Bestiality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[A High Way Man]

But don't bestialists equate a sexual relationship with an animal to one with a human? It's counter-intuitive not to apply the concept of consent.

 

[Enteebee]

But don't bestialists equate a sexual relationship with an animal to one with a human? It's counter-intuitive not to apply the concept of consent.

You're assuming that they have the mens rea for rape? Well I don't think so, even when they do have sex with an animal I imagine they probably think of it as having the same cognitive abilities as they do.

 

[Graney]

How would we know, for sure, if bestiality is consensual?

I'll say I'm against rape of all kinds, ha

The reason consent is necessary in human relations, is because sex without consent is always harmfull to a person.

The dog obviously can't give consent ever, but does this mean the sex is harmfull?
I'm pretty sure most animals would love it.

 

[Iron]

The gubbament makes me register my relationship with my labrador as if it's a common car. It's like we're second class citizens.
One day I hope that people will get out of the dark ages and acknowledge the deep and personal connection we share. My dog and I love eachother. I just hope than one day folks will call this a marriage and not a registration

 

[Troy2287]

Animals aren't able to consent to heaps of shit we do to them, should that also stop?

The fact that they're incapable of forming relations shouldn't matter either because let's be honest, heaps of people go into sex not looking for any sort of relationship... for instance people going to a prostitute, should prostitution be banned?[/quote]

I thought prostitution was already illegal..

 

[Enteebee]

I thought prostitution was already illegal..

Nope.

 

[KFunk]

Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of 10 women to each man. Wouldnt that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogomous sexual relations - as far as men were concerned?

It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.

 

[Iron]

It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.

And animals will have to be bred and
slaughtered
right?

 

[Kwayera]

It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.

Not to mention that monogamy is not necessarily the default setting for human beings. For both males and females, outward monogamy is the default setting only because we necessarily have to invest a huge amount of time into our offspring; thus female ovulation is hidden. However, that doesn't stop a solid ~10% of the population of either gender from being promiscuous; there are large genetic advantages to it, and the cost/benefit ratio is quite low if you don't get caught.

 

[sam04u]

SIV = Simian (primate) Immunodeficiency Virus. It's where we got it from; SIV has "transferred" to humans quite a few times separately, starting around the 1800s. So no, not polio vaccine.

And, ah, condom?

I already explained that a condom does not neccessarily negate the general unhygienicness of the act of engaging in intercourse with an animal of a different species. Moreso, it's not as if a dog in the sexual stupor which comes from weeks of deprivation is particularly willing to allow it's owner to place a condom over it's penis, and then patiently ensure it's on for the whole duration.

At the point at which a human would suffice for an animal is a point of extreme sexual tension and deprivation to the point of cruelty. And for what reason? A few seconds of sexual gratification for the owner? That's highly immoral.

Also, the polio vaccine theory has generally been debunked by the scientific community, I just threw that in there for diversity of arguments, or theories. We don't know for sure either way how that epidemic was transfered via one species to another, and is now so widely prevalent in sub-saharan Africa.

And finally, I'm sorry, letting your pet go to a dog park and "do what comes naturally" is extraordinarily irresponsible. My desexed female was essentially "raped" (i.e. forced by a larger, entire male dog) until we pulled the dog off. So to make that argument shows your extreme ignorance and lack of foresight.

So you support bestiality, but not two dogs having sex? And you're calling me insane. Please, do society a favour and end yourself.

I do not believe it necessarily hurts the animal to perform sexual acts on it, except in the case of desexed females that generally lack the capacity to become aroused.

The conditioning or preparation as you call it involves sustained sexual deprivation. An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species. Concede that fact.

 

[KFunk]

I'm a speciest, I think anyone who claims not to be is a liar. The question is really how much right we afford to animals in recognising their merits as fellow creatures.

Yeah, I'm sure we're all speciest. However, the question of whether we ought to be is still pertinent. We have rejected plenty of social norms in the past - why not another? Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.

Kill the iconophiles.

 

[sam04u]

Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of 10 women to each man. Wouldnt that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogomous sexual relations - as far as men were concerned?

That's an excellent idea Doctor.

 

[A High Way Man]

An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species.

Needs to be investigated. I'd be very disappointed in animals if the opposite was true.

 

[Enteebee]

Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.

Agreed

edit: Actually maybe.

 

[Iron]

Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.

Kill the iconophiles.

News to me old boy!
How does that square up with doing medicine?

 

[KFunk]

The really irritating thing is I understand the flaws in my own argument and I understand the 'specious' (excuse my mild pun) reasoning behind it; however it isn't cruelty for cruelty's sake. Animal testing has had an impact in over 80% of medical developments over the past 100 years.

It's more of a utilitarian argument made on the level of cognisance and sentience in other beings (Something we however, cannot validly quantify). I therefore base the argument on the somewhat dehumanising one of natural selection... blah blah blah. I don't make the argument from species ignorance but from pragmatism.

You shouldn't use pragmatism (which is value-relative) as a cover word for anthropocentrism. If you're comfortable with a speciest utilitarian calculus, fine, but it makes me uneasy.

 

[Enteebee]

You shouldn't use pragmatism (which is value-relative) as a cover word for anthropocentrism. If you're comfortable with a speciest utilitarian calculus, fine, but it makes me uneasy.

Why value life and not non-life?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Second one I disagree, you don't feel a bond with any of your pets?

I quoted it in a very "we can fall in love" way

 

[Kwayera]

I already explained that a condom does not neccessarily negate the general unhygienicness of the act of engaging in intercourse with an animal of a different species. Moreso, it's not as if a dog in the sexual stupor which comes from weeks of deprivation is particularly willing to allow it's owner to place a condom over it's penis, and then patiently ensure it's on for the whole duration.

At the point at which a human would suffice for an animal is a point of extreme sexual tension and deprivation to the point of cruelty. And for what reason? A few seconds of sexual gratification for the owner? That's highly immoral.

Why would it necessarily be unhygenic? One assumes that a person having sex with an animal would ensure that both are relatively clean to start off with. Heck, even horse breeders are scrupulous (to the point of overkill) about the hygiene of their animals.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that animals suffer the same mental effects of "sexual deprivation" that we do. They don't. Where are you getting this "weeks of deprivation" bullshit? Animals that are willing to have sex with humans, and that wouldn't be all that uncommon, wouldn't have to be TRAINED to do it. Animals that were unwilling would necessarily use their teeth to make that point clear - and that has happened, as well.

Also, the polio vaccine theory has generally been debunked by the scientific community, I just threw that in there for diversity of arguments, or theories. We don't know for sure either way how that epidemic was transfered via one species to another, and is now so widely prevalent in sub-saharan Africa.

Actually, yes, we do. Read some stuff by Stephen J O'Brian and his ilk.

So you support bestiality, but not two dogs having sex? And you're calling me insane. Please, do society a favour and end yourself.

Just because I'm saying there's nothing inherently cruel about it, doesn't mean I condone it. And what I am saying is that unplanned matings between dogs, without a damned good reason to produce pups, is irresponsible, and any owner that IS responsible would desex their animals to prevent this from occuring.

The conditioning or preparation as you call it involves sustained sexual deprivation. An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species. Concede that fact.

First of all, how does it involve "sustained sexual deprivation"? Are you saying that between human sex, "sustained sexual deprivation" during foreplay is akin to torture?

And second, how do you KNOW that animals do not enjoy sexual acts with their owners? That's right, you don't, not unless you can quote the scientific research that unequivocally SAYS so.


EDIT: And quite often animals enjoy sex outside their own species. That's how hybrids occur. QED.

My bullshit detector is ringing.

 

[sam04u]

I quoted it in a very "we can fall in love" way

UIC why are you one of the only sane women which posts in this section of the forums? ^^;