God damn, I had just thought of something funny to say about bestiality, but I can't think of it.
It was hilarious, though.
It was hilarious, though.
Poll: Beastiality
- Thread starter Alpha Centauri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be fair, it's a little gross but it's like anything sexual...hetero, homo, bi, paedo, incest whatever, you can't choose what you're attracted to and if tigers do turn you on then yes it's weird but being turned on by feet is weird if you ask me
Again, I have to agree with you here.Nimbus said:
Sex is sex. It can be beautiful, it can be disgusting, it is typically kinda messy with all the bodily fluids and what not involved. Yes, I am a virgin, so I can't speak from personal experience on the deed, but I know what it is like to be the subject of another's desire. Nothing was explicitly said, nothing explicitly done, but I swear to God, I have never felt so violated in my life.
In my opinion, subjecting any other living being to sexual acts without having absolute consent is just cruel.
I know people have a hard time controlling themselves, but being turned on by things they cannot in clear conscience fulfill is just a burden they have to bear.
Animals don't have sex for pleasure either, they have sex to mate and it's fully possible to form an emotional bond with an animal.Nimbus said:
No one specified that beastiality HAS to just be about sex or power, someone could fall in love with an animal and live with it, be trained in how to communicate and smell like them, even eat and sleep with them, that's not rape, thats a relationship, no matter who or what it's with, just because it's unconventional doesn't make it wrong.
I'd like to see someone rape a tiger, in response I posted this just nowragestreet said:
No one specified that beastiality HAS to just be about sex or power, someone could fall in love with an animal and live with it, be trained in how to communicate and smell like them, even eat and sleep with them, that's not rape, thats a relationship, no matter who or what it's with, just because it's unconventional doesn't make it wrong.
Yeah, most rednecks think it's fucked up. There are other's who agree though, you know, I think it's more of a Nordic thing. Maybe German too.Double A said:
It's not illegal in Denmark, they even have brothels for it: http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/07/29/denmark-leads-the-way-for-animal-bordellos-in-scandinavia/
Heck, it could also be a west coast thing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/douglas-spink-arrested-in_n_541379.html
Or maybe it's a Windsor/Detroit thing: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100514/METRO/5140422/1409/METRO/Windsor-police-arrest--charge-suspect-in-dog-abuse-case
I think that bestiality is wrong, for many of the same reasons listed above. In addition, the amount of damage that occurs to animals is pretty severe - rectal tearing, infections, even death when it's a smaller animal (house cat, rabbit etc)
It isn't based on ignorance, it's based on understanding. All toddlers know that "stealing is wrong" and "lying is wrong", but they don't understand property rights and how our society is based on the idea of private ownership. These things come later in development, they're abstract ideas which the brain can't understand until later in development, near adolescents.not_the_dm said:
Knowing is not the same as understanding and it's that they don't understand, it's they do not have the ability to understand the situation fully.
You are ignoring the health issue. As far as bestiality goes, it is simply inhumane. Interspecies sex is incredibly dangerous on the immune system front, and it is inhumane to allow a non-sapient animal to take part in that even if it is consensual. If a dog is eating its own shit, you stop it because that's terrible for the dog.cieply said:
Bottom line is that a non-sapient creature can't express consent, and if you think that we should have laws to guard animals from direct physical abuse (like beating your dog,) than we have should laws to guard animals from sexual abuse. I don't care what you jerk off to (everyone has the right to their own fetishes,) but acting upon those impulses when you are doing so in a way that detriments others (including animals) is simply wrong.
...
We fuck life, we fuck humans, we fuck everything nature stands for, we fuck, well, basically anything that moves.
How is this any different?
I stand neutral-offensive on this one.
We fuck life, we fuck humans, we fuck everything nature stands for, we fuck, well, basically anything that moves.
How is this any different?
I stand neutral-offensive on this one.
This might be disgusting to the majority of readers here, but it is NOT (inherently) wrong.
Yes, I understand that sex with animals is taboo and irks most people out, but that doesn't make it cruel, or should consider it a crime. A lot of people jump to the first problem that comes to mind as a rationalization why it's wrong. Here is where the arguments fall short and what the facts are.
The popular one is to compare animals to kids, probably because so many people see and treat their animal companions as kids. Huge problem with that, kids are not sexually mature, whereas all adults and grown animals ARE sexually mature. Likewise, animals hunt, have sex, reproduce, look after their young, and care for themselves in the wild, unlike children.
Intelligence and communication are also a popular argument to make, as if animals don't have any and therefor can not (willfully) participate. Good luck going up against an increasingly growing wealth of knowledge about the sophistication of animal communication and intelligence. So far our understanding of animal intelligence seems to be limited more by our ability to accurately measure animal intelligence rather then the limit of their cognitive abilities. Regardless, having less or a different kind of knowledge doesn't stop two individuals from enjoying sex. In addition, anyone with a close relationship to a companion animal generally has a good knowledge of how they communicate. Even the densest of people can understand when an animal is excited, scared, or *ahem* horny.
The last one I'll cover is one that comes out of the disgust factor. The way people describe it, you are almost certain to catch a parasite, disease or germs as soon as you come into sexual contact with an animal. The reality is, a zoophile and his or her animal partner is less at risk then a typical person. Germs are very species specific, so kissing fido is probably safer then kissing your wife/husband. Parasites in animals are easily prevented (or treatable). Again, most diseases are species specific, or aren't passed solely by sex. Finally, no risk of babies. Different species can have sex but aren't able to reproduce.
Bonus argument (or the one people wont admit to): Human exceptionalism. The frame of mind for this one is that we humans are the best species, most advance, most intelligent, so superior and have a god given right. So all other species (despite their ability to feel and have emotions just as we do) are beneath us. In fact, they are not communities or individuals with their own interests, but objects and resources to be exploited. Here in lies the problem, having a sexual partner implies that the two are equals.... and if that partner is a non-human animal, that contradicts our paradigm above.
*patiently waits for vitriolic replies*
Yes, I understand that sex with animals is taboo and irks most people out, but that doesn't make it cruel, or should consider it a crime. A lot of people jump to the first problem that comes to mind as a rationalization why it's wrong. Here is where the arguments fall short and what the facts are.
The popular one is to compare animals to kids, probably because so many people see and treat their animal companions as kids. Huge problem with that, kids are not sexually mature, whereas all adults and grown animals ARE sexually mature. Likewise, animals hunt, have sex, reproduce, look after their young, and care for themselves in the wild, unlike children.
Intelligence and communication are also a popular argument to make, as if animals don't have any and therefor can not (willfully) participate. Good luck going up against an increasingly growing wealth of knowledge about the sophistication of animal communication and intelligence. So far our understanding of animal intelligence seems to be limited more by our ability to accurately measure animal intelligence rather then the limit of their cognitive abilities. Regardless, having less or a different kind of knowledge doesn't stop two individuals from enjoying sex. In addition, anyone with a close relationship to a companion animal generally has a good knowledge of how they communicate. Even the densest of people can understand when an animal is excited, scared, or *ahem* horny.
The last one I'll cover is one that comes out of the disgust factor. The way people describe it, you are almost certain to catch a parasite, disease or germs as soon as you come into sexual contact with an animal. The reality is, a zoophile and his or her animal partner is less at risk then a typical person. Germs are very species specific, so kissing fido is probably safer then kissing your wife/husband. Parasites in animals are easily prevented (or treatable). Again, most diseases are species specific, or aren't passed solely by sex. Finally, no risk of babies. Different species can have sex but aren't able to reproduce.
Bonus argument (or the one people wont admit to): Human exceptionalism. The frame of mind for this one is that we humans are the best species, most advance, most intelligent, so superior and have a god given right. So all other species (despite their ability to feel and have emotions just as we do) are beneath us. In fact, they are not communities or individuals with their own interests, but objects and resources to be exploited. Here in lies the problem, having a sexual partner implies that the two are equals.... and if that partner is a non-human animal, that contradicts our paradigm above.
*patiently waits for vitriolic replies*