Poll: Is bestiality wrong if it's consensual?

[Izakflashman]

So This totally isn't related at all to that other thread with a similiar title and theme.
It's perhaps the only sexually deviant taboo I have seen on Game of Thrones. But If it came up in the show, and the horse, or dog, or whatever, seemed ok with it. Would you have any problem with bestiality as long as both parties seemed to be enjoying themselves?

 

[Shrouded]

Yes consent is impossible because there is no mutual intelligence or language.

 

[arcticphoenix95]

How would you know if it was consensual or not?

 

[Izakflashman]

Wagging tail.

How would you know if it was consensual or not?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

.......

Yes. Wrong in every way shape and form.

Animals cannot give consent in this matter. And other than that, it's a vile act.

EDIT: I'm going to quote a guy, so pardon the language
*Ahem*

Spoiler: Warning:Language

they will claim that their dog (or other animal) "consents" to being fucked in the ass. I disagree. Until your dog can speak forth an English sentence consenting to being fucked in the ass, your dog does not consent to being fucked in the ass, you sick ************. Another rationalisation often used is that the animal "just came onto me". "It was his idea!" they will say - if a dog starts licking your balls, your dog is broken and should be put down and so should you.

 

[Loop Stricken]

So This totally isn't related at all to that other thread with a similiar title and theme.

Oh totally not. Perish the thought!

But while I want to say no, there's the small fact that we can't communicate directly with the animals to ascertain their consent.
With the males we can somewhat imply that they're 'up for it' *ahem* but... it's iffy.

Unless you have Doctor Doolittle on hand of course.

 

[Vuavu]

Masterful comedy sir! I laughed. Haha but if you were serious, here's my answer: I really can't say. Though humans supposedly have the most advanced brains around, I doubt we could really understand the inner workings of an animal's mind. I never will engage in these acts and I can't really stop other people (unless it's my dog you're forcing yourself upon.) All I can say is USE PROTECTION Seriously though.

On another note, I've only had human. It's probably better. Just saying, sample some top quality human female, and you won't go back to your barnyard friends. Damn good stuff, I promise.

 

[bob1052]

Yes consent is impossible because there is no mutual intelligence or language.

Animal cognition is widely recognized and if language is a barrier to consent then is having sex in a foreign country wrong?

 

[Princess Rose]

Wagging tail.

How would you know if it was consensual or not?

Wagging tail isn't consent.

That's actually one of the major issues with bestiality - it is truly impossible to deal with consent issues.

In case it isn't clear, I voted that bestiality is always wrong.

And, more importantly, while VERY RARE (like one in a million rare, and even then usually only when it's twins or same-age adult siblings), it is possible for incest to be consensual. It is not possible for bestiality to be consensual. So your parallel post thread proves nothing.

 

[OpticalJunction]

So This totally isn't related at all to that other thread with a similiar title and theme.
It's perhaps the only sexually deviant taboo I have seen on Game of Thrones. But If it came up in the show, and the horse, or dog, or whatever, seemed ok with it. Would you have any problem with bestiality as long as both parties seemed to be enjoying themselves?

Bestiality is different from incest because YOU CANNOT TALK TO AN ANIMAL. Therefore you cannot actually know if they're enjoying themselves or if you're forcing them to do something against their will. So I think bestiality is wrong mainly because of that reason.

 

[Phlakes]

...But what if it's the animal taking the lead, and the human consents?

Also, this thread has provided me many lulz to close out my day.

Also also, my avatar is eagerly awaiting your opinions.

 

[darkfire613]

One of the major arguments against bestiality is that animals can't give consent. Since consent is impossible, bestiality is wrong.

 

[OpticalJunction]

...But what if it's the animal taking the lead, and the human consents?

Also, this thread has provided me many lulz to close out my day.

humans are always on top

of the food chain.

*dies*

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

shit, this thread again? the escapist has a bad enough rap about being full of sexual deviants. let's just drop these taboo-sex threads. things are taboo or illegal because they are, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. nobody can really tell you what to do, but be prepared from the consequences if you just do whatever you think "should" be right. illegal is "wrong" no matter what, because that is the only solid definition of wrongness in society. so, behave yourselves, keep your hands off your dogs and your sisters and whatever, and let's all just relax and play some video games.

 

[Nieroshai]

Is sex with a hole in a board okay as long as it's consentual? Also, this has nothing to do with any of your threads.

Um... aside for the religious answer I can't give because the standard assumption here requires its absence, I'd say I have no freaking clue. But if the animal's ... um... parts are the wrong size, you could easily cause or receive bodily damage. And causing harm to gain pleasure is wrong.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

Not at all. How else are we supposed to start cross-breeding species to create a race of superior beings based on human and animal genetics? If we force it on them they'll never love the cross-bred children, and THAT would just be wrong.

Also. I resent the world for never inventing a punctuation mark for sarcasm.

 

[cthulhumythos]

Yes consent is impossible because there is no mutual intelligence or language.

what about dolphins.

I REST MY CASE.

and bestiality is only wrong when it doesn't occur.

in seriousness- groooooooooooooooss.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I c wut was done here.
On topic: Consent is an impossibility because of the animal's limited intelligence and inability to communicate wishes. Also: even if they could communicate, it would probably always be a no because generally animals only have sex to create offspring.

 

[Izakflashman]

Wagging tail.

How would you know if it was consensual or not?

Wagging tail isn't consent.

That's actually one of the major issues with bestiality - it is truly impossible to deal with consent issues.

In case it isn't clear, I voted that bestiality is always wrong.

And, more importantly, while VERY RARE (like one in a million rare, and even then usually only when it's twins or same-age adult siblings), it is possible for incest to be consensual. It is not possible for bestiality to be consensual. So your parallel post thread proves nothing.

Thanks for replying. What I was trying to ascertain with this parallel thread was to see if people applied the same logic I saw cropping up a lot in the other thread, which was "as long as the two involved were having fun and no babies happened." (obviously the baby part isn't an issue here.)

 

[Izakflashman]

shit, this thread again? the escapist has a bad enough rap about being full of sexual deviants. let's just drop these taboo-sex threads. things are taboo or illegal because they are, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. nobody can really tell you what to do, but be prepared from the consequences if you just do whatever you think "should" be right. illegal is "wrong" no matter what, because that is the only solid definition of wrongness in society. so, behave yourselves, keep your hands off your dogs and your sisters and whatever, and let's all just relax and play some video games.

Sorry for bringing the tone of the place down man. I promise this is the only sexy deviation thread I'll ever make here.