Opinions on Bestiality

Well this was coming eventually, now wasn't it? Talk about incest and you lead on to bestiality. Apparently....

So what are your thoughts about bestiality? The relationship between humans and animals on a sexual or romantic level.
Discuss.

 

Animals can't create a consensual agreement. It can only be assumed/interpreted, so there is room for misunderstanding. If they could communicate it, fine. But since it cannot be clearly understood to humans as consensual, only interpreted, it should remain illegal until they got those collar translators they had in Up.

 

And then a movie was ruined. ._.
I agree though, animals can't convey their feelings on the matter with humans, they don't have a say. The whole matter of it just seems cruel really, honestly I can't help but find it disturbing.

 

Consensuality doesn't matter when it comes to animals. It's owner/pet, so the owner can do a lot to the animal, because its his/her property. Anyone who say differently are not looking at it objectively.

It's rather strange to have a romantic relationship with something you can't communicate properly, if it's a living thing. (Object sexuality is another thread).

So I'm gonna say no. Not because "THINK OF THE ANIMALS" mumbo jumbo, but because it's another species. Simple as that.

 

uhhhh no. besides the fact of it not exactly being socially acceptable (???????), animals can't speak and i'm pretty sure it is causing harm to the animal as well but no one would know because they can't convey their thoughts. animals should stay exactly what they are...pets or wild animals to be honest. buy a dog doll or something if you're into that????????? forreal doe.

 

So what about when animals starting to get aroused by humans and try to (can't think of a better word) hump it?

I mean dogs in heat are a prime example, they don't care whether your dog, human, shoe, alive or dead, they will attempt to 'get off' on it. So effectively, they are trying to 'rape' a person, who a majority of the time feels embarrassed and annoyed, but is there any abuse involved?

Comparing abuse between people and animals is perhaps differently definable then between two humans. I mean, with an animal if you hit it for doing something bad to condition it to not do it again. Would that hit be called abuse? I mean to train a dog, or a horse, some form of physical interaction is needed that can equate to hitting. Even some rough physical behaviour is seen as sociable in certain animal behaviour. What tells us that's abuse? Hell, kissing a stranger in public or even hugging, can make some people see that as a form of sexual harassment and/or abuse, when simply it is a form of social interaction.

How would you define what is abuse against the animal and what is not.

 

Animals don't experience the same psychological states than humans do, so pain for them is purely a form of conditioning, how they learn. It would only be considered abuse if the pain induced onto the animal is excessive or unnecessary. I'm of course against animal abuse.

Bestiality is wrong, and there's no two ways about it. Like I said, animals don't experience the same psychological states that humans do, so they can't understand "love" or "hate" the same way we do. We can believe that they do, but it's more like a sense of who or what the animal considers an ally or enemy. And the worst thing about bestiality is the screwed up offspring that can (but should never) be produced. Its a feeling of just plain wrong that I'm sure any sensible human would share.

 

So you must be perfectly okay with owners neglecting, mistreating and/or killing their pets?
Furthermore...

How is this in any way, shape or form objective? Or indeed, why isn't that logic "mumbo jumbo" for that matter?
While I'm not keen on giving animals anthropomorphic properties, treating them as dead weight is equally incorrect. A distinction should be made between human, animals and inanimate objects. So yeah, suddenly objectivity doesn't matter and consensuality may. Funny how that goes, isn't it?

 

I say absolutely not. Love is only suppose to be my the same species.

 

Backup your opinions, please. I cannot stand such reasoning, because it's "NOT OKAY." I can understand an uncomfortableness with it, but I cannot stand people proclaiming that it is universally wrong. It means you lack an understanding, an awareness, empathy is a virtue. That is not to be forgotten.

Like the above, do you think it universally "wrong" because of society's standards? And you, among the herded and presumably respectable beings, must follow the norm. I don't find that too respectable.

It is not abuse to us because we are capable of higher thought, we see those animals and we think: innocent, helpless, it cannot be helped. That is why a person will suffer usually only minor embarrassment, those animals, they can't know any better we reason. However, if a person came up and began to bang your leg, you would most likely suffer a bit more than minor embarrassment. If he played innocent and proclaimed, "I didn't know any better!" a human would be hard pressed to believe it. Your fellow (wo)man should know better, so thinks you. They've a standard set of societal rules to follow.

Now what if a mentally disabled began to sex you up without your consent, and what if he truly were innocent? Subject to his own luscious urges. I wonder if your reaction would differ any?

You can condition humans, too. Observe Genie Wiley, who was conditioned not to speak through beatings. Granted, she suffered permanent psychological damage, but it should also be noted that she spent the early years of her life strapped to a potty chair; and thus that could have factored in on the damage significantly. Or was this not your point, was it rather - you can condition an animal with minimal harm, but cannot condition a human without majorly harming?

How can we know that what we call "conditioning" is not abuse? I do not know enough about animals and their behaviors to say for sure.

Any human "conditioning" I have heard of is less technical, less applicable, less impersonal, and more violent [than any animal conditioning], it seems. If you violently maim a person or dog, they will not react too dissimilarly. I do not know if there has been research done on this (most likely not, our morals contradict), teaching a child obedience via a training not unlike how we train animals. I think, the reason this cannot be done without psychologically abusing a child (or human, when did I narrow it down) is precisely because we are of the same species. It is human/human domination. This is less effective than human/animal domination, since we understand each other and as such can have a say in it... if dominated by a creature of the same species, it instigates a feeling of inferiority.

I'm out of it, don't know if any of this is applicable/relevant/makes sense. I feel dry, so maybe not.

 

I never once said that. I said they can technically do what they want, that doesn't mean you can kill them, nor neglect.

Because it isn't taking my own feelings into consideration. I could never imagine treating my pet badly. However, it is my property, so technically I can do what I wish.

An animal can't consent nor decline. How can you then claim that consensuality is needed? Having a romantic/sexual relationship with your pet doesn't make you hurt it. Dolphins, for example, are very sexual creatures, and it is very common for them to "hump" people. Is that consensuality? No. But it sure isn't a decline.

 

Greedy being, you don't own a thing. You may think you do, exchanging currency for goods-- currency of which, I might add, was deemed of worth by you. I cannot even fathom, do you really think you own anything? Another living being, no less, another good to you... no, you own nothing. But it is reassuring to believe that you do, isn't it? Humans need some power over the rest of animalkind, need to... but I am relying heavily on emotion right now, aren't I. So allow me to discuss it logically.

How do you own the animal?
What do you consider ownership?

I don't understand. So explain.

 

it's not me believing that it is so, because i don't agree with it doesn't mean that i am blindly following the norm as you think i am. besides, the norm is not set by me and only me. it is set by society as a whole so in that sense i am simply agreeing with popular opinion by saying that it is wrong to have sex with animals. the societal norm is set by a collection of popular opinion to become the "norm". it's perfectly respectable to agree with other people. if you're just disagreeing to disagree with the society then i think that's a pretty lame existence. i understand trying to be argumentative to show a different perspective, but for some reason a lot of people on here just like to argue with what the majority believes to be true so i'm only going to take it with a grain of salt. also, biologically speaking it is not the proper thing to do. by trying to pleasure yourself through an animal that has no means of communication with you in the ways humans do that already ranks them below humans in the way they process their surroundings. no matter how domesticated an animal is, they still act on instinct. what may seem enjoyable when a dog "humps" something it's just because it's their instinct to pass their genes over. humans on the other hand have learned to control themselves obviously and go through the whole "get to know you better" thing before trying to consummate their relationship. if you really can't find a HUMAN to have a sexual relationship with then something is honestly wrong. the animal doesn't see it coming and doesn't share the same feelings as you so theres no way that it is right. arguing for "human rights to love what they want and do what they want" should not apply in this case because it is literally not another human involved.

 

In short; it is mine to give away. Thus, I own it. If someone takes it away from me without my consent, they are punishable.

I would say it is rather foolish assuming you don't own a thing. You give your pet a name tag, to claim its ownership, do you not?

I may sound cynical, but it's the truth. It may have instincts, but not a consciousness like a human. And once again, unlike children, you don't raise a dog for your biological need to reproduce, you raise a dog for its fellowship. I'm not saying it's not a friend and a partner, which goes for most pets; but when someone asks "Who owns this dog?" You don't reply, "It's my dog, but I don't own it." That goes for all animals. They aren't conscious beings like humans are. Where I go, a (good) pet follows.

I would say that the idea that no one owns anything, is, and I apologize if you take offense to this, a rather childish one. If someone takes your toy, given to you by your parents/friend, do you not react saying "That's mine?"
And as mentioned, the same goes for animals, the pet, to be exact. It's yours. It's not someone else's. It's not its own master, which humans, to an extent, are.

 

I don't really have much to say to that at all, no response, except one little, itsy bitsy comment: also, biologically speaking it is not the proper thing to do.

If you meant to argue its biological benefit, I could very well bring homosexuality up. Homosexuality, as far as I know, has no biological benefit whatsoever. Yet nothing is held against them and their inability to procreate.

I disagree. I think the same of your mindset. To assume ownership over anything is childish, most of all over another being, did you not use a child in your example? So you didn't, but I am reminded of a child's dilemma with sharing. I can understand ownership over objects more readily than I can ownership over living, breathing beings. What you are doing is likening an animal to an object. I admit that I do say "my dog" for the sake of simplicity, it requires less effort, less explanation. However, I would hope that a literal interpretation would not be taken, for I do not mean it.

I have never owned a pet of my own choice (too young to "own"), but I have assisted in naming them. That can denote ownership, however it can in other cases not. For variation's sake we dub others names, I do not consider my name of "my" dog to be her objective name, undisputedly her. To be her only name, to be her name. It is only the title I dubbed her, I acknowledge that it is my own subjective calling. Nicknames are similar, does nicknaming a person denote possession over them? Do you claim that that is their actual name? Have you not ever concocted a nickname for an unknown person, stranger you see walking down the street?

 

but we're talking about animals here, not two humans. two humans are higher order thinkers and by that logic they can both do what they want. an animal and a human crosses species and is an entirely different argument.

 

Completely aside from the bestiality debate, you are assuming that one must take a stance on an issue in order to find fault with your own. She was not disagreeing with society for the sake of it, she was disregarding social norms and challenging your appeal to them.

While it is respectable to happen to agree with social norms, it is not respectable to appeal to them as a basis for argument. Having ten against one does not make the ten more likely to be right.

Humans are also beings of instinct. We are more complex and have more factors involved in our decisions, but you do a lot of appealing to natural tendencies for someone who thinks humans have more "choice".

Find me a child who is more likely to express fair use than direct ownership, and come and tell me when you find one.

Otherwise, stop calling names.

Humans "own" what they get used to having exclusive access to. The same with other animals and their territory. For instance, land ceases to be yours if people come there without your permission and make use of it all of the time. It becomes public. If you are not using something, and someone else is, it is theirs and not yours.

The concept of ownership only exists if others respect it. If you claimed that a thing was yours but everyone else believed in that it was only yours while you use it, then when you set that thing down and walked away, they would use it. The ownership would exist only as a concept in your mind and the world would function as if you did not own it in reality.

When someone asks you whose mother that is, you might say "that is my mother". And you know what? Where you go, a (good) mother follows. When you speak, a (good) mother listens to you. Having a role does not make you property.

If your pet were to run away, would you have a right to contain it on your land against its own will? Why should I assume that you have this right other than an assumption based on the use of the word "mine"? That is the definition of ownership, after all.

Please stop assuming the point as a means of justifying it, "my" friend.

 

first off, i never said i had an appeal with social norms. i'm not sitting on the sidelines saying "oh yippee an argument? let me appeal to the norm because someone's trying to bring in an unpopular opinion." no. it's like you're saying that my opinions are less valid, or likewise all opinions following the societal norms are less valid by having the majority. if someone truly believes that bestiality is wrong, that's not appealing on the basis of an argument, that's appealing on the basis of their own belief system. just like you do on a daily basis. your argumentum ad populum example is, in other words something that shouldn't apply in this situation. this thread directly asks our own opinion about bestiality, we're not on sitting in a court of law or in a congress in rome trying to decide someone's execution. just because i said "it's not socially acceptable", doesn't mean that i'm being egregious in suggesting that i agree with other people.

as i said, humans, while beings of instinct, have over many millennia of evolving and acquisition of knowledge been able to have more choice than animals. you're honestly going to tell me that a pet dog will choose to go to the supermarket and pick which type of dog food to get? iams or pedigree? come on. in all seriousness an animal doesn't have to decide whether to keep his job and move away from his/her/it's family for the job or quit the job and stay back with them. there is no comparison with the complexity of the decisions of animals versus human "animals" (since we are after all animals with a different ability however). no matter how much you try to argue it, at the end of the day you are speaking from a human perspective and no matter how much you try to justify it, until you interview a dog, cat, or other animal that people would like to have sex with and it says that it wants it as bad as the person does, then we will never know and can't say that it is truly right.

 

That was how you came off when you said "uhhhh no. besides the fact of it not exactly being socially acceptable (???????), ...". I was referring why she shot you down and justifying her position. With both of us, you have taken something we have said and assumed that we either held the opposite extreme to be true or that we were saying that you hold something you did not explicitly state. What she did was have a problem with you directly appealing to social norms in support of your position.

If you can think of a way to interpret that part of what you said as something other than appealing to social norms, please explain so that we can clear up the misunderstanding.

You misunderstand me. I am saying that choice is an illusion and that what you truly mean when you say that we have more options is that we have more instincts. Humans choose neither their genes or instincts (nature) nor the environment that they learn from (nurture). Humans are more intelligent and learn much faster, but they are held down to determinism just like any other animal. There is no 'right' because your decision that something was right was determined by your instincts and learning. Subjective choice cannot exist in a universe where causality does.

 

Never seen such a picture-perfect example of self-contradiction in a single sentence. Bless you.
Semantics aside, if you are not okay with treating your pet badly either, why even drag "objectivity'" in the debate? How is it still relevant?

Technically (hey, if you can make such blatant use of the term, so can I) you do. Not everyone may agree that being of the same species is a necessary requirement to start a romantic relationship. Your opinion is just as biased as any other. Only in your mind, perhaps due to your conscience or whatever, do you think it's wrong. To you, the nature of the species matters. To others, consent matters. The former justification isn't any better than the latter, and it is foolish to think that it is.

This comes dangerously close to saying that "everything that isn't a no is a yes", which is the epitomy of Insane Troll Logic if I ever heard it.
Children can't consent either. That doesn't make consent unnecessary.

Whether animals aren't hurt by sex I'll leave somewhere in the middle. This too is a subjective matter (of which I'm trying to tell that no debate on bestiality can do without), although I don't think farm animals would enjoy you interfering with their reproduction, and I don't think shoving your wiener into a house pet half your size will be a very pleasurable experience for it either.
Perhaps this won't be necessary, but I'm warning you right now that the moment you consider physical arousal as a factor, you're basically giving me a "you-win-this-debate" free card.