fchan

>>400

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.

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.

>>401

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.

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.

>>408

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.


>>409

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.

>>410

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.

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.

>>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.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002384648_farm16m.html

>>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.

I like dogs. 

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?

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.

>>412

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.

>>422

That was very well said.

>>423

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?

>>429

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

>>428

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.

>>431

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.

>>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.

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?

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

>>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...