Morality of bestiality (Was: End bestiality on Fchan!)

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721 761 801 841 881 921 961 1001
at 2 May 2006: 10:12


at 2 May 2006: 10:19

Sexual intercourse is about as harmful as petting.  Rough sexual intercourse can injure, but so can rough petting.  (To clairfy, by "petting" I meant the normal standard affectionate non-sexual gesture, not any implied sexual meaning behind it)

So, if it's okay to pet an animal without consent (read the law, any contact without permission is considered assault)...

at 2 May 2006: 11:19

Who here is talking about Rough sexual intercourse. True Rough sexual intercourse can injure but that applies to any species including human sexual intercourse.

Read the law, any contact with another human without permission is considered assault.

Yggdrasil at 2 May 2006: 14:55

So, only sex is wrong?  Only a mutually enjoyed act is wrong, but forced captivity, murder, testing, etc. are all okay?

Hypocrasy at it's finest.

at 2 May 2006: 15:18


Now, if you had actually read any of this, you'd have seen this addressed like 4 times already.  It's all wrong, but that doesn't mean the sex is okay.  Lesser evil is still evil.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 2 May 2006: 16:35


Blast... well, I'll try to think of a response to this when I get back from work, but for now, all I can say is that I have the same feelings for a similar situation when it involves children.  Sexual maturity is a cenvinient excuse, but really, it's arbitrary.  In theory, you can have someone who is more intelligent than us all, yet perhaps possessing some defect that prevents sexual maturity from ever occuring.  Innocence and taking advantage of trust is what concerns me, and...

And I'll have to get back to you on that. ^_^ It's nice to see someone who seems willing to discuss this at length and admit to the fact that an animal cannot grant informed consent.  Now if I could just see how an animal can provide sufficient, consent on the matter that is at least similar to informed consent, so that I can lay to rest my fears that those practicing bestiality are yet another group out to use animals toward a selfish ends.

Actually, I think all forms of animal cruelty are wrong, but bestiality is one that enough people seem to agree upon as being wrong that there's actually a chance of doing something about it.  For the most part, it's punished on discovery... but I've been wrong about things before, and I may be wrong about this.  I doubt that I'm wrong, but in order to find personal closure at least, I need to think this out... though I think I'm close now (for myself).


I don't recall seeing a post saying that murdering animals was okay...

Wolfblade at 2 May 2006: 16:44

This is the most well-voiced argument I've ever heard on this subject. On the subject of how much consent an animal can give though;

If an animal is incapable of consent by the human definition of it, then NO sex, even between two of the same animal, is consenting. If an animal gives a human every signal and indication of consent it can give to another animal, then either it has given consent, or ALL animal sex is rape, in whih case how is being raped by a human different from being raped by another animal? If an animal can consent to having sex with another animal, then they can consent to the same degree with the same signals and body language to have sex with a human.

So the other point seems to be where to draw the line of how human an animal can be.

This is my only argument on the subject.

Right or wrong from a standpoint of morals is just an argument for the sake of arguing. Everyone's morals are different and changing. A few hundred years ago, few felt it immoral for one human being to own another. Morals change, differ from person to person, and are not set in stone.

Arguing whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal is a different matter though. It depends on whether society sees an animal as a living sentient thing, or just as property.

If you feel it is wrong because you see it as some form of abuse to the animal, fine. If it is abuse, then abuse is abuse, and people should be judged on the severity of the abuse. If society decides a person who fucks his dog is ABUSING that animal, and chooses to punish him for abuse, then ok. But then more severe abuse should warrant a more severe punishment. Fuck a dog that by all appearances isn't fighting it and get 15 years for animal abuse, then killing a dog should be a significantly harsher sentence. You don't get jail time for rape, but only a fine for murder.

So if an animal is only considered "destroyed property" when it is killed (something I find MUCH more disgusting than the concept of someone letting their dog boink them), then society has decreed the animal to be nothing more than property, so who are they to say what someone can and can't do with their own property?

I'm not saying sex with animals is ok. I'm not saying it should be legal. From a moral standpoint, that is a matter that will differ from person to person. From a legal standpoint, the ruling of society in general, is that they can't make up their mind, plain and simple. Until society (law) decides one way or the other, it is ridiculous to treat it as both.

If sex with an animal warrants "abuse" and jail time, murdering one should warrant much worse, and I'd be all in support of both. As long as murdering an animal constitutes nothing more than "destruction of property" and a fine, and law has no problem with animal testing which often leads to death, then punishing someone just for having sex with his "property" is just as ludicrous as if there were a law against fucking your stuffed animals.

at 2 May 2006: 18:14

I don't know how many religious people there are here but if you go by the Bible, there is a part that states if you have sex with an animal, you will be put to death. I listen to the radio in the mornings and have heard of many people who have been caught sneaking onto farms and fucking animals. They were arrested and sentenced to prison time.
So if you get caught you will be arrested and jailed. I won't get into the consent issue. Mainly because consent or not beastiality and underage sex will get you a handful of trouble.

209Report (sage)
sage at 2 May 2006: 18:18


210Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 19:34

some people cannot agree to disagree.

And sage for thousand+ year old topic that won't be settled any time soon, that's only brought up for the
sake of argueing/flaming.

211Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 20:20

>>210 This isn't why I started this thread. Don't pile this on me. I was satisfied with the mod decision before this topic hit it's teens...

at 2 May 2006: 20:23

So you contribute to a topic, complaining that it's too long?  Do you think?  I mean that... did a thought promote you to post that?  Frig.

I don't think the sentense and punishment of one crime has anything to do with another.  By that token, if killing the animal is legal, then there's nothing wrong with torturing it. Just because there's injustice doesn't mean it's solved with more injustice.

Yes, I think sex with animals is abuse.  Animals are innocent.  They don't think like we do, so with the exception of chimps, they can't commit a crime, so with them, it's just sex. Humans complicate things cause we choose to do it just for the fuck of it, and that makes it rape if you don't get consent. If there was a human so stupid that he thought he's making babies with animals, it wouldn't be rape, it'd be brain damage.

Kind of like how if a plant kills a plant, it's nature, but if a human kills a human, it's murder. With the ability to think about it, comes the responsability to THINK about it. :)

at 2 May 2006: 20:51

Whats wrong with beastiality?. Well, heres my answer.
Because beleive it or not, it is possible for a human to impregnate an animal (doesn't happen often, but occassionally). And what the animal gives birth to wil be born badly deformed and probably dead (due to genetic incompatabilities) as well.
Dont laugh... I've seen pictures.
THATS the harm it can cause.

at 2 May 2006: 21:01

>>213 I'm sorry, but you've been tricked. There isn't a single animal on the planet with the same number of base DNA pairs. If you don't believe me, look for it in any medical or scientific journal (as in not a website).

at 2 May 2006: 21:02


...you.... wow.

just wow.

at 2 May 2006: 21:13

>>214 Clarification to what I was saying... There isn't a single animal on the planet with the same number of base pairs as a human... There are quite a few animals with the same number base pairs amongst themselves... We humans are an island in the genetic soup...

Janglur at 2 May 2006: 21:14

Behold!  Ignorance!

Where's my bliss?

218Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 23:00

Yes you have seen pictures in an age when computers can doctor any image to make it look real. Reality on the world wide web is much different than real "reality".

Svansfall at 3 May 2006: 01:24


You say you consider sex with animals to be abuse, because animals are innocent, and they don't think like we do.

I would like to see your answer to the questions I am raising in post 199.
If it is abuse to give pleasure to an animal, wheter it is by stimulating their genitals, or by scritching their back.   How
come is it then that the same individual animals come back for more?

I am not saying that there are people who are not abusing animals.  There are, and it is terribly, terribly wrong.  But an
abused animal does not come back for more abuse.

For example, there are heterosexual humans who abuse their human sex partners.  Should we therefor say it is wrong to be a
heterosexual human?  The percentage of caring and responsible zoophiles is a rather high number, but they prefer to do it in
private with animals they know well, animals they can understand the body language of.   There is more to sex than just
getting your own rocks off, the point is to give pleasure at the same time.  Are you thinking that animals are incapable of
recieving pleasure?   Then why are you scritching a dog?  Why am I scritching the cow's back when she enjoys it?  And why am I giving attention to her genitals when she enjoys it?   Because it feels good to give pleasure.

You are completely right when you say that animals do not think like we do.  But animals have a sexuality, and they do enjoy sexual stimulation.  That is why a mare might rub her genitalia against a tree to stimulate herself.

I respect your right to feel that sex with animals is wrong, but please do not let that get in the way of sensible, and caring animal owners who may wish to stimulate their animals, in the case that the animals enjoy it and get pleasure from it.

Animals are fully capable of feeling pleasure by having their genitals stimulated.  If an animal wants to be pleasured, what
is so wrong with giving them this pleasure?  And do you seriously believe the same animal would come back, and eagerly raise their tail and present their genitals to someone who has given sexual stimulation, in case the animal did not wish to be
pleasured again?


I wouldn't say that sexual maturity is some kind of excuse.  I would say it makes all the difference.  Animals have a sexuality.  Children does not have a sexuality, it is not developed yet.  As stated above, some animals enjoy stimulation to their genitals, and I am wondering why it is wrong to stimulate the genitals of an animal who enjoys the stimulation?

I agree that it is wrong to take advantage of trust, and it should not be allowed.  But if you take advantage of the trust the animal shows you, and you harm the animal in any way, it already falls under the category of cruelty to animals.  I agree that people who abuse animals are really bad people, and I am very concerned with the well-being of animals.  In fact, most zoophiles are concerned with the well-being of animals.  There is a great difference between zoophiles who enjoy to care for, and live together with animals, and people who might just go out to have sex with any animal as a kind of getting off.

It's all about showing respect for what the animal enjoys and does not enjoy.  And just as I stated above, an animal who did not enjoy your stimulation, will not choose to come up to you and raise their tail in front of you again.

Svansfall at 3 May 2006: 01:28


I did a typo in the post I just wrote.  In the third paragraph, it reads: "I am not saying that there are people who are not abusing animals."   It should read:

"I am not saying that there are not people who are abusing animals."

Sorry for making it confusing.  :)

223Report (sage)
at 3 May 2006: 03:53

  ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧      ∧_∧
 ( ・∀・)   ( `ー´)  ( ´∀`)  ( ゚ ∀゚ )    ( ^∀^)
 (    つ┳∪━━∪━∪━━∪━∪━∪━┳⊂     つ
 | | |  ┃This thread has peacefully ended.┃ | | |
 (__)_) ┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┻ (__)_)     Thank you.

Xenofur at 3 May 2006: 04:10

  ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧      ∧_∧
 ( ・∀・)   ( `ー)  ( ∀`)  ( ゚ ∀゚ )    ( ^∀^)
 (    つ┳∪━━∪━∪━━∪━∪━∪━┳⊂     つ
 | | |  ┃    We lied! It's still on!     ┃ | | |
 (__)_) ┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┻ (__)_) 

DragonFlame at 3 May 2006: 12:25

Im back early Bwhahahaha.

LOL That would be a Miracle.

Awwwwww. You got my hopes up and then crushed them. ;)

at 3 May 2006: 18:49

You're really using that as a rationalle for dog fucking?  DUDE, if you have to make such fantastic leaps of logic in order to attempt to justify to yourself what you're doing maybe you shouldn't be doing it hmm?

If petting is just as harmful as sexual intercourse why are there hundreds of thousands of women in therapy and support groups and recovering from the emotional and psychological trauma of being raped whereas NOBODY is in therapy to help them get over the psychological trauma of a non consensual pat on the back or somebody brushing up against their arm.  What you said is like pissing in the face of every rape victim out there.

*slaps forehead* Do you know what hypocrisy is?  Did i mention enslaving/murdering/testing on animals?  NO, so why on earth did you bring it up?  This thread is about fucking dogs, that's what i mentioned.  I'm saying fucking animals is wrong and a hair under %100 of the earths population agrees with this since it's so obvious a 226 post argument shouldn't even have been necessary.

As for mudering animals, theres people being murdered every day, who gives a shit about the animals.  Once we end all homicides, then we can worry about kids shooting pigeons with bb guns.  As for testing, a lot of it is wrong but without it, my brother would never have survived infanthood if it weren't for his artificial baby heart bypass being tested on pigs and goats.

227Report (sage)
Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 3 May 2006: 19:31


I approve of this message

at 3 May 2006: 20:06

Think it's ok to screw an animal?. Fine. Go ahead and do it. You'll have plenty of time to think about how wrong it is while sitting in your prison cell.

RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 20:33


Why so angry friend? :)

If someone wants to have sex with a dog, what's the big deal?  As long as the animal isn't hurt, to each his own.  ^^

I can assure you that about 60 to 70 percent of those people who "think fucking animals is so wrong" do it behind closed doors anyway. :P

And dude, what's with the hostility toward animals?  Were you raped by a gang of cats or something when you were little? Jeez...  Just because people are getting murdered somewhere doesn't mean you just drop everything and stop caring about animals.  "Oh that kid is about to set that cat on fire but some chick is hypothetically getting murdered halfway across the globe and there's nothing I can do about it anyway but I'll sit here and NOT help the cat out of protest!"  I don't get it. :P

RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 21:24


Not really.  How often do people actually get caught doing it?  That's the type of thing people don't really advertise.  They do it behind closed doors. You know it goes on CONSTANTLY in every community and how often do you ever hear about people gettin' caught?  NEVER. :P

Let em have their fun. It's no whoopity doo. :)

at 3 May 2006: 21:31

"Why so angry friend? :)

If someone wants to have sex with a dog, what's the big deal?  As long as the animal isn't hurt, to each his own.  ^^"

To each his own, right, pardon me while i go rape a child, as long as i don't punch her in the face she won't be injured ^^
Just because it doesn't PHYSICALLY hurt the animal doesn't mean it's not hurting it.  And who's angry?  Are you?  Cuz i'm certainly not.  We've got a thread here filled with perverts advocating the rape of animals.  The fact that this thread is so mind bendingly stupid makes harsh words warrented IMO.

"And dude, what's with the hostility toward animals?  Were you raped by a gang of cats or something when you were little? Jeez...  Just because people are getting murdered somewhere doesn't mean you just drop everything and stop caring about animals.  "Oh that kid is about to set that cat on fire but some chick is hypothetically getting murdered halfway across the globe and there's nothing I can do about it anyway but I'll sit here and NOT help the cat out of protest!"  I don't get it. :P"

Who's hostile toward animals?  Did i advocate any hostility? Sheesh, did i say i wouldn't help a cat cuz people get murdered?  Where on earth do you people come up with this stuff?  You need to get with reality here and acctually read the posts you're responding to instead of replying with all this rediculous conjecture.  Compared to human lives, animals are beyond insignificant, that's what i was implying, the shit happens, it's sad but no big deal.

"I can assure you that about 60 to 70 percent of those people who "think fucking animals is so wrong" do it behind closed doors anyway. :P"

Oh, wow, wow.....I've seen some delusional furries that are seemingly completely out of touch with reality but with this post you take the cake man.  If you acctually believe this you are truly lost in your own world.  I mean you don't acctually believe that 60 to 70% of the world is fucking there dog behind closed doors do you?  Cuz %100 percent of random people you meet on the street will tell you that fucking a lesser lifeform that eats it's own poo is about as gross as you can get.  NEWSFLASH!  NOBODY FUCKS DOGS, it's about as niche a perverted fetish as you can get.  Keep telling yourself that everybody is doing it, infact, why don't you tell EVERYBODY that you do it?  I'm sure %60 to %70 percent of them will understand since they all do it right? 

good grief......

at 3 May 2006: 21:47

>>231 Some animals explicitly ask for sex, even from human partners. It's not rape if it's consensual.

RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 21:56


Hehe.  Right back at ya.  You're the one who's delusional if you think everyone is spotlessly clean.  Oh and I never even mentioned whether or not I was a furry or into besitality or not.  I just said "to each his own." What people do is their business, whether I agree with it or not.  If it's not hurting anyone, there's no need to make a big deal out of it. ^^

Again, why so angry friend?  "Good grief......" ^^

RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 22:10


Oh and one more thing.  If animals are so insignificant to you...then why does any of this matter?  Just think of the animal as a sock or a condom, a simple tool, if they're so insignificant. You should calm down and have some hot cocoa. Everything will be okay, guy. ^^ 

at 3 May 2006: 22:27

I will say it best for the entire world who agrees


now close thread and ban dogfuckers

RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 22:44


Whoa, dude.  Are you alright? ^^;

at 3 May 2006: 22:55


youre just straight nuts man. been readin too much into that thar bible or something. besides, whether or not they have souls has nothing to do with anything. if i started arguing with you about it all our posts would dissapear because i dont think religion is up for debate here.

people like you who are that negitive about anything are the ones who fail at life. shit is the way it is and its probably that way for one reason or another. kicking and screaming will only make you look immature.

Wolfblade at 3 May 2006: 23:01

"And who's angry?  Are you?  Cuz i'm certainly not."



Because this is in every way a more healthy and balanced way of thinking than it is when someone sees no problem in giving physical pleasure to an animal that, whether you see it as sick or not, they see it as expressing affection and caring.

All the arguments FOR bestiality have been talking about loving an animal, feeling affection for them, showing them physical pleasure. Whether that is misguided or sick or whatever you choose to think, it is still better than the people who have been speaking against it. The guy who says he killed an alley full of dogs, burned a barn full of horses, the people who say animals aren't capable of thinking or reasoning on our level but can somehow be scarred emotionally by sex on levels they supposedly don't have, and now a guy who says they are soulless, useless, and don't matter. Yet he's about ready to pop a headgasket over this.

Why are people who think so little of animals so violently rabidly against people who do this?

at 3 May 2006: 23:17

amen wolfblade. *bows*

skibum#KrV755.GHU at 3 May 2006: 23:33

Apparently hate is all they have left; all other arguments are exhausted.  *shrugs*

1003Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.