commit murder is declare them sub-human.
b. "Animals give consent via non-verbal responses." This is a patently ridiculous claim. How can a human who hasn't spent their whole lives studying that animal claim to have an inkling of understanding concerning the ways those animals communicate with each other and the sociology of their sexuality? In certain species, rape is common as a sign of dominance. How do we know that the animals aren't submitting due to fear or certain species impulses? Answer - we don't, and any risk here is infinite. Someone on rufies might have consented otherwise - but how could we know? The species barrier takes away the ability to give effective consent in the same way that substances do.

2. Reactionary political backlash (proven by Neo Rogolia's posts on this very thread). Any call for the legalization of bestiality or zoophilia would allow the right to say "See? I told you so! It's the damn gays and the damn women" And guess what? The majority of the population (at least in the United States) would listen. Generations of equal rights legislation would be rolled back. Bestiality wouldn't be legalized, but homosexuality would be criminalized, and women would probably be back in the kitchen. This issue needs to wait.

3. No compelling to legalize it - given the potential consequences, and the lack of compelling argument in favor of legalization (I've only heard reasons why it shouldn't be illegal, not why it should be legal), this discussion should take a backseat.

4. Not comparable to homosexuality - no risk of rape there, and certainly animals aren't "persons" denied equal rights under the constitution.

5. Disease spread - AIDS is a result of the mixing of human and monkey blood, and the risk of creating an outbreak of that proportion (even if monkeys aren't "loved" very often, they still are) is not one worth taking.

6. Finally, Nykibo, I want to see your cite in that last statistic.

Sure. Why not.

Well, I'd sure call it consenting on both sides if you drop your pants, bend over, and some mutt goes to town while you take it up the ass.

Sure. Why not.
See above.

You know what I think...

I think you should come home to GREENBOWLE, ALABAMA!!

Seriously, I think it should be punishable by death, but not before being castrated w/o sedatives. :mad:

See above.
Yeah I saw above, I still say why not let 'em fuck goats. It's not like it's really going to matter in the long run.

Fuck 'em!

Further, the logic that treats animals as so radically inferior to humans that any action is justified to be performed on them is the same logic that justifies human genocide. Jews were "pigs" and Tutsis were "cockroaches" - all one has to do to commit murder is declare them sub-human.


Point taken.
We do tend to have a hierarchy within the animal kingdom (i.e. we don't eat our pets while killing and eating chickens is appropriate). Where then do we draw lines for this? It is acceptable to kill thousands of ants if the are in your home, but illegal to kill a dog. I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is a complication.
The logic behind genocide is obviously incoherent. Murdering people is not an acceptable social act. These people's justification comes from irrationality, that certain people are sub-human. Therefore comparing the logic of a farmer versus the logic of a Nazi is perhaps not the best analogy.
It is dangerous to think some humans are "sub-human" but also equally dangerous to exalt animals as being equals of man. If given the choice to kill a cow to feed a person, or save the cow because its "sacred" while people die, the choice should always be kill the freagin cow.
And may I take this moment to remind you Hitler was a vegetarian.

"Don't treat your dog like a human, or we'll treat you like a dog."
Can't remember who said it, but sums up my position.

I'd say no, because animals cannot vocalize whether they consent or not, and it is seriously debatable whether any animal has the ability to understand and consent at all.

Point taken.
We do tend to have a hierarchy within the animal kingdom (i.e. we don't eat our pets while killing and eating chickens is appropriate). Where then do we draw lines for this? It is acceptable to kill thousands of ants if the are in your home, but illegal to kill a dog. I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is a complication.
There are fairly simple biological rationales for this behavior - ability to feel pain, level of thought process (ants are a perfect example - the only ant that actually has complex brain functions is the queen), etc. There are also emotional factors. Essentially, one can draw a clear moral distinction based on biology, for the same reason I think it's ok to eat animals without their consent but not OK for humans.

The logic behind genocide is obviously incoherent. Murdering people is not an acceptable social act. These people's justification comes from irrationality, that certain people are sub-human. There for comparing the logic of a farmer versus the logic of a Nazi is perhaps not the best analogy.
Irrelevent, and probably proves my point. Their "moral" arguments legitimate the deployment of these "incoherencies" in political discourse, to great effect. If animals legally only have the rights of property, and a demagogue can equate a certain group of people with those animals, then why are those people any different from property which can be discarded? Answer - they're not. It's again the implications of their ethico-political argument for society that I'm criticizing.

It is dangerous to think some humans are "sub-human" but also equally dangerous to exalt animals as being equals of man. If given the choice to kill a cow to feed a person, or save the cow because its "sacred" while people die, the choice should always be kill the freagin cow.
And may I take this moment to remind you Hitler was a vegetarian.
Sure. I'm not a deep ecologist. This isn't my viewpoint. I've stated this twice above. Animals not = people. But animals also not = lump of clay or cd player.

"Don't treat your dog like a human, or we'll treat you like a dog."
Can't remember who said it, but sums up my position.
A little harsh. Also a bit irrelevent to the above discussion.

I'd say no, because animals cannot vocalize whether they consent or not, and it is seriously debatable whether any animal has the ability to understand and consent at all.

Actions speak louder than words.

2 Timothy Chapter 3:1-9

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

No reason for me to repeat what's already been said and forewarned... You choose your own path. If it comes to a vote, I'm voting against the entire kit and caboodle.

Yes, because I don't ever want to be called to serve on a jury for a zoophilia trial.

No reason for me to repeat what's already been said and forewarned... You choose your own path. If it comes to a vote, I'm voting against the entire kit and caboodle.

Why? So that non-Christians will have to follow Christian laws? That does no one any good: if someone is not a Christian, they are sinful whether or not they engage in Bestiality. Making Bestiality illegal will not redeem anyone; only a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ can do that.

It is good for Christians to obey the Bible, but they should do so regardless of what the government says; it does a non-Christian no good to obey the Bible, so the government need not force them to do so. Government legislation based on Biblical laws does no one any good. See also 1 Corinthians 5:9-12

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

There is no reason for us as Christians to judge those outside the church or to force them to obey the Bible.

Irrelevent, and probably proves my point. Their "moral" arguments legitimate the deployment of these "incoherencies" in political discourse, to great effect. If animals legally only have the rights of property, and a demagogue can equate a certain group of people with those animals, then why are those people any different from property which can be discarded? Answer - they're not. It's again the implications of their ethico-political argument for society that I'm criticizing.

I meant to prove your point, but from different perspective. Is that ok? I'm not going to create a seperate thread for everything you consider "irrelevant." The discussion can lead elsewhere for wisdom's sake.

What I wanted to argue with is your other statement.

Further, the logic that treats animals as so radically inferior to humans that any action is justified to be performed on them is the same logic that justifies human genocide. Jews were "pigs" and Tutsis were "cockroaches" - all one has to do to commit murder is declare them sub-human.

This is not rational, as I said before. Humans=Humans, non-humans=non-humans. Just because Hitler called the Jews sub-human did not make them sub-human. It might be the same "emotion" but not logical.

And you missed up a jewel by simply disregarding my last quote as "irrelevant." I put thought into this, and there is an entire philosophy buried underneath that one quote.

And biology is not as cut-and-dry as you think. There are many species we cannot classify under the current system. It's gotten so confusing the entire thing may need to be re-vamped.

Why? So that non-Christians will have to follow Christian laws? *snip*

Actually, I agree with you. But to clearify, what exactly did I say that you wouldn't do yourself then? I said, "If it comes to a vote..."

Under those conditions, how could I, with a clear conscience, vote to allow an abominable activity simply because I don’t’ dare judge individuals? If I have a choice, and it's a voting process… I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I do nothing but excercise my secular right to vote and the power of one vote that it gives me. And, my vote would be, to not allow a vile type of behavior if I get to choose. In a democracy of all eligible citizens having a right to vote, Christians don't have to apologize for voting their view point.

Well, but isn´t the pet the legal property of its owner?
Yes
Cant he use it as he seems fit?
No.

I didn't read the whole thread so this might be redundent but,

If an animal can consent to sexual/carnal activities with another animal, it can also do so with a human. If the animal does not accept such advances, it can and will let the human know (backing away, making scared or confused noises, biting, kicking, clawing, mauling, or killing the person). Animals do not equal children. This said, in order for consent to be given the animal must be unrestrained.

I would also like to say that it is just as easy, if not easier, to sexually abuse an animal as it is a human. Commiting bestiality with no thought of the animal's emotional needs is no better than rape and should be treated as such.

What ever someone wants to do with a partner who is physicaly and emotionaly mature, aware, consenting, and in a private setting should not be against the law.

Edit: There are limits to the above. There are animals which are physicaly incapable of withstanding the riggors of sex with a human. Having sex with things like chickens, or other foul, which kills them is cruelty and should be treated as such.

I dont want some sick fuck porking my bacon.

Most people wouldn't pork the pigs you eat.

Well, I think that actually raping an animal should be prohibited (ie. a male human forcing himself into, say, a sheep.) There really isn't any way an animal can consent to that, but most often it will make its distress known. So I think actually "fucking animals" should be prohibited.

However, "animals fucking you", I see differently. If you drop your pants (skirt, whatever) and get on all fours with, say, a male dog around there's a decent chance he will come over and investigate, then, if he decides those holes in your back end are looking mighty inviting, he may well decide to mount you. In my book, if that dog mounts you, he's consenting.

Whether you are consenting or not is a difference matter, but if you didn't want the dog to fuck you, what are you doing dropping your pants and getting on all fours in front of a horny male dog? That's just asking for trouble.

Most people wouldn't pork the pigs you eat.
What if I live on a farm?

So you only disagree with the penatration? Or the forcing his way in?

If animals cannot consent, where do the baby animals come from?
Did daddy wolf rape mommy wolf? Or did mommy wolf rape daddy wolf? Apparently, they raped each other.

Then if you don't want to have sex with your pigs, don't.

Hakartopia, you hit the nail on the head.

The other day i was reading the column "Savage love" in the on-line service of "Village voice" and several readers had sent letters describing sexual encounters with their pets (mainly dogs). Do you think zoophilia is a matter strictly of the private sphere or should the State intervene and prohibit it? Why? Can men´s best friends become something more?
1: It's called beastiality
2: It is illegal, it's called animal cruelty
3: If that's you thing, there are website out there for you
4: If your a little curious Google (http://www.google.com) it! ;) Go on you knoooooooooooow you want to.

If animals cannot consent, where do the baby animals come from?
Did daddy wolf rape mommy wolf? Or did mommy wolf rape daddy wolf? Apparently, they raped each other.
Indeed, it would appear concent is not an issue in the animal kingdom. Heck the amount of times my female cat was raped and my male cat tried to rape dispite being neteured boogles the mind.

So you only disagree with the penatration? Or the forcing his way in?

Me? Sort of. I only really disagree with it in general if it's rape. Most of time, I would define penetrating an animal as rape, because unless it's obviously as 'into it' as you are, I would say it isn't consenting. For instance, there have been cases reported of female dolphins actively seeking to engage in intercourse with a human (mostly those held in captivity, IIRC, but still). I would say that if an animal is actively seeking to engage in intercourse (either to penetrate or be penetrated, though the latter is far less common), then it knows exactly what it is doing and is consenting, and as long as the animal isn't harmed in the process, I have no problem at all with it.

Indeed, it would appear concent is not an issue in the animal kingdom. Heck the amount of times my female cat was raped and my male cat tried to rape dispite being neteured boogles the mind.

He tried to rape? How could he do that if he cannot consent?

Maybe he tried to rape himself, in a very round-about way?

What people want to do in their own homes (no matter how.. ::shiver:: ) is their own business and we have no right to ban it. It's like banning Catholicism because they (insanely) believe that they eat Jesus's body and blood.

And anyone who says that it is wrong due to animals' inability to consent, you're just a selfish, narrow-minded human supremesist. And I don't like you.

Animals have souls. Deal with it.

Sarcasm, right? Please say yes :eek:

As to if they have souls or not is debatable, but that they are capable consent is fact.

It's silly to think animals are completely incapable of consenting to sex. I've had a number of randy male dogs try their randy male dog charms on me recently. I guess I just have that 'bitch' aura about me. It's flattering in an odd sort of way.

But if I ever decided (for whatever reason) to let one of the randy male dogs have his way with me, I fail to see how he wouldn't be consenting.

What if a really large and intimidating randy male dog raped me (ie, I wasn't consenting)? Would the dog still, technically, not be giving consent?

1. The consent issue - from a moral perspective, this is the strongest argument. We have no way of ascertaining completely whether an animal has given consent to what the human is doing. To answer the two arguments brought up against this thesis:
a. "If we can kill animals, why can't we rape them?" - You could ask the same question about animal cruelty laws - if we can kill animals, why can't we beat them? There is, however, a terminal flaw in this argument - animals are killed for the purposes of consumption - given that humans were originally by nature carnivores, this is a sort of biological imperative. However, beating or having sex with an animal for personal pleasure is not a built in biological imperative. Certain American Indian tribes treated their animals with the highest respect (meaning no beating or sexual activity) but did kill them for food - an activity always accompanied by a prayer for forgiveness and understanding. Further, the logic that treats animals as so radically inferior to humans that any action is justified to be performed on them is the same logic that justifies human genocide. Jews were "pigs" and Tutsis were "cockroaches" - all one has to do to commit murder is declare them sub-human.
b. "Animals give consent via non-verbal responses." This is a patently ridiculous claim. How can a human who hasn't spent their whole lives studying that animal claim to have an inkling of understanding concerning the ways those animals communicate with each other and the sociology of their sexuality? In certain species, rape is common as a sign of dominance. How do we know that the animals aren't submitting due to fear or certain species impulses? Answer - we don't, and any risk here is infinite. Someone on rufies might have consented otherwise - but how could we know? The species barrier takes away the ability to give effective consent in the same way that substances do.

2. Reactionary political backlash (proven by Neo Rogolia's posts on this very thread). Any call for the legalization of bestiality or zoophilia would allow the right to say "See? I told you so! It's the damn gays and the damn women" And guess what? The majority of the population (at least in the United States) would listen. Generations of equal rights legislation would be rolled back. Bestiality wouldn't be legalized, but homosexuality would be criminalized, and women would probably be back in the kitchen. This issue needs to wait.

3. No compelling to legalize it - given the potential consequences, and the lack of compelling argument in favor of legalization (I've only heard reasons why it shouldn't be illegal, not why it should be legal), this discussion should take a backseat.

4. Not comparable to homosexuality - no risk of rape there, and certainly animals aren't "persons" denied equal rights under the constitution.

5. Disease spread - AIDS is a result of the mixing of human and monkey blood, and the risk of creating an outbreak of that proportion (even if monkeys aren't "loved" very often, they still are) is not one worth taking.

6. Finally, Nykibo, I want to see your cite in that last statistic.



Yes, because I believe bestiality is wrong, I would advocate putting women back in the kitchen :rolleyes: Although homosexuality should be criminalized....*puts on her flame-retardent suit*

It's silly to think animals are completely incapable of consenting to sex. I've had a number of randy male dogs try their randy male dog charms on me recently. I guess I just have that 'bitch' aura about me. It's flattering in an odd sort of way.

But if I ever decided (for whatever reason) to let one of the randy male dogs have his way with me, I fail to see how he wouldn't be consenting.

What if a really large and intimidating randy male dog raped me (ie, I wasn't consenting)? Would the dog still, technically, not be giving consent?



Ok, is this some secret conspiracy to disgust me out of this forum? Because it's working >.>

I didn't mean you in particular; this whole thread seems a bit crazy to me. But you're right: that was a cheap shot and I apologize for offending you.



But you seemed to imply that we are no better than they, and that is false. We are better. That is why we are the ones discussing whether or not they have rights, and not the other way around. Animals are alive, and they do have feelings and they are to some extent capable of thought, but it is undeniable that our minds are in a different class than theirs. They have no concept of rights, therefore they are not entitled to them.

Humans are so much better than animals. Wars, poverty, starvation, and religion. Such great things humans have accomplished with our advanced techs and language.

Ok, is this some secret conspiracy to disgust me out of this forum? Because it's working >.>

Says the person who thinks homosexuality should be banned. Why don't you go ask your invisible friend for help?

Why? So that non-Christians will have to follow Christian laws? That does no one any good: if someone is not a Christian, they are sinful whether or not they engage in Bestiality. Making Bestiality illegal will not redeem anyone; only a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ can do that.

It is good for Christians to obey the Bible, but they should do so regardless of what the government says; it does a non-Christian no good to obey the Bible, so the government need not force them to do so. Government legislation based on Biblical laws does no one any good. See also 1 Corinthians 5:9-12

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

There is no reason for us as Christians to judge those outside the church or to force them to obey the Bible.


I think the best way to get another Republican president would be to create the slogan "Liberals support this."


Are there no bounds that sexual deviants will know in order to gratify base human desires? Are animals now fair game? Those who display animalistic tendencies such as these (no pun intended), should not be considered human...

Says the person who thinks homosexuality should be banned. Why don't you go ask your invisible friend for help?



Why don't you go make love to Rover?

Humans are so much better than animals. Wars, poverty, starvation, and religion. Such great things humans have accomplished with our advanced techs and language.


1. Animals fight too....

2. Some animals are naturally able to gain more resources than other animals too...

3. Animals starve too....

4. Religion is a good thing....

I propose that instead of criminalizing the act its self, you work to criminalize public displays or mentions of it. Then everyone is happy.

'Out of sight, out of mind.'

With the exeption of some ants and primates, they don't fight on a tribal scale like we do. And even when they do, the damage is completely local and only to their population.

Religion is only good in the right hands.

1. Animals fight too....

2. Some animals are naturally able to gain more resources than other animals too...

3. Animals starve too....

4. Religion is a good thing....

Animals do not have war.

Animals operate on the survival of the fittest principle

Yes, but that is because of either lack of ability and sadly stupid human waste of natural resources.

The blood of millions, and probably billions, stains the hand of most major religions. So religion has been the worst thing humanity has yet created. Far worse than any technological terror we have or can create.

1. Animals fight too....

2. Some animals are naturally able to gain more resources than other animals too...

3. Animals starve too....

4. Religion is a good thing....

Bah...atheists can count way past five.

Are there no bounds that sexual deviants will know in order to gratify base human desires? Are animals now fair game? Those who display animalistic tendencies such as these (no pun intended), should not be considered human...

Hmmm, Hitler? Yes, he did didn't he, claim homosexuals along with so many others of the human population to be "sub-human"

We've been discussing the likes of you. Those who try to justify your position by making everyone who is against you "sub-human." This argument is superficial and irrational. A human is a human, no matter what. Stop with this nonsense and make with the logic.

But due to the nature of specialisation humans are not completely, perfectly equal. That's not to say that everyone has a place in society but I'm being off topic.

Humans are so much better than animals. Wars, poverty, starvation, and religion. Such great things humans have accomplished with our advanced techs and language.

Perhaps if we were as honestly intentioned and rational as they were, we might be better off, at least that's one argument I've heard.

But due to the nature of specialisation humans are not completely, perfectly equal. That's not to say that everyone has a place in society but I'm being off topic.

Perhaps we could say some humans are entitled and deserve more than others, but no human deserves to be treated as sub-human agree?

Animals do not have war.

Animals operate on the survival of the fittest principle

Yes, but that is because of either lack of ability and sadly stupid human waste of natural resources.

The blood of millions, and probably billions, stains the hand of most major religions. So religion has been the worst thing humanity has yet created. Far worse than any technological terror we have or can create.


1. Certain primate species have been known to engage in group warfare

2. So you concede the point?

3. Or famine...or drought....or not enough resources to go around....yes, we stupid humans are responsible for all of the world's starvation :rolleyes: You hear that Mother Nature? We've taken over! :D

4. Unless the religion in its tenets specifically states to kill, then you cannot attribute killing to that religion, but to those who are seeking their own selfish purposes.



You know, we're starting to become like ancient Greece and Rome: Perverted lechers and harlots with unrivaled cruelty and depravity. At least, you would get that impression reading some of the posts in this topic. Yeah, thanks everyone...bring on society's moral collapse.....

It seems to me that animals are clearly incapable of consenting to sexual acts. Thus we should make every effort to prevent animals from engaging in intercourse either with humans or other animals to stop all this disgusting rape. If we follow this policy, pretty shortly the issue of bestiality will solve itself!

I also suspect that a significant fraction of the human population lacks the awareness to engage in mature consenting intercourse...

I propose that instead of criminalizing the act its self, you work to criminalize public displays or mentions of it. Then everyone is happy.

'Out of sight, out of mind.'

With the exeption of some ants and primates, they don't fight on a tribal scale like we do. And even when they do, the damage is completely local and only to their population.

Religion is only good in the right hands.



Sorry, but pretending it is not there doesn't make it go away.

You know, we're starting to become like ancient Greece and Rome: Perverted lechers and harlots with unrivaled cruelty and depravity. At least, you would get that impression reading some of the posts in this topic. Yeah, thanks everyone...bring on society's moral collapse.....

They were more honestly human than the Brahmans or the Christians.

Sorry, but pretending it is not there doesn't make it go away.

Not pretending it's not there, just not thinking about it. That way people who have an aversion to it wouldn't have to think about it unless they really wanted to.

1. Certain primate species have been known to engage in group warfare

2. So you concede the point?

3. Or famine...or drought....or not enough resources to go around....yes, we stupid humans are responsible for all of the world's starvation :rolleyes: You hear that Mother Nature? We've taken over! :D

4. Unless the religion in its tenets specifically states to kill, then you cannot attribute killing to that religion, but to those who are seeking their own selfish purposes.



You know, we're starting to become like ancient Greece and Rome: Perverted lechers and harlots with unrivaled cruelty and depravity. At least, you would get that impression reading some of the posts in this topic. Yeah, thanks everyone...bring on society's moral collapse.....

To point one, group warfare as you call it is nowhere near akin to human warfare. I'm not talking about bar room brawls when I say war.

Humans do not operate on this principle of nature... such doctrines as communism and socialism (welfare, medical care of any sort, etc) promote weakness. Read Neitsche's Geneology of Morals, quite insightful.

Last time I checked, humans have encroached on nearly all natural resources in many of the countries in this world. More for us, but less for the natural world.

Read Revelations in the Bible, it is blatantly obvious that violence is well supported by God, else how could he support brutally killing billions of people in order to establish Heaven. Religion promotes war, not peace.

They were more honestly human than the Brahmans or the Christians.



Yes, because rape, torture, bestiality, paedophilia, feeding Christians to lions, forcing humans to fight each other to the death in an arena to provide entertainment, feeding slaves who accidentally dropped expensive glass goblets to man-eating eels (yes, they could apparently be trained to eat people), sexual promiscuity with no restraint whatsoever, murder, infidelity, sodomy, backstabbing, poisoning, enslaving conquered peoples, brutality, setting Christians on fire to light their gardens, burning their own cities down out of a desire to see civilization die with them, etc. are soooo humane :rolleyes:


Do me a favor: Think before posting garbage like that.

You know, we're starting to become like ancient Greece and Rome: Perverted lechers and harlots with unrivaled cruelty and depravity. At least, you would get that impression reading some of the posts in this topic. Yeah, thanks everyone...bring on society's moral collapse.....

That's quite a sweeping statement, and not entirely accurate. Romans were actually quite prudish in the begining. And Augustus did try to introduce sumptury and morality laws. Anyway, the Romans didn't start to go really downhill until they became Christians.

You could say the same for the Greeks. Homeric mores were quite different to that of the Hellenic Greeks.

Perhaps we could say some humans are entitled and deserve more than others, but no human deserves to be treated as sub-human agree?

Agreed. We are all more capable at something than someone else. If someone isn't then they should just do what we are best at. And not be allowed to raise their own children.

Beastiality would be considered an act of animal cruelty and NO YOU CANT DO WHATEVER you want with your pets. This is considered a sexual deviant act and would be considered a crime against nature and a severe psychological disorder as well..someone would likely be labled a sexual predator at the very least for this deviance.

dude, what the HELL is wrong with you, *psycological disorder*? that's life saying that lesbianism, homosexuality, and bisexuality are all "pscological disorders"! leave the poor fuckers alone -pun intended btw!- if they are so alone and bereft that they want to screw a dog, than let 'em.

And as for this "consent" issue, if the dog (or horse, or squirrel, or whatever) is LETTING the person screw it in the ass, is that not consent enough!

- you can coose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill, but i will choose a path that's clear:
i will choose free will

Yes, because rape, torture, bestiality, paedophilia, feeding Christians to lions, forcing humans to fight each other to the death in an arena to provide entertainment, feeding slaves who accidentally dropped expensive glass goblets to man-eating eels (yes, they could apparently be trained to eat people), sexual promiscuity with no restraint whatsoever, murder, infidelity, sodomy, backstabbing, poisoning, enslaving conquered peoples, brutality, setting Christians on fire to light their gardens, burning their own cities down out of a desire to see civilization die with them, etc. are soooo humane :rolleyes:


Do me a favor: Think before posting garbage like that.


That's mostly just the higher classes. Don't judge them by their bored elite.

To point one, group warfare as you call it is nowhere near akin to human warfare. I'm not talking about bar room brawls when I say war.

Humans do not operate on this principle of nature... such doctrines as communism and socialism (welfare, medical care of any sort, etc) promote weakness. Read Neitsche's Geneology of Morals, quite insightful.

Last time I checked, humans have encroached on nearly all natural resources in many of the countries in this world. More for us, but less for the natural world.

Read Revelations in the Bible, it is blatantly obvious that violence is well supported by God, else how could he support brutally killing billions of people in order to establish Heaven. Religion promotes war, not peace.


1. They do not have the cognition to organize vast-scale combat, however they do the best they can in ensuring rival species/clans do not surpass them.

2. Yeah, I make it a point not to take anything Nietzsche says seriously...such a depraved philosophy it is....the Germans followed its tenets quite accurately in trying to bring about the ubermensch and we all know what happened there.

3. Are you saying that before the advent of mankind, food was abundant and there was plenty to spare?

4. And can you tell me where in Revelation it commands the Christians to rise up and slaughter all infidels? As far as I know, only God, who is infinitely just and must punish evil, will be doing that. Christianity promotes peace, but justice for the wicked....the wicked such as animal rapists.

Christianity promotes peace, but justice for the wicked....the wicked such as animal rapists.

But what if the animal consents? Is it still wicked then, and if so why would it be any more wicked than a consenting pair of humans doing precisely the same thing?

1. They do not have the cognition to organize vast-scale combat, however they do the best they can in ensuring rival species/clans do not surpass them.

2. Yeah, I make it a point not to take anything Nietzsche says seriously...such a depraved philosophy it is....the Germans followed its tenets quite accurately in trying to bring about the ubermensch and we all know what happened there.

3. Are you saying that before the advent of mankind, food was abundant and there was plenty to spare?

4. And can you tell me where in Revelation it commands the Christians to rise up and slaughter all infidels? As far as I know, only God, who is infinitely just and must punish evil, will be doing that. Christianity promotes peace, but justice for the wicked....the wicked such as animal rapists.

To point 4, if justice is punishing people for not worsipping God, then I want no part of justice. And why would the innocents have to suffer in the end times? Seems to me God is indescriminate in who he slaughters.

And to point 2, read Neitsche and come back when you are reciting the ignorant man's bullshit that he was a Nazi. If you know his history, you would have known that he never espoused the Nazi movement, as seeing he died some years before its inception and it was his SISTER that warped his ideals to further her political agenda.

Agreed. We are all more capable at something than someone else. If someone isn't then they should just do what we are best at. And not be allowed to raise their own children.

You sound a bit like Plato

That's mostly just the higher classes. Don't judge them by their bored elite.



It wasn't just upper classes, the plebians participated to the fullest extent that they could as well. Not everyone attending "games" at the Coliseum were aristocrats.

I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.


I'm aware that not everyone who attended the games was upper class, I'm just saying that most of the debautchery (spelling?) was carried on by the people who could afford to spend their time doing such things.

okay, i have ONE thing to say to this "neo regalia" person:
SHUT THE HELL UP!

and if you don't WANT to, than get you facts straight before you start posting things left right and center.

first off, whoever said it was right, the Greeks and Romans weren't lecherous, but you know who was? ALL -or nearly all- of dark age Europe, most of the Pre-Reform catholic church (no offense to all the catholics, you're better now) and the victorians, and guess who we get our set's of morals from? so the next time you go ranting and raving about the moral corpse os society, remember, we are no worse in our own PERSONAL morals than our forefathers, but our society has matured to the point where people can talk about these things with an open mind, and if YOU don't HAVE an open enough mind the deal with that, than WHY in the name of all that's unholy and debaucherous are you discussing these things?

closing comments: no, zoophelia should NOT be illegal, people should be allowed to do what they want to whatever they want. HOWEVER if things like sex are taken unwillingly, THEN and ONLY then is it a criminal charge, and you CANT say that ANYTHING lacks the power to consent, because, any time something resists (i.e. Biting, growling, so on...) it is letting it known that consent is not given!

you can choose form phantom fears and kindness that can kill, but i will choose a path that's clear:
I will choose free will

Did he just dis Nietzsche? Unforgiven you are. Foolish Christians, so afraid of what they cannot understand. My theology proffesor quoted Nietzsche with presicion and grace, and she is a much smarter Christian than you. Shut up and read you coward, I read the Bible a hundred times now, and I'm not afraid.

Not pretending it's not there, just not thinking about it. That way people who have an aversion to it wouldn't have to think about it unless they really wanted to.



Yeah, and people who want to can do harmful drugs, and the rest of us should just ignore it. Murder, and we should ignore it. Theft, and we should ignore it. Rape, and we should ignore it. Child molestation, and we should ignore it.


There is a reason that the law exists: It is to prevent people with such mindsets as yours from actually practicing what they preach.

<quote>
Originally Posted by The Eidalons
To point 4, if justice is punishing people for not worsipping God, then I want no part of justice. And why would the innocents have to suffer in the end times? Seems to me God is indescriminate in who he slaughters.
</quote>

THANK YOU! you have no idea how long i've been waiting for someone to say that!

It is amazing how many people don't think about it either.

enough mind the deal with that, than WHY in the name of all that's unholy and debaucherous are you discussing these things?

and you CANT say that ANYTHING lacks the power to consent, because, any time something resists (i.e. Biting, growling, so on...) it is letting it known that consent is not given!


Consent in the legal context is not the same as 'non-resistance'. A baby might not resist having their trust fund raided, but it would still be found (legally) to have not consented to it happening. Non-human animals are not capable of consenting as per the definition applied in matters of law. Since we are discussing whether or not an act should be legal or illegal, clearly consent can only sensibly refer to 'consent' in the legal context. That means more than simple 'non-resistance'.

...no, zoophelia should NOT be illegal, people should be allowed to do what they want to whatever they want...

You're so crazy that you've got me agreeing with Neo. Damn you for that.



Zoophelia? Wasn't that Hamlet's other girlfriend?

I belive the term for something such as consentual bestiality is victimless crime, and as it is victimless I see no reason to punish anyone for it only because only because another part of the population finds it moraly offensive. If they do it in their own home/barn/whatever where no one can see them fine. If they do it in public then there is a problem.

I am strongly against rape(I consider child molestation a form of rape), murder, drug use, and other related activities quite reprehensible. I belive that people who commit such crimes should be strongly punished, but I also belive that we should actively try to prevent them through various societal (spelling?) reforms, primaraly in the area of public education.

I can't really say either way, the consent thing is one part, but, then, there was that time a dog started my licking my knee, and working her way up the inside. now, I admit, there is the possibility she would have given my naughty bits a miss, but, I didn't want to risk it.

somehting to think about :
small man, small "freind".

Consent in the legal context is not the same as 'non-resistance'. A baby might not resist having their trust fund raided, but it would still be found (legally) to have not consented to it happening. Non-human animals are not capable of consenting as per the definition applied in matters of law. Since we are discussing whether or not an act should be legal or illegal, clearly consent can only sensibly refer to 'consent' in the legal context. That means more than simple 'non-resistance'.

If a horse doesn't like what you are doing to it, it will vocalize its displeasure and attempt to move away. You ignore that and it will bite/kick/stomp you.

If it likes what you are doing it will actively move closer, and might vocalize its opinion of what you are doing.

If a horse doesn't like what you are doing to it, it will vocalize its displeasure and attempt to move away. You ignore that and it will bite/kick/stomp you.

If it likes what you are doing it will actively move closer, and might vocalize its opinion of what you are doing.

You seem to be very experienced on this subject...

I did a school report about two year ago. . .

Are you implying something?

If a horse doesn't like what you are doing to it, it will vocalize its displeasure and attempt to move away. You ignore that and it will bite/kick/stomp you.

If it likes what you are doing it will actively move closer, and might vocalize its opinion of what you are doing.
All of which is irelevent to legal consent.

If you were engaging in cunnulingus with your hypothetical girlfriend and she tried to move away, and then struck you if you persisted, would you say she wasn't giving consenting to your minstrations?

Would her moving closer to you, and crying out be considered the opposite?

If you were engaging in cunnulingus with your hypothetical girlfriend and she tried to move away, and then struck you if you persisted, would you say she wasn't giving consenting to your minstrations?

Would her moving closer to you, and crying out be considered the opposite?
That would be context dependent, it is also not for the purposes of this conversation a good analogy. I would not have a girl friend who was incapable of giving or with-holding legal consent.

So the law ignores all forms of non vebal communication? If she attempts to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation, isn't that fundementaly the same as her saying 'I want that to stop.'?

So the law ignores all forms of non vebal communication? If she attempts to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation, isn't that fundementaly the same as her saying 'I want that to stop.'?

Sounds logical to me.

I don't have the patience to read all replies to this topic. :headbang:
Zoophilia is not normal, in my humble opinion. I wouldn't classify it as 'rape' though. Make it a misdemeanour: a fine or maybe, at most, 1-2 years imprisonment for re-offenders. I'm only for very harsh verdicts for rapists and child molesters. But zoophilia? It's only obscene, I guess.

So the law ignores all forms of non vebal communication?
No. Why would you think so?
If she attempts to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation, isn't that fundementaly the same as her saying 'I want that to stop.'?
Difficult to say without knowing the specifics.

Okay, I will admit that I forgot that law considers the written word valid (I feel stupid for that. . .).

To make a better analogy (I guess): Miss Hypotheical is walking down the street. One Mr. Deviant comes up to her and begins rather forcefully undressing her and attempting to engage in intercourse. He does nothing to restrain her.

What would logic say she would do?

***
The below describes (using humans) what anyone seeking copulation with any mammal has to go through.

Miss Theoretical is at a place where singles go to meet other singles and 'hook up'. Mr. Deviant comes over to her and gives her the signals she expects to get from a potential lover/partner/mate. They talk and she is convinced that he wouldn't try to hurt her. They go somewhere private, where she is comfortable, and do what ever they are going to do.

Okay, I will admit that I forgot that law considers the written word valid (I feel stupid for that. . .).

To make a better analogy (I guess): Miss Hypotheical is walking down the street. An Mr. Deviant comes up to her and begins rather forcefully undressing her and attempting to engage in intercourse. He does nothing to restrain her.

What would logic say she would do?

***
The below describes (using humans) what anyone seeking copulation with any mammal has to go through.

Miss Theoretical is at a place where singles go to meet other singles and 'hook up'. Mr. Deviant comes over to her and gives her the signals she expects to get from a potential lover/partner/mate. They talk and she is convinced that he wouldn't try to hurt her. They go somewhere private, where she is comfortable, and do what ever they are going to do.
Your analogy is worthless, unless Ms Hypothetical is incapable of giving and withholding legal consent. Either way Mr Deviant is acting illegally.

I'm asking you what you think she'd do.

I think she would yell, carry on and run away, which is exactly what a horse would do. The major difference is we are capable of understanding exactly what each of those vocalizations mean.

I'm asking you what you think she'd do.
Who's to say, she is entirely hypothetical so she could do anything from smiting him to turning into a ham sandwhich and then some... ;)

I think she would yell, carry on and run away, which is exactly what a horse would do. The major difference is we are capable of understanding exactly what each of those vocalizations mean.
Which is irrelevent in the context of legal consent.

Hold on while I edit.

Hold on while I edit.
Well actually I promised the phone line to someone else, and will be going off line in about 15 minutes, so I may not be around by then.

To be honest I really cannot see anyway out of the fact that the meaning of consent (in the legal context) excludes the possiblity of a horse giving consent.

The argument of legal consent is irrelevant in this case. Animals are not legal beings and as such neither can nor are required to give legal consent in any situation. We ride horses, train dogs as guards, and slaughter cows and pigs for food, but the moment it comes to sex it has to be consentual?

There is no need to administer a law against bestiality/zoophilia. If the animal is the "dominant" one (like the male dogs mentioned previously in this thread) then no harm is coming to the animal. If the animal is penetrated forcefully then it might be injured, in which case the laws against animal cruelty come into play. Adding an extra law for this is redundant.

You guys are really beating a dead horse - and a dead horse can't consent.

The argument of legal consent is irrelevant in this case. Animals are not legal beings and as such neither can nor are required to give legal consent in any situation. We ride horses, train dogs as guards, and slaughter cows and pigs for food, but the moment it comes to sex it has to be consentual?
How we treat other beings is a not constant. It's a discussion about the law, so clearly the meaning of consent consistent with the discussion is legal consent. If people want to argue that consent is irrelevent, that is entirely different to arguing that non-human animals (such as horses) can give their consent (at least in the context of a discussion about legality).


There is no need to administer a law against bestiality/zoophilia. If the animal is the "dominant" one (like the male dogs mentioned previously in this thread) then no harm is coming to the animal.
That is a subjective point of view. Many people for instance, believe that having a pet is harmful to the pet.

If the animal is penetrated forcefully then it might be injured, in which case the laws against animal cruelty come into play.
As well they should.

Adding an extra law for this is redundant.
Redundancy in the legal system....who'd 'a thought.....? ;)

Well actually I promised the phone line to someone else, and will be going off line in about 15 minutes, so I may not be around by then.

To be honest I really cannot see anyway out of the fact that the meaning of consent (in the legal context) excludes the possiblity of a horse giving consent.

I guess we'll have to leave it at that for now as I'm having trouble finding a legal definition for consent.

I cannot understand anyone wanting to commit such an act on an animal, however I would rather Mr. (or Mrs.) Deviant commited acts on animals than on children.

How we treat other beings is a not constant. It's a discussion about the law, so clearly the meaning of consent consistent with the discussion is legal consent. If people want to argue that consent is irrelevent, that is entirely different to arguing that non-human animals (such as horses) can give their consent (at least in the context of a discussion about legality).

Which is exactly my point: From a strictly legal point of view, an animal is not a legal entity and thus has no form of legal consent. Whether or not they can give any form of consent (and they can; many people that have been kicked by a horse can tell you that) is a moot point in this discussion.

That is a subjective point of view. Many people for instance, believe that having a pet is harmful to the pet.

And such subjectiveness should be kept out of law-making.

I think it should be treated like any other sort of cruelty towards animals. There should be no special bestiality law.

Agreed, and everything that is sexual in nature, but not harmful to animals should be allowed (masturbation in front of non-sexual pictures of animals comes to mind - not exactly something that I would consider "right", but no harm done, and so not to be illegal)

What people want to do in their own homes (no matter how.. ::shiver:: ) is their own business and we have no right to ban it. It's like banning Catholicism because they (insanely) believe that they eat Jesus's body and blood.

And anyone who says that it is wrong due to animals' inability to consent, you're just a selfish, narrow-minded human supremesist. And I don't like you.

Animals may or may not have the ability to consent, it's the average human that doesn't have the ability to understand clearily whether the animal is consenting or not.

Also, we Catholics believe that we are eating Jesus's body and blood, but He himself gave his consent (and if we're wrong and he didn't give such consent, we're just eating "bread" and wine - no harm done to any human being)

I doubt the animal is consenting, in either a conscious or subconscious form, depending on what animals actually can think.

I also agree it should be treated as animal cruelty.

I'm guessing all of you are vegetarians as well?

Animals don't consent to being killed and eaten, but we do it anyway for our benefit. We must set our priorities straight, our children and our race are more important than animals. Their consensus or non-consensus is unimportant.

And Fass, my original point is this, direct exchange of bodily fluids expecially blood leads to transmission of many various diseases. Having sex with an animal is a very easy way to have this sort of thing happening. It is therefore unhealthy to the individual and the race, therefore government should take action gainst.
Well, but if that´s the only problem, it can be easily avoided 8at leaast in the case when men penetrate animals) by the use of condoms.

1: It's called beastiality
2: It is illegal, it's called animal cruelty
3: If that's you thing, there are website out there for you
4: If your a little curious Google (http://www.google.com) it! ;) Go on you knoooooooooooow you want to.
1: They are synonims;
2: not necessariçy, if you don´t cause bodily harm or death to the animal;
3:It isn´t "my thing", but engaging in spirited debate certainly is;
4: See #3

Consent in the legal context is not the same as 'non-resistance'. A baby might not resist having their trust fund raided, but it would still be found (legally) to have not consented to it happening. Non-human animals are not capable of consenting as per the definition applied in matters of law. Since we are discussing whether or not an act should be legal or illegal, clearly consent can only sensibly refer to 'consent' in the legal context. That means more than simple 'non-resistance'.
Well, that seems quite a reasonable argument, but it does raise some issues...for instance, one coud say that a 14 year old who consents to sex with a 18 year old is capable of informed consent, thus no criminal reproach shoul befell the latter...

I´ve just remembered a quite interesting story a friend of mine told me a couple of years ago...he was a police officer working in a canine unit...it was a standard practice in his unit that when came the time that male dogs entered the heat period (hope i´m not misspeling that) the officers would masturbate them (the dogs) until they ejaculated...in this case, wouldn´t ejaculation mean implicit consent?

As I recall AIDS was acquired from blood swapping of some scientist and a monkey. Even if this wasn't the case, who knows what other random diseases could be picked up or mutated when transferred into humans.
Government should take steps in intrest of health to stop this.

condom?

I´ve just remembered a quite interesting story a friend of mine told me a couple of years ago...he was a police officer working in a canine unit...it was a standard practice in his unit that when came the time that male dogs entered the heat period (hope i´m not misspeling that) the officers would masturbate them (the dogs) until they ejaculated...in this case, wouldn´t ejaculation mean implicit consent?

redrocketredrocketredrocket.....

redrocketredrocketredrocket.....
Pardon?

Its fine, beasts are there to serve us in whatever way we need

Pardon?

sorry South Park episode. Where they thought they could milk male dogs and it was called red rocket.

just find this quite a funny thread...

sorry South Park episode. Where they thought they could milk male dogs and it was called red rocket.

just find this quite a funny thread...
OK, now i get the point...being the Thread Starter, i´ll take that as a compliment.

I´ve just remembered a quite interesting story a friend of mine told me a couple of years ago...he was a police officer working in a canine unit...it was a standard practice in his unit that when came the time that male dogs entered the heat period (hope i´m not misspeling that) the officers would masturbate them (the dogs) until they ejaculated...in this case, wouldn´t ejaculation mean implicit consent?
Male dogs don't go into heat.

<snip>

get you facts straight before you start posting things left right and center.

An excellent sentiment!

first off, whoever said it was right, the Greeks and Romans weren't lecherous, but you know who was?<snip>
A shame you didn't stick to it.

Male dogs don't go into heat.


An excellent sentiment!

A shame you didn't stick to it.
Quite right, male dogs dont go into heat, i meant when the dogs became restless due to lack of sex.

The other day i was reading the column "Savage love" in the on-line service of "Village voice" and several readers had sent letters describing sexual encounters with their pets (mainly dogs). Do you think zoophilia is a matter strictly of the private sphere or should the State intervene and prohibit it? Why? Can men´s best friends become something more?

Uh,No-Absolutely not. There are more than enough ugly humans who would consent to fornication. We dont need to be any more cruel to animals than we already are.

Fortunately this crap's banned in Pennsylvania...

Uh,No-Absolutely not. There are more than enough ugly humans who would consent to fornication. We dont need to be any more cruel to animals than we already are.
But would zoophilia be always considered cruelty to animals, or only if it involved mistreatment, bodily harm or death?

Fortunately this crap's banned in Pennsylvania...
Who are you to judge? isnt that for the almighty?

I can't believe this thread got so long, is there really that much interest in this subject.... eewww gross..no really

Quite right, male dogs dont go into heat, i meant when the dogs became restless due to lack of sex.
Aaah. Clarity. Enlightenment. Understanding.

Complete and utter disgust.
http://imusion.net/forum/style_emoticons/iteration/yuck.gif

I can't believe this thread got so long, is there really that much interest in this subject.... eewww gross..no really
Well, if you dont enjoy discussing the theme, why do you contribute to the thread?
One could also claim that many threads in the General forum are about inane issues...but its up to the community to express their lack of interest with a thread, simply by ignoring it and letting it die.

A friend of one my relatives was actually a part of a canine unit of the police force here in Australia for a while. Apparently, he was told that it was a good idea to pleasure the dogs in the unit, because it helped keep them from being overly aggressive and strengthened the bond between dog and human, making the dogs easier to handle. Sounds like a good idea to me.

A friend of one my relatives was actually a part of a canine unit of the police force here in Australia for a while. Apparently, he was told that it was a good idea to pleasure the dogs in the unit, because it helped keep them from being overly aggressive and strengthened the bond between dog and human, making the dogs easier to handle. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Well, should this kind of action be construed as zoophilia? Is there a issue of consent here too?

Well, should this kind of action be construed as zoophilia? Is there a issue of consent here too?

I'm honestly not sure. It's not done for sexual pleasure on the part of the officer (well, as far as I know, there are probably exceptions), unlike 'actual' zoophilia. As far as I know, this practice is only done with male dogs, and I just can't see a male dog turning it down, to be honest. Maybe if the dog growls or tries to move away, it should be taken as non-consent, but if he stands there, lets it happen and achieves orgasm, wouldn't that be consent by default?

I'm honestly not sure. It's not done for sexual pleasure on the part of the officer (well, as far as I know, there are probably exceptions), unlike 'actual' zoophilia. As far as I know, this practice is only done with male dogs, and I just can't see a male dog turning it down, to be honest. Maybe if the dog growls or tries to move away, it should be taken as non-consent, but if he stands there, lets it happen and achieves orgasm, wouldn't that be consent by default?
My thoughts exactly, although some opinions in this thread wouldnt necessarily agree...

Well, should this kind of action be construed as zoophilia? Is there a issue of consent here too?
In the same utterly vile line, what about people who have to masturbate various other species to collect for artificial insemination?

Which has made me think of a program on MTV (I was very bored) about breast enlargement implants. If the woman was checking herself out in a mirror her breasts were blurred, if there was a medical professional looking at them they weren't.

So it's not pervy if it is done for medical reasons.
So the question is, are they being medical, or are some of them having fun?

In the same utterly vile line, what about people who have to masturbate various other species to collect for artificial insemination?

Which has made me think of a program on MTV (I was very bored) about breast enlargement implants. If the woman was checking herself out in a mirror her breasts were blurred, if there was a medical professional looking at them they weren't.

So it's not pervy if it is done for medical reasons.
So the question is, are they being medical, or are some of them having fun?
tHe dogs certainly are...wouldnt know about the doctor, though...

Of course the advocates of zoophilia purpot that their love-pets arent strictly used for orgies...they have a relationship that encopasses all usual aspects of owner-pet lives, in which plays a part, but not the only part.

Is it rape if you're not forcing the animal in to it? What if the animal starts fucking you first? Is that okay? Let's say someone wants to get fucked by their dog, so they get on their hands and knees with their ass hanging out. The dog comes up and says to himself "Hey, you know...I think i want to fuck that." So they do. Are you raping the animal? I'm going to say no. Is the animal raping you? Not if you were willing. So once again I say no.

I'm also going to turn it around the other way now. If someone was fucking their dog, and the dog doesn't like it, they'll fight. You've all seen dogs react to something they don't like. So if one forces their pet in to it, that's rape. If said pet is getting fucked and just accepts it, well then I'll say it isn't rape. How you'd go about determining wether or not the pet was raped I don't know...I mean I guess you can't just ask, right?

The other day i was reading the column "Savage love" in the on-line service of "Village voice" and several readers had sent letters describing sexual encounters with their pets (mainly dogs). Do you think zoophilia is a matter strictly of the private sphere or should the State intervene and prohibit it? Why? Can men´s best friends become something more?

the whole thing sickens me..if i was in power their would be secret police to shoot those who practised such wrongs.....

the whole thing sickens me..if i was in power their would be secret police to shoot those who practised such wrongs.....
Why, but if you feel so strongly about it, why use the secret police? Why not reinstate public executions for zoophiles? That would surely act as a deterrent...

Why, but if you feel so strongly about it, why use the secret police? Why not reinstate public executions for zoophiles? That would surely act as a deterrent...


good point...i just like th eidea of a secret police.. >.> <.<

guy A: hey, who's that cute little thing with you?
Guy B: Oh that lassie, she ma bitch

Animals can't consent, therefore it's rape.

I fail to see how someone fucking their malamute is in any way worse than:

a) killing the animal and eating it.
b) remanding it in servitude for the rest of its life (that is, keeping it as a pet, or using it in something like a circus).
c) killing it and skinning it for its fur.
d) having sex with a knothole in a tree.

In all of those things, the "victim" cannot give "informed consent", so why are they OK, but having sex with an animal is not? It's not the same as pedophilia in that pedophilia involves other humans, so society has a special interest in that. Similarly, it's not rape, which is a concept that only applies to humans. I think it's debatable whether the actual act is even cruel, depending on how it's done.

Granted, some people might argue that the first three are not ok, but society generally considers those people to be of questionable sanity.

I certainly don't want to see people humping their rottweiler in city parks, but then, I don't want to see people humping each other in city parks either. And in both cases, I don't see what damage is being done if it's not flaunted in public.

guy A: hey, who's that cute little thing with you?
Guy B: Oh that lassie, she ma bitch
Lol..if you said "lass", i could picture it in Scotland...

Everyone listen to Dorkium. They got the idea.

I fail to see how someone fucking their malamute is in any way worse than:

a) killing the animal and eating it.
b) remanding it in servitude for the rest of its life (that is, keeping it as a pet, or using it in something like a circus).
c) killing it and skinning it for its fur.
d) having sex with a knothole in a tree.

In all of those things, the "victim" cannot give "informed consent", so why are they OK, but having sex with an animal is not? It's not the same as pedophilia in that pedophilia involves other humans, so society has a special interest in that. Similarly, it's not rape, which is a concept that only applies to humans. I think it's debatable whether the actual act is even cruel, depending on how it's done.

Granted, some people might argue that the first three are not ok, but society generally considers those people to be of questionable sanity.

I certainly don't want to see people humping their rottweiler in city parks, but then, I don't want to see people humping each other in city parks either. And in both cases, I don't see what damage is being done if it's not flaunted in public.

what if you put whipped cream on you genitalia and call you dog over?

lets get this in to perspective people...we are talking about..inter-species shagging!

I agree with Dorkinium. So much shit is beeing done to animals, that it's hard to see this how this was any worse. As long as kids don't have to see it, ok... But there's a high risk that, beeing allowed and legalized by the law, it'll become accepted by the public opinion, too. And then we'll have this new fashion-thing, like with homosexuals at the moment.

Soap operas about those who love horses, music and bands playing songs in which they praise the greatness of rotweiler's ass, sweatty nightclubs in where the cats are fucked by groups...

Sounds pretty discusting. And then again, the fact I don't like something shouldn't beb used as an excuse to moralize it. Extremely complex issue.

alt of people on this thread seem to be treating beastiality as, if not a bad thing, on level with certain other activities involving animals. Food/labour/etc.

Most people here eat meat, many have pets or use animals for work. Would anyone here have sexual activity with an animal?

lets get this in to perspective people...we are talking about..inter-species shagging!

SPECIST!

I agree with Dorkinium. So much shit is beeing done to animals, that it's hard to see this how this was any worse. As long as kids don't have to see it, ok... But there's a high risk that, beeing allowed and legalized by the law, it'll become accepted by the public opinion, too. And then we'll have this new fashion-thing, like with homosexuals at the moment.

Soap operas about those who love horses, music and bands playing songs in which they praise the greatness of rotweiler's ass, sweatty nightclubs in where the cats are fucked by groups...

Sounds pretty discusting. And then again, the fact I don't like something shouldn't beb used as an excuse to moralize it. Extremely complex issue.
Yes, but shouldnt society draw the line somewhere? I mean, whats the point when we say, "this goes against a communal sense of decency'? Or cant such a statement be made?

SPECIST!


I would never shag an animal....

O.P i understand that many issues on NS are pretty much exhausted at the moment but htis is just low... :confused:

I would never shag an animal....

O.P i understand that many issues on NS are pretty much exhausted at the moment but htis is just low... :confused:
If you feel that this issue doesnt merit you attention, then by all means stop contributing.

If you feel that this issue doesnt merit you attention, then by all means stop contributing.

...ok

I would never shag an animal....

O.P i understand that many issues on NS are pretty much exhausted at the moment but htis is just low... :confused:

oh me neither! but NS accepts every type of person......

I´ve just remembered a quite interesting story a friend of mine told me a couple of years ago...he was a police officer working in a canine unit...it was a standard practice in his unit that when came the time that male dogs entered the heat period (hope i´m not misspeling that) the officers would masturbate them (the dogs) until they ejaculated...in this case, wouldn´t ejaculation mean implicit consent?

:eek:

Male dogs have heat cycles?

I can't type without coffee, apperantly.

:eek:

Male dogs do have heat cycles.
I´ve been vindicated!! Have a cookie.

How the hell is such a law supposed to be enforced, by police questioning the pets??? Police find it hard enough convicting pedophiles let alone beastiality offenders...

How the hell is such a law supposed to be enforced, by police questioning the pets??? Police find it hard enough convicting pedophiles let alone beastiality offenders...
Someone made that exact point some posts ago...others said that even so it should be made a criminal offence.

When people get caught 'fencehopping'?

So do paedophiles… we still catch them. Eventually.
That's because kids can talk, when was the last time you saw a dog making conversation? :rolleyes:

Someone made that exact point some posts ago...others said that even so it should be made a criminal offence.
Ok, whats the convictions count on beastility offenders then, has anyone ever been sent to jail for it. Unless the judge and jury views video evidence of the offence then it can hardly be proved in a court of law.

When people get caught 'fencehopping'?
Pardon?

How the hell is such a law supposed to be enforced, by police questioning the pets??? Police find it hard enough convicting pedophiles let alone beastiality offenders...


Anal/vaginal fissures/stress, semen, etc. There are various methods used to determine what occurred. The real problem would be getting the savage reported in the first place, as I doubt animal rapists commit their deeds where all can see. Either way, having seen some of the views in this thread...I'm going to go hide my dog.

As I recall AIDS was acquired from blood swapping of some scientist and a monkey. Even if this wasn't the case, who knows what other random diseases could be picked up or mutated when transferred into humans.
Government should take steps in intrest of health to stop this.

Actually, THAT origin of AIDS is a folklore. The more likely scenario is some mokey-butcher contracted a mutated form of a similar disease from a monkey carcass while preparing them for food.

Well, thinking in terms of health, any sexual activity besides monogamy and masturbation is less than ideal. Put that consideration on top of the informed consent issue, I definitely agree beastiality should be outlawed.

Ok, whats the convictions count on beastility offenders then, has anyone ever been sent to jail for it. Unless the judge and jury views video evidence of the offence then it can hardly be proved in a court of law.
Quite right...still, some would argue that the fact that zoophilia is made a criminal offence sends a strong signal to society that such behaviours arent deemed right or acceptable...its a matter of affirming the community´s moral framework through criminal legislation.

That's because kids can talk, when was the last time you saw a dog making conversation? :rolleyes: It would physically harm a dog in a visible way so you could tell if something had happened.

And kids often don't talk… the abuser tells them not to.

It would physically harm a dog in a visible way so you could tell if something had happened.

And kids often don't talk… the abuser tells them not to.
Not necessarily...it may well be that the owner of the dog handles things in a sensible way (yes,it sounds disgusting, but what can you do?)

For instance, when dogs (male or female) start humping their owners legs, is zoophilia taking place?

Yes, because . . . feeding slaves who accidentally dropped expensive glass goblets to man-eating eels (yes, they could apparently be trained to eat people). . . etc. are soooo humane :rolleyes:


Do me a favor: Think before posting garbage like that.

What?? They trained the eels to eat people? How brutal! Those animals didn't consent to eating those people! It should be outlawed as cruelty to eels to make them eat something they don't expressly say they want to eat! For shame.

And kids often don't talk… the abuser tells them not to.
Yes and in those cases the pedophile gets away with it...

Humm, next, to even gross out more respectable citizens, i think i´ll start a thread called "Should necrophilia be allowed?"

Yes and in those cases the pedophile gets away with it... Really? How come people find out that the kid was ordered not to tell?
Justice catches up 15, 20, 30 years down the line in most cases… plus as far as I know, bestiality is illegal in most countries, and newspapers still publish accounts of men convicted of bestiality.

Really? How come people find out that the kid was ordered not to tell?
Justice catches up 15, 20, 30 years down the line in most cases… plus as far as I know, bestiality is illegal in most countries, and newspapers still publish accounts of men convicted of bestiality.
Not in my country...and our penal code has a hard stance on other sexual deviant behaviour, like child abuse.

Did he just dis Nietzsche? Unforgiven you are. Foolish Christians, so afraid of what they cannot understand. My theology proffesor quoted Nietzsche with presicion and grace, and she is a much smarter Christian than you. Shut up and read you coward, I read the Bible a hundred times now, and I'm not afraid.

Nietzsche is hard not to dis, though. He was élitist and advocated "might makes right". It's not hard to see how he could be unpopular with both leftists and rightists.

I have no idea what to think.....but, in the rare case of an "consenting" animal (As far as that can be considered!? Well, if the animal doesn't try to fight back or escape, atleast.) I suppose I -could- be cool with it. But I wouldn't watch it...That's fer sure. Any rape like, just walking up to any animal...not tolerated. It's a weird issue, but I suppose all law's are just abstract moral-rules, so why should I care for this kind of situation? It doesn't happen that regular enough or harsh enough to make me do, call that egoistic if you wish ;)

I have no idea what to think.....but, in the rare case of an "consenting" animal (As far as that can be considered!? Well, if the animal doesn't try to fight back or escape, atleast.) I suppose I -could- be cool with it. But I wouldn't watch it...That's fer sure. Any rape like, just walking up to any animal...not tolerated. It's a weird issue, but I suppose all law's are just abstract moral-rules, so why should I care for this kind of situation? It doesn't happen that regular enough or harsh enough to make me do, call that egoistic if you wish ;)
How can you tell if it happens a lot or not? No one goes around in garden parties saying "Well, just shaged my dog before coming here".

ok, people, will be leaving now, but feel free to keep up the debate.

As I recall AIDS was acquired from blood swapping of some scientist and a monkey. Even if this wasn't the case, who knows what other random diseases could be picked up or mutated when transferred into humans.
Government should take steps in intrest of health to stop this.

Humans did not get HIV from fucking monkeys. More than likely it was transmitted by butchering and eating of monkeys. You can find some infomation on it HERE (http://www.avert.org/origins.htm).


Beastiality is wrong, just as homosexuality is.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/bsfield.jpg

Really? How come people find out that the kid was ordered not to tell?
Justice catches up 15, 20, 30 years down the line in most cases… plus as far as I know, bestiality is illegal in most countries, and newspapers still publish accounts of men convicted of bestiality.
Yes, the kid was ordered not too tell, but when the kid grows up they usually speak out. A dog wont speak out no matter what age it is...

I still can't believe there are people out there who believe "I think it's icky!" is an actual argument.

What if people get caught 'fencehopping'?

Pardon?

Fencehopping is where a person sneeks onto someone else's property at night to, ahem, lay with their beasts.

I still can't believe there are people out there who believe "I think it's icky!" is an actual argument.

Perhaps it is not such a bad "argument" after all. As a child we learn what tastes good or bad using instinctual methods. Dirt tastes "icky" therefore is bad. We come up with rationalizations for this later, but to disregard instinct because we can't put it into words overlooks something important.

And to stay relevant, I was never taught anything about this, but feel it is disgusting, probably through genetics. If my ancestors did this they would not have reproduced succesfully.

I still can't believe there are people out there who believe "I think it's icky!" is an actual argument.
thinking something is icky is either a part of culture or an instinct. in the cases where it is an instinct it is a very strong arguement.
however, i understand where you mean that (as a cultural arguement) it is invalid.

Perhaps it is not such a bad "argument" after all. As a child we learn what tastes good or bad using instinctual methods. Dirt tastes "icky" therefore is bad. We come up with rationalizations for this later, but to disregard instinct because we can't put it into words overlooks something important.

And to stay relevant, I was never taught anything about this, but feel it is disgusting, probably through genetics. If my ancestors did this they would not have reproduced succesfully.

But we allow so many things that are icky, like smoking. Why one and not the other?

Your ancestors may very well have done such things though (no offense intended).

There is a cave painting (I can't remember where) of a neolithic/post neolithic man having his way with a donkey, and such practices were only slightly less than common in medeival europe. I'm not sure about Asia or Africa though

Remember, it's okay to torture an animal to death so you can eat it, but heaven help you if you make an animal feel good... :D

no no no no no no no.
stop being furries.

But we allow so many things that are icky, like smoking. Why one and not the other?

Smoking makes some people feel good. I see the point the, my response is either the government is to weak to do anything, or that it doesn't care wither we live or die so long as we buy stuff.

Your ancestors may very well have done such things though (no offense intended).

There is a cave painting (I can't remember where) of a neolithic/post neolithic man having his way with a donkey, and such practices were only slightly less than common in medeival europe. I'm not sure about Asia or Africa though

I did not know. What I'm saying is this: If someone feels better having sex with an animal than a human, this individual would not produce offspring, therefore cutting the chances of another such human developing, although an individual who did both can obviously reproduce.

Maybe this same view can be utilized to examine homosexual lifestyle?
If it is true that a person does not choose to be a homosexual, but instead become ones due to some genetic influence, I do not see how more such individuals could be produced if this is the sole reason for that behavior. Bi-sexuality, if genetical, can be passed on.

It is demeaning to compare the two, but they both have one thing in common: These forms of sexual behavior cannot produce viable offspring. My question is then, does this behavior derive from genetics (and I believe it has a major role) or does it stem from societal influence?

(BTW, I have nothing against homosexuals.)

Are you trying to say that neither party gets any gratification when someone engages in bestiality? I doubt that just because someone is "sick" is enough motivation to do something like that.

While some people are infact sexually attracted to non-human animals (in the same way some are attracted to their own gender) very rarely are these people only attracted to non-humans. Historicaly this sort of behavior was engaged in primaraly because they did not have any other outlets.

If it is true that a person does not choose to be a homosexual, but instead become ones due to some genetic influence, I do not see how more such individuals could be produced if this is the sole reason for that behavior.

In various societies (such as ancient greece) active male omosexuals were quite common, as long as they did manage to marry a woman, do their duty, and produce offspring.

Other societies may have frown on male lovers, but still accepted them, always with the condition above on marriage.

Currently, I've heard of homosexuals who have tried to have a "normal" relationship, some of them even with marriage and/or children, before changing to homosexual lifestile.

Should there be some recessive gene, this would be more than enought to have it spread in the population, with relatively few cases of actual homosexuality.

Are you trying to say that neither party gets any gratification when someone engages in bestiality? I doubt that just because someone is "sick" is enough motivation to do something like that.

While some people are infact sexually attracted to non-human animals (in the same way some are attracted to their own gender) very rarely are these people only attracted to non-humans. Historicaly this sort of behavior was engaged in primaraly because they did not have any other outlets.

I'm thinking that there is not only an instinctual desire to have sex, but that this instinct also has a say of what you have sex with. I'm not sure what ur asking in the first part...?

And I suppose homosexuality I should define as being only attracted to members of your own sex. Bi-sexuals complicate matters and entirelly destroy my thesis if all "homosexuals" are in fact bi-sexual.

I think with all this overpopulation we may have for the most part eliminated the "no-other outlet" problem, but then again, maybe not. I hope we have not become so alienated from our own kind to resort to liking sex with animals over humans, but maybe for some people...

I myself (while not necassarily find it, how should i put it, normal or attractive) think zoophilia should be allowed on the grounds of many of my political arguments. IF you do it, its your own fault. Its kinda like smoking pot. I'll say Sure, go ahead. I dont give a damn. but when they come back high and half on the verge of death. Its not my problem. I aint gonna drive you to the hospital, go puke in your own damn toilet. I dont care what someone does really, as long as the effects dont harm me in any way. Than I'm good.

I'm not trying to say that's the only reason. Others include things such as the person just wants to be different/deviant, and their partner not being human is just their kink.

Another one is that some people think that it actually feels better with an animal.

Beastiality is wrong, just as homosexuality is. How sexually insecure... Homosexuality isn't wrong.

How sexually insecure... Homosexuality isn't wrong.

It's not wrong. But it's different from the POV of many people, of how relationships should be. And what people dont understand, they consider wrong. Its in many peoples nature.

Should there be some recessive gene, this would be more than enought to have it spread in the population, with relatively few cases of actual homosexuality.

Shit, I'm wrong, o well, was a nice try.

I'm not trying to say that's the only reason. Others include things such as the person just wants to be different/deviant, and their partner not being human is just their kink.

Another one is that some people think that it actually feels better with an animal.

Indeed, there are enough variable to allow one to have sex with animals and still produced offspring, and with the "recessive gene" crap I forgot about... damnit

It should most definately be outlawed. Immediately. And homosexuality IS wrong.

what is wrong with people. Yes you do own your pets but they are different than physical property -you cannot do anything and everything you please. Okay, whoever is so stupid to believe that animals have sex other than to reproduce go get a reality check!! or rather heres your sign...(reference to bill engvall's stupid signs of a few years back). this is a clear cut case of animal cruelty no if ands or buts about it!! why is this subject so damned fascinating? Im sure there are plenty of hos out there go hire one!

It should most definately be outlawed. Immediately. And homosexuality IS wrong.

you are wrong... :mad:

A poodle once had sex with my leg... I didn't give consent.

Dogs, dolphins, deer, horses, mokeys, and geat apes all masturebate. If not for sexual gratification then why?

A poodle once had sex with my leg... I didn't give consent.

Sue it for bestiality!