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 18 May 2006: 10:37


You can teach a friggin bee to find landmines by Pavlovian reactions, so you damn well can teach a dog to sit without it needing any higher brain functions.

at 18 May 2006: 10:48


Cool, so now the opposition has gone from "animals are intelligent enough" to "animals are so dumb that they don't care".

This whole thing isn't about animals, but the person who fucks them. In essence, bestiality is an elaborate way to masturbate and other, regular people, don't want to see it, don't want to hear about it and don't want to think about it or know about it.

Why? Because it doesn't feel natural to them. People fuck people and that's it.

Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 10:59


No, animals are definitely intelligent enough.  Animals are not dumb, and they do care.  If animals didn't care, I would not be attracted to them.  It's the whole issue of their enjoyment that does it enjoyable to me.   That's why they come up to me and ask for the stimulation.  If they didn't care, they wouldn't come up to me.

What I said in post 400 was that animals do not meet the human official definition of "consent", because that implies that they can speak with words.   However, my point was that animals do communicate, can communicate, know when they feel pleasure, know how to actively search that pleasure.  They also know how to communicate that they want the pleasure.

It's not the human definition of consent, but as I just said, if the human definition of consent would matter, we could not do anything together with animals.  No horseback riding, you couln't even go walk your dog, because even though the dog comes up to you with their lead in their mouth, they have not actively spoken with words to say that they want to go out.

I totally respect that some people are repulsed by the thought of sex with animals.  That is fully understandable.   But because they don't like to see it or know about it, doesn't mean that it is wrong for someone to give pleasure with an animal who clearly enjoys the pleasure.

at 18 May 2006: 11:01

And the whole idea of consensus comes from the same people vid people theme: if the animal can think like a person, it's enough of a person to be considered one of us.

at 18 May 2006: 11:05

Even if it's not techically wrong, or even morally wrong, what gives you the right to stuff it down my throat? I don't want to see it, or hear about it, or know about it.

Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 11:05


Training a dog to sit is a lot more simple than all the communication that goes on between people who actively work with their dogs.  Such as a sheep herder who works together with a sheep herding dog.  There's a lot of communication going on there.  If communication between human and animal was impossible you could not do this.

Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 11:07


You are actively viewing this thread.  I am not forcing you to view it.  If you don't want to see it, hear about it, or know about it, simply do not click at the link that says it will contain it.

at 18 May 2006: 11:28

Unfortunately, this thread sits on this board for all eyes to see and I am very much aware of it every time I look at the list of threads.

I have to participate, so that possibly in the future, I would not have to see even a hint of bestiality whenever I visit this site.

at 18 May 2006: 11:29


If communtication between a human and a computer wasn't possible, I wouldn't be able to type you this message.

That still doesn't say that there's anything more than air running through that dog's head, just because you have taught it some signals.

Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 11:42


I see your dilemma.   I honestly do not wish to expose anyone to anything they don't want to see.   But, the discussion happens to take place right here, right now.   I am personally happy for the discussion actually taking place, because when someone says that what I am doing is harmful, I feel I have the right to explain that it is not harmful.

The discussion at this point is not about what is allowed on this site, but more about wheter something is wrong or not.


So you seriously mean that you believe a dog to be as unintelligent as a computer?   I sincerely hope that you don't interract with animals very often.

Xenofur at 18 May 2006: 12:43

Read the subject please.

at 18 May 2006: 15:56


Look man, you're talking about animals that have been bred for total domestication. The kind of consent you're talking about isn't good enough. By your definition, cows consent to being slaughtered. They aren't smart enough to consent. Maybe dolphins and apes are, but dogs and horses aren't, and cows definately aren't.

Anyhow, though you continuously reject it, it all comes down to being wrong for the same reason that pedophilia is wrong. Yes, the animal can consent, but they don't know any better, so their consent doesn't matter. The average child is vastly more intelligent than an animal, and boys and girls as young as 11 can technically be "mature" in a sexual sense. Yet, they can't give sexual consent, because they don't fully grasp the gravity of what they are agreeing to. No matter how harmless the "fun", it's molestation to engage a child in sexual acts. Same goes for animals, except they won't EVER attain the wit to properly consent. They can't talk, nor learn to talk, including sign language and the like. Sure, they get off on it, but the animal isn't the one doing anything wrong. You're the one who makes it about sex, and you choose to interpret a pavlovian response as consent and love. Animals don't feel romantic love. As you keep saying, they see it as a form of petting, so why don't you just pet them. Why did you start diddling them in the first place?

Anyhow, as for your comments in 400, no, animals don't consent to being slaughtered or pulling sleds, etc. It's not very nice that we make them do that is it? We constantly use animals for our own ends. You, just happen to add sexual usery on top of a big pile of shit that animals have to go through when dealing with us. You take advantage of their bred trust and compliance, and you use them as a living sex toy for your ends.

Again this can be linked to children though, if the morality becomes clouded. Children can't consent, yet things are done to them all the time. Adults choose what they wear, make them go to school, make them eat food they don't necessarily want, etc. The point is, the adult consents FOR them, and, because we're adults, we're expected to make decisions that are benign for the child, otherwise you're a bad parent. So if you make a kid eat vegetables and go to school, you're a good parent. If you let your kid eat nothing but candy and keep him home from school to play a few "private games", then you are a terrible parent and human being. This seems obvious to most.

Now, animals are a bit more complicated, but basically the same principals apply. A good owner will make decisions for the good of the animal, including the respect of the animals limitations. Exploitive owners will take the young, bugger them for insemination, etc. I think it's fitting that you compare yourself to them as a "lesser version" of what they do... but when they do it, they're trying to make a living, feed humanity, etc. When you do it, you're trying to get your rocks off, and apparently masturbation isn't enough for you, so you've got to involve your animals.

So you're using an animal for personal pleasure. That puts you in a category more along the lines of the abusive. No animal has given consent as we humans recognize it, because they can't, because in order to do so, they'd need to be at least intelligent enough to learn a language. Speech, sign language, whatever, they need to be able to somehow articulate their consent. Now, to reiterate before you pull the pleasure card again, children as young as 11 can become sexually mature, and according to my proffessor, even infants feel pleasure from genital stimulation (Freud's stages). Just because they like it, doesn't mean you're right to do it, nor does it make it "not wrong" to do it. You're still exploiting them, you're still molesting them, and that's wrong, especially since you pose as some sort of activist.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 18 May 2006: 19:21

You're doing that "Straw Man" thing we had our little conflict about. I don't recommend continuing on that course of action.


Now, to reiterate before you pull the pleasure card again, children as young as 11 can become sexually mature, and according to my proffessor, even infants feel pleasure from genital stimulation (Freud's stages).

Actually, I recall one psychologist who caused a huge fuss when he masturbated a baby. No joke.
especially since you pose as some sort of activist.

To be fair to my longtime nemesis(j/k), he doesn't. He just thinks what he says is right. Just as I do. Just as you do.

at 18 May 2006: 20:09

Okay so no one stepped up to prove animals cannot consent...
someone step up to prove humans can consent. the other side of the coin. (this should garner sonme interesting results)
as for the one who doesent want to see this ---then dont take the time to read through this thread again - the title seems clear enough.

at 18 May 2006: 20:29


Now that's what I call KFC.

Kentucky Fucked Chicken!

Bizzle at 18 May 2006: 20:38

>>397  "Prove to me that the animals CAN concent"  My in-laws have a pair of yappy dogs that like to consent all over people's legs.

My favorite story about an animal consenting to getting fucked by a human involves a stallion and some fool from Enumclaw (which quite appropriately happens to be in Butt-Fuck, Nowhere).  I put it to you that this horse was probably not the participant who felt victimized afterward.


>>413  "Actually, I recall one psychologist who caused a huge fuss when he masturbated a baby. No joke."  Ewwww!!  Amazingly, that's the most disturbing anecdote in this thread.

at 18 May 2006: 20:44


Prove to me that god doesn't exist and I prove to you that animals can't consent.

In both cases, all that you can prove is that "god isn't here" or "this animal can't consent", but there will always be blank spots where the opposite -might- be true.

That's why it's called a fallacy of argumentation. You can't prove a negative, so you can't use the argument to back up any sort of claim. Trying to prove a negative doesn't answer any questions and attempting it is simply pointless.

418Report (sage)
at 18 May 2006: 20:52

I like dogs. 

at 18 May 2006: 21:02

>>416 "My in-laws have a pair of yappy dogs that like to consent all over people's legs."

Um.... no. That's called "being dominant." Dogs do that in order to say "I own you." My female dog used to do it. It has nothing to do with sex or pleasure, the dog is just trying to be the alpha. It means your in-laws don't know how to train their dogs, not that they want sex.

at 18 May 2006: 21:19

OK, wait... Let's try this the other way. Not if animals can consent, but if animals can deny. If we can prove than an animal can deny something, doesn't that show the ability to make a choice? And if we prove that an animal can deny someone, then would the lack of denial represent acceptance on some level?

As far as children go, adults are generally bigger and stronger, so that if an adult were determined enough, they could make a child do anything they wanted...

What about a horse? One that's bigger and stronger than a human being who has the ability to kick hard enough to shatter bones... In a one on one situation, the horse would kick the ever-loving shit out of someone trying to do something to it that it didn't like. It would stand to reason that not kicking the shit out of someone represents the horse having chosen to let it happen, would it not?

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 18 May 2006: 21:46


Why? Because it doesn't feel natural to them. People fuck people and that's it.

Funny, most of the arguements in the thread haven't said jack-all about "natural". Not that it matters in the first place.
Also; bestiality isn't another way to jerk off. It's sex, except with an animal instead of a person.

at 18 May 2006: 21:59

All one has to do is live around dogs long enough with an eye towards their intelect and watch - no dont just sorta watch!! really watch - one will see all manners of both giving and denying consent. those who cannot see that are far better suited not liking the idea of zoophilia as they are the ones who are so blind to the subtle cues animals give they would be rapists due to not seeing what is really there.
those who "know" that various animals are capable of consent and reasong know this by experience. those who do not are either blind to animals or have been exposed to retarded animals all along - that is if they are basing their opinions on experience verses the I say so factor.

at 18 May 2006: 23:49

Either that, or you're the one who's wrong, and you're fooling yourself into seeing consent where there isn't any to justify yourself.  You see what I did there?  Exactly what you did.  In all seriousness though, I refuse to believe that a bunch of self indulgent perverts have managed to prove something that scientists and psychologists are still wrestling with.  If animals can consent, nobody's been able to see it yet, including the crazies.

Svansfall at 19 May 2006: 00:05


By my definition cows does not consent to being slaughtered.  If you've been in a slaughterhouse to see what happens there, you'd know what I mean.

And they are certainly smart enough to communicate what they want and what they don't want. Post 422 says it well, just learn to interract with some individual animals, and you will learn to read their body language, and you'll see they are communicating all the time.  Recieving signals from each other, giving signals to each other.  Giving signals to humans, and reading signals from humans also.

You think the animals are too stupid to show what they want, or what they don't want?  I know that they are not.  They express themselves clearly - read their body language.

And the only time bestiality can be compared to pedophilia, is when someone is molesting a young animal.  A fullgrown animal who has gone through a few heat cycles are sexually mature. Young animals and young humans are not sexually mature.   I am going to use the N-word now, it is natural for fullgrown developed animals to engage in sexual activity.  They don't care which species it is that gives the sexual pleasure to them, as long as they get the sexual pleasure.

I agree with you, that a good owner will make decisions for the good of the animal, including the respect of the animals limitations.  But I do not feel it is right to exploit an animal to make a living or to feed humanity, you can eat vegetables, you don't need to make the life miserable for a lot of animals to survive.

And I do prefer to not mention details here, but since you insinuate that "apparently masturbation isn't enough for me.", I can inform you that no animal has ever brought me to orgasm.  When I am giving sexual stimulation to an animal, I am focussing on reading their body language, and responding to their signals, to try and stimulate them in the way they enjoy the most, finding the right spots, etc.  Once I have brought them to orgasm, I can maybe care about my own lusts, by myself, but seriously, the entire thing I enjoy about being with animals is to make them feel good.

That's what I get off on.  I seriously get almost as much pleasure from giving non-sexual stimulation to those that don't enjoy the sexual stimulation.  But those that do enjoy the sexual stimulation, I am not going to deny them that pleasure when they ask for it.  We both enjoy it.

Feel free to think it is disgusting, but don't tell me that it is wrong to give pleasure to a fullgrown, sexual individual, when they actively seek it, and obviously enjoy it, and when they are clear to communicate what they want and don't want.


That was very well said.

at 19 May 2006: 00:07

>>423 good try you get two stars for effort.

Svansfall at 19 May 2006: 00:09


If you feel it is so unclear to humans what animals like or do not like, please tell me how you can justify that we are sitting up on horses and making them run and perform all kinds of things for us?

at 19 May 2006: 05:02


I've known people who "know" that trees have feelings, souls, and a voice that we've apparently just trained ourselves not to hear.  Trees.  They think trees can talk, and they swear by it.  They won't take it back, and every time I try to explain things to them, they just repeat over and over that I'm just not listening right, or that I'm in denial.  They're saying that trees can talk, and I'M the one in denial.

You... you're saying that you can understand your cow's body language.  Physically, they don't have a sophisticated enough brain to come up with a language at all, so no, they aren't smart enough to communicate beyond simple emotion.  You want to see consent, and so you see consent.  I see animals that have been bred so docile that they put up with that kind of abuse.

As for your continued dodging of the comparison to pedophilia, dude, it's not considered wrong just because they're young, it's their state of mind.  Children aren't considered intelligent enough to consent to sex, and animal never get to be as intelligent as children.  The only reason people don't make a big deal out of bestiality is because they don't give a damn about your cows as long as they don't see what you're doing.  You could fuck them, you could torture them, you could kill them, whatewver, as long as nobody knows.  If people find out, legally, you'd face some consequences if animals are seen as having any sort of rights where you live... and socially, you'd be an outcast, and probably activaly persecuted.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe... maybe YOU are the one who's wrong?  That it isn't the ignorant masses, but perhaps an ignorant few this time?  Maybe you aren't some sort of enlightened underground, but simply what a large number of people have labled you... someone who molests animals, and, it would seem, thinks himself as doing the animal a big favor.

Just curious though, do you know what would happen to cows if people quit exploiting them?  Do you think people would set aside the time, space, and resourses to keep a useless animal alive and abundant?  If cows aren't used, they would be killed, and the fields that kept them would be used to grow crops of beans and such to take their place.  A few cows would live in zoos and such, and maybe people would eventually feel bad about eradicating them... but you have to know that cows only survive because people want their meat and milk.

Sheesh, unrealistic dreams are nice and all, but yes... in order to survive, we humans need to make things very miserable for animals, because we're a part of this world.  We need space to live in, food to eat, and resources to use to keep our lives up to par.  There's billions of us, so we need a lot, and unless the population is slashed tenfold and we give up technology, that's not going to change.  Since you're not even going to consider not messing with your cows, I'm guessing you're way too "selfish" to volunteer for the mass suicide it would require to cull enough humans to exists on this world in a non-exploitive manner (if that's even possible), so don't start on the whole "we can all live in harmony" crap.  For every drop of gas, every volt of electricity, every piece of paper that you use, something had to die or be displaced in order for it to get to you.  As a species, we slaughter animals without thought or mercy.  You happen to molest them as well as play your part in their slaughter.

A farmer too at that.  How many wild animals were exterminated to free up those acres so you can have those domesticated concubines of yours?

at 19 May 2006: 05:46

it's not considered wrong just because they're young, it's their state of mind.

wrong, it's because their bodies aren't ready yet.

at 19 May 2006: 05:48

You should know that he isn't actively fucking them.

at 19 May 2006: 06:45


Okay fine, he's molesting them then, does it make that much of a difference?


So if you came across a kid who matured quickly, it'd be okay then?  Or what if someone was sexually mature, but had a child-like mind, and you tricked them into having sex.  Is that a good and moral thing to do?  Why is it morally fine with animals, but not humans?  If you think animals are shit and you can do whatever you want with them, I can't argue with that... but if you say animals deserve to be treated well, and then you molest them, that's just disturbing.

And regarding the point that's likely to be brought up again, since when do you have to prove they Don't consent?  If someone says I signed a contract and I say I didn't, do I have to prove that I didn't or do they have to prove that I did?  Give your head a shake.  If you're saying there's consent, then you got to prove that.  No answer is "No", and training an animal to do nothing but comply is hardly a moral high ground.

at 19 May 2006: 07:51

All you consent arguers neatly avoiding my very logical post in >>420 ... So how about that? If one can prove an animal is capable of saying no, would that then prove they're capable of saying yes on some level?

at 19 May 2006: 08:37


They're being manipulated.  If you condition an animal they won't deny anything.  They "say" what their owners want them to say.

And that "logic" is just opinion. Logic doesn't now, nor has ever had anything to do with any issue of morality.

Guan at 19 May 2006: 08:56

Uhm, guys?  Considering the length of this thread, how can you all be sure you aren't saying the same thing over and over?  I understand the need to get your two cents in, but...jeez.  I'll give it to ya though, you guys have managed not to deviate from this topic after 100+ posts.  A remarkable feat for the Internet in my opinion.  ^..^

As far as my stance on the issue, I support zoophilia under very certain conditions, do not practice it, and have nothing to say that hasn't already been said...as far as I can tell.  o..o

at 19 May 2006: 08:59

>>432 an animal says no with teeth and or hoves that is the big no
an animal says no with subtle behaviour.
of course this isnt provable but at least it has far more evidence
on its side than the argument of they cant consent has. one asks the they cant consent side for evidence and they really dont present anything solid. the argument of at least animals are capible and willing to bite and kick at least has the weight of something tangible as a means of backing up its own argument.

at 19 May 2006: 09:03


It's very easy to condition a dog not to bite his owner, because the owner will bitchslap the dog immediately if he tries to. In the end, the dog is too scared to do anything, even if he is being molested.

at 19 May 2006: 09:19

Hypothetical situation:
Let's say a person has a habit of sleeping in the nude. There they are, asleep, when their male dog hops up on the bed and mounts them.

Is the person raping/molesting their dog?

at 19 May 2006: 09:40


What would the answer to this question prove?

at 19 May 2006: 09:41

Dogs hump sofas and lampposts, because they're in heat. It's a biological instinct and not an act of consent.

at 19 May 2006: 11:34

427 Quote “As for your continued dodging of the comparison to pedophilia, dude, it's not considered wrong just because they're young, it's their state of mind.  Children aren't considered intelligent enough to consent to sex, and animal never get to be as intelligent as children.”  No one has really responded to this so I thought I would. I have to ask, do you really believe that? So, if the child is intelligent enough (and there are many, many genius children) then it would be ok? No, sex with a child is still wrong.  And it has nothing to do with consent. Many children are aware enough to be able to consent, but sex with a child is still wrong. So why is sex with a child wrong (and hopefully we all agree here that it’s very, very wrong)? It has nothing to do with intelligence or consent. Sex with a child is wrong because a child is not sexually mature enough to have sex. An adult animal is. An adult animal is not a human child, and comparing the two is pointless. 

at 19 May 2006: 13:10

>>438 Then why is the hypothetical dog humping it's master and not the chair in the corner?

>>437 It would prove you're oblivious to the obvious, for one...

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.