Xenofur at 27 Apr 2006: 20:32
it's 03:27 here, i've been working on shit for other people straight-forward from 17:00 on. i am NOT going to read through this now and filter stuff, so this is what i'll be doing:
the thread can stay up until i get out of my coma tomorrow, when i see people flaming -> lock.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 20:52
Like all threads it seems, quasi-points arise wit the "main" ones. The issue of people being able to post bestiality or not has been resolved, and as a bit of trivial interest, someone posted information as to the legal status of bestiality in various places. The reaction to THAT is what ignited the "is it right/ is it wrong" debate.
Personally, I find it a tad chilling that so many think it's alright in practice. As you say, rape and murder are wrong, nd depicted on this board. Nobody that I've seen has actually made a point of saying that rape is perfectly natural and understandable, or began advocating murder. Some are, however, saying bestiality is fine, and it would appear that there is a bit of discontent about that... heh. Still, I'd imagine if some guro fans started advocating the reality of guro, you'd see an ever greater outcry... or at least, I hope so.
In all fairness, you're talking about a civl debate regarding the morality of sex with animals. Not as emotionally charged as abortion and such perhaps, but... well, if someone ever hopped the fence and started "loving" my dog, the only thing that might prevent me from calling the police is that my enraged desire for revenge would be giving me other, even less legal ideas of how to rectify the situation myself. I love animals, and would see their suffering and abuse kept to a minimum. I'm also a "vegan fag" though, so I would see a lot of things changed.
As long as a devout christian and an actual practicing, er, animal lover don't get on here at the same time, I think this is as bad as it's going to be.
at 27 Apr 2006: 20:55
First off all, I'm not a pedophile, nor do I support the lifestyle. I'm not even into bestality. Let the record show that >>37 veered the conversation this way first.
At what point does anyone really "consent" to anything and can be said to not be merely reacting to stimuli? Does "will", "choice" even exist, or is it all reaction to stimuli?
Anyway, having sex with animals before puberty is wrong. Enticing prepubescent animals to sexual acts is wrong too, as is jerking them off before puberty too. Animal pedophilia is just as wrong as human pedophilia. Once an animal is aware of their sexuality, maybe 6 mo./1 year after puberty, they are capable of sexual consent.
at 27 Apr 2006: 20:57
What if your dog enjoyed it? But it is understandable if you don't trust a stranger with your dog. I wouldn't in the same situation.
It's sad to think of sheer number of people who always equate sexual acts with force and/or nonconsent.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 21:20
What if my... are you serious? You can't be serious? Ha ha, you almost had me! I was about to get all ticked off and everything. Well played. ^_^
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 21:39
Okay, serriously, silence is not consent, and philosophy doesn't define consent. Common sense, or if that fails, the law defines consent.
And... animal pedophiles? Uh... whatever. Since an animal never reaches a level of intelligence that we recognize as consent, wouldn't any action done to that animal be, you know, without consent? It's not just saying "no", it's the part where they don't say "yes"... which they can't, because they aren't sophisitacted enough to communicate. I love dogs and cats and the like, but they aren't people, no matter how much I wish they were sometimes.
As for >>37, well, the point I imagine, is that an animal can no more consent than a child, because they have no more understanding of sex than a child... which is both right and wrong. I'd say they have less understanding, but they also don't have a concept of right and wrong, so they don't care.
I do however, and in Canada at least, enough other people also agree that I don't need to worry about these kinds of things become legal any time soon. Ah, it's nice to be with the majority for a change. ^_^
at 27 Apr 2006: 22:57
You are wrong. While animals may not communicate sophisticatively, they do communicate. If a person is doing something to them that they do not want, they will growl, try to run, hiss, bite, claw, etc. Animals whine and make sounds when they are unhappy or in pain. It's not that hard to figure out.
Animals have plenty of understanding of sex. They seem to do it just fine. Sex is really very simple, i.e., can I put <this body part> in <this place>. It's not rocket science. They know where everything goes and what to do with it. Furthermore, in so far as communication and consent are concerned with animals, observe when a horny male dog approaches a female not in heat or not in the mood. You will witness some very clear communication take place.
Consent is consent, no matter why the party doing the consenting so does consent. If the person says "yes" or allows the action because he/she doesn't care, it's still consent.
Certainly early in our species history, we did not have the intricate understanding of sex that we do at this point in time. Did our ancestors commit immorality by following their instincts and not worrying about what it was that they were doing? Even now, many people consent to eating food without full knowledge of the food they eat.
Another example, someone gives you $10, you don't say anything (and you don't know all the scientific details that go into money, economy, the paper it's printed on, etc.), but you take the money. And then you use and enjoy the money. You've consented to accepting the money. Spare me technical legal details, from a practical point (which is all that really matters since this is the real world and not an abstract idealistic one) you have consented.
Consent does not have to be verbal. Various legal actions require verbal or even written consent in some cases, but sex is not one of those cases.
at 27 Apr 2006: 23:01
Having sex outside the species is......
LOL, only furries could require an argument on this, IT'S WRONG, horrendously wrong.
Sex + animals = WRONG
at 27 Apr 2006: 23:10
we are animals, cmon...
and anyone with low enough reasoning to honestly think animals are incapable of consent, or of showing disaproval, are those who most assuradly should not be allowed around animals.
lesee this has reached 49 posts it should get frozen any time now.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 23:37
Again, I'm endlessly thrilled that such a mindset is so fabulously rare in Canada, because it literally scares the crap out of me that people project their desires and emotions into animals like this. 14 years... ah, how I envy the british. A lifetime in proson seems like such a powerful deterent, crushing the argument entirely by simply forcing people to behave.
No no no no! Not all furries! Some of us are quite harmless and sane! Furries deal with anthromorphs, with an emphasis on Anthro; ie, the HUMAN part of us, which thinks, talks, uses electricity and goes to work, etc; practically people in terms of psychology! Furries don't practice bestiality anymore than any other demographic. O.O
at 27 Apr 2006: 23:39
How is having sex with a horse wrong?
I mean, I don't do it, but I don't see what's wrong with it. They're more than big enough to accomodate a human penis(either anally or vaginally), same goes for most breeds of dog.
If you have sex with something that can't accomodate the penis, however, it's wrong.
at 28 Apr 2006: 01:28
here we go again, and people think we're zoophiles thanks to such talkin'
at 28 Apr 2006: 01:58
You don't know the actual mindset of everyone Canada. There's probably more zoophilies in Canada than you think.
I just wish I could convince you that zoophilies, when they choose to bring sexual pleasure to their pets, that this should not be equated with harming them. It is much crueler to take a pet and to completely deny it any sort of sexuality whatsoever, that it is to indulge it in it's God-given right and instinct.
That's all I have to say. I won't respond anymore.
at 28 Apr 2006: 02:12
Like someone else said: simply because an animal doen't "say" no doesn't mean that it "says" yes. What if an animal is surprised or overpowered and cannot fully communicate its desire to not engage in the sexual act?
at 28 Apr 2006: 02:35
Dammit. I have to say JUST ONE MORE THING and I'll stop.
The same can be said of a husband with respect to his wife.
Overpowered? I believe the above posts covered that. If overpowered, your animal will be showing obvious signs of distress. (That is, if you are even able to overpower him or her. You'd probably have to restrain him/her using chains or something and then it's obvious we aren't talking about consent. THAT is wrong.)
Surprised? The normal reaction of a dog or most other domestic animals when surprised is to run. If you approach them and they run under the couch, ears folded, well hell, what more clear communication do you want? No means no, and you should stop. Conversely, if you are a female and you put your behind in the air and then the dog proceeds to mount you, again, that's some pretty clear communication to me.
In developing a relationship with an animal, you should learn things like that, how it acts when it's doing something it doesn't like, when it's hungry, etc. If you are not sensitive to your pet's feelings and signals you have no business being a pet owner, let alone trying anything sexual with it.
I've noticed within the zoophile communites there is a distaste for others who seem to want to just use animals for sex. This is frowned upon by the majority of them, it seems. They always say you should love and cherish your pet, if you choose to do this with them.
Finally, if animals are really as unintelligent and instinct bound as is said in this post, then we can count on them not to think "oh shit, i'm scared, what do I do" when they are under stress, but rather have those wonderful instincts to kick in. You're forgetting that dogs and cats and other domestic animals 1) run fast and 2) have natural instinct-driven weapons at their disposal.
But it shouldn't get to that. If you have to overpower or surprise an animal for any reason, unless it's trying to hurt you or an innocent person, you are wrong.
Ok, that's it. That's really it. I swear. I'm unplugging my dsl modem now. Goodnight.
at 28 Apr 2006: 02:46
Okay seriously, it's almost as if the reasoning is that me, and others who think sex with animals is wrong are the bad guys here. Like the /b/ guy said... why is THAT even being argued? It's clearly wrong. Animals can't reason, so they can't consent. That doesn't mean they don't get scared, horny, angry, whatever... but they don't feel the same complicated emotions people do... except maybe chimps and such. If you think your dog is "in love with you", that's your projected perception. Seriously, talk to psychologists or something, they'll tell you there is a big jump between animal thoughts and human thoughts.
at 28 Apr 2006: 03:19
>>50 you just failed by presuming i was promoting bestiality,
i was discusing the ability to consent and wheather we are or are not animals -
>>52 a extreemly large amount of furries **are** zoophiles.
70% +/- by various poling - you can do the research yourself if so inclined.
at 28 Apr 2006: 07:29
It is bashing now because everyone wants to make the "right" point. Considering there is no right point no one will win. They just want that good feeling of assurance they were right all along.
Come on who has'nt seen some animal at the zoo or on a farm start to get horny. They just do it right there. Gets the curiosity flowing huh? That creature has a biological program in their head and nothing will stop it from working. What we try so hard to AVOID is all around us. We'll sell it to ourselves, make superfical and fanatise. Yet we avoid it because our children have to be innocent. Usally that experience at the zoo f***s them up anyways so what does it matter. This so called "image" an IDEA of what we "should" be not what we actually ARE is what us modern humans actually live upon.
Usally this experience will make the child wonder, this wonder will become curiosity and eventually experience. Because this child will want to attempt what he/she just saw. Touch it, smell it, see it, feel it. To know that it is real and not of this world. Why do you think we have the phrase "hung like a horse?" Obviously a large majority of people must of observed this same experience. What is so wrong? scary? OBSCENE about touching animal gentialia.. a little bit of curiosity never hurt. Considering curiosity is a natural brain function, we can't even think that anymore?! @!*#&@!*
Here is something of fact. There are thousands of millions of cells in our body that control what WE do. We our a slave to our own bodies. These cells are struck with chemicals the hypothalimus makes depending on what your exactly doing at the moment. They set your body to do things such as that "uncontrollable urge" for sex. When these cells are satisfied only then can we make decisions for ourselves. It is this moment which makes everyone different.
So what does this have to do with anything. Well it has to do with the thing why bestiality is around. It is a cell dominance factor. Because this happens on all levels, not just our celluar level. When a smaller cell can latch on to a larger cell and reproduce that smaller cell will splurge itself, producing alot more chemicals then normal.
Now since we are just larger celluar structures. I don't see whats so hard to understand about this. Why some people can't just accept the rule of miosis. What does consent have to do with this anyways? If a carrier cell does not want to be screwed around with. It will tell you if you try. Alot of carrier cells become droned to sex anyways. Don't think we are the only ones who think of sex too much.
Because as long as miosis, sexual reproduction, is programed in our biological code. It will do as it pleases and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Nothing at all.
What is sick and wrong is considered okay. That is backwards celluar reproduction. Inbreeding. People collecting semen from males and implanting it into a related female of the same animal. This completely denies miosis and it loopholes the creature into all the negative genes. Now if that isn't cruel then your the real sicko. That is right.. all these dog breeds, horse breeds. Inbred. What beauty is to us on eye level is just down right horror on the celluar level.
Yet these people can get away with it no problem. Why? Because people want more bulldogs and boxers. Geez, how nice is that to screw around with nature and get away with it. It doesn't matter though because eventually the "purity" will come back to haunt them.
So.. what is wrong with bestiality? It is non-harmful. No person is trying to intentionaly "hurt" an animal. Actually most animals seem to like it. Because it just happens to be we are all programed for miosis. So regardless of species barrier will take a chance and since a DNA count is different no offspring will be present.
Any furry who thinks bestiality( drawn or not ) is a strange an unorthodox method is a hypocrite. I don't need to explain myself on that one because the evidence is in artwork.
DragonFlame at 28 Apr 2006: 07:34
I really don’t think this has become uncivil. In fact a lot of people have good arguments from both sides. Unfortunately everyone is absolutely set on their beliefs and will not be convinced otherwise.
Those people that are becoming uncivil remember this. There is a difference between imagining / fantasising and actually doing. Calling some one a Dog raper because they enjoy looking at scribble on paper is just stupid and ignorant.
I agree lets keep this discussion on track. It is partly my fault it has gone off.
To answer your question I think a lot of people consider illustrated bestiality to be Furry art. It is hard to define the line where it starts and where it ends. Example a picture of a Horse having sex with a woman is considered Bestiality but lets say Nala from the Lion King is having sex, a lot of people would consider this to be furry even tho Nala is in fact an animal not a half human half animal creature. Where do you place the line?
Taken from Wikipedia.
Furry fandom is a subculture that originated from the science fiction and fantasy fandoms. Members of the furry fandom, known as furry fans or simply furries, particularly enjoy media that involves anthropomorphic animals: that is, fictional animals with human traits (such as walking on two feet, talking, wearing clothes, living in houses, etc.). Such media includes popular animated cartoons, comic books, and stories and novels.
Since the mid-1980s, furry fans have referred to any such anthropomorphic animal character as a furry. Other terms for these types of characters are funny animal and talking animal, or kemono in Japan. Furry characters are usually portrayed as humanoids wearing clothing, talking, and acting like humans rather than animals. However, some fans consider any talking animal, humanoid or not, to be a furry. Some fans also believe that non-animalistic fantasy creatures such as dragons, orcs, and elves should also be considered furry. 
The furry fandom, as an umbrella subculture for various interests, has grown rapidly with the advent of the Internet. Content created by furry fans (visual art, stories, music, games, etc.) on the World Wide Web covers a wide range of interests including fantasies, philosophy, recipes, sex, politics, religion, and even personal lifestyle and identity.
According to the above explanation Mr Ed would be considered Furry.
Obviously Furry is very vague and can be interpreted many different ways.
No one person or even a group of people can decide what Furry actually is. There are too many variations of furry and too many differences of opinion. There is no right or wrong. Each person must decide for them selves if they consider them selves as furries and what they consider Furry art.
Juberu at 28 Apr 2006: 13:31
Lack of dissent does not equal consent.
As I said earlier, sex is a desire, not a need. There are millions of people who live entire lives without sex. You have also neglected to explain how, if sex is a necessity, why we would be programmed to have it with other species. If we're hardcoded to reproduce, how would that work with species we can't get pregnant?
at 28 Apr 2006: 15:47
"...everyone is absolutely set on their beliefs and will not be convinced otherwise..."
It would be a better debate if the 'it's just wrong' folks had more reasoning behind their point than '*Everyone* knows...' or the very flimsy consent angle to go on (last I checked, people don't need their animals consent for *anything* else, so why is sex so 'special'?)
It becomes much easier when the 'it's wrong...' folks can just admit their operating from an indoctrinated cultural-norm, gut-reaction basis that has absolutely no intrinsic justification. They've been conditioned to see it the way they do, ergo they see it that way, despite reality. It's understandable that they get frustrated when they meet people who didn't take to the cultural coding so well, because those people ask them to think and reason *why* something is wrong, rather than just take it for granted.
That's the inherent flaw of 'moral codes' as opposed to 'ethical thought' - Blind acceptance of a code leaves one floundering when they're required to explain or debate their position, and most codes don't stand up to the test of reason.
The fact remains that sex with an non-human animal has no reasonable basis for being taboo, especially in a culture who otherwise treats all non-human animals as 'things', and even as essentially valueless things more often than not - The average car stereo being worth more than a dog or cat, 'sentimental value' aside.
Unfortunately, reasonable or not, sex with an animal *is* taboo in our society, and will thus be seen as 'wrong' by the majority of folks whether they can adequately defend that point of view or not. That is also a fact.
"Lack of dissent does not equal consent."
Haha... Tell that to the government, genius. :)
See how well they take that the next time they pass a useless bit of legislation just because nobody bothered to lobby against it. "If you had a problem with it, you should have contacted your representative before the second reading..."
Reality bites, eh?
at 28 Apr 2006: 16:41
I won't speak for or against the actual practice of bestiality, but it's not wrong to be turned on by thoughts and images of bestiality any more or less than other "hard" fetishes. No one can control what arouses/squicks them, one just feels it one way or the other. People will not deny themselves thoughts and images of what arouses them, nor can they seriously be expected to when asked.
Such fetishes used to be considerd very personal and secret, to be shared only very discreetly, if at all. Not anymore with the internet, all can be shared freely and anonymously if one chooses to... or not. The choice to share isn't always made wisely.
One benefit of learning that others entertain the same fetish as yourself is an understanding of it as a not-so-unusual psychological sexual response. Another is, nowadays, you can find arousing examples of it so easily, right in the comfort of your own home.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 28 Apr 2006: 20:33
I totally agree. I have no problem with the perverse thoughts that tumble around in our heads. If art depicting something like bestiality, rape, torture, etc, makes you happy, than by all means, draw and look at it all you like... but I do have a problem when people act on these fantasies. Rape between fictional characters on a page is art, someone going out and raping someone is a monster with no control. Nobody argues about that one though, and archaic examples are uniformly described as barbaric.
Ha ha, dude, not your fault. You pointed out some facts, and information is never wrong in and of itself. You can't control how the opinionated masses react. I would caution, though, on citing Wiki as a source. One day when I'd had a bit too much to drink, I set about "editing" a few pages myself. ;)
Why are the "Just Wrong" folks on the defensive on this matter? I was under the assumption that those who WANT to have sex with animals are annoyed because of the legal and cultural stigmas that go with it. If you're looking for a logical explanation, I have to admit that I never thought it out enough to come up with one. It seems wrong to me for the same reasons that other cardinal no-nos seem wrong. I can't understand how anyone can seriously argue that an animal is capable of reasoning what is happening to them, and making a decision based on that reason in order to give consent. This is a projection of one's own desires! I could argue that cows are happy to be slaughtered because they walk oh-so-willingly toward it, but that doesn't make any sense. I'll concede that there are worse things in the world to deal with, but having sex with animals is entirely selfish. If you do this, YOU are dictating the desires of the animal. It isn't communicating with you on a level above an infant, and taking advantage of their trust is horrific to me.
What makes it so intolerable that I feel the need to argue about it, is that these selfish individuals have the gall to claim that what they're doing is somehow not only acceptable, but noble! They act out of a need to "stick it in" and such, and they pretend that they're some sort of champion for personal freedoms... as if satisfying their lusts on an animal is an act of enlightenment. My dog trusted me enough to let me take her to the vet and have her belly cut open so she could be fixed. I did this as an act of responsibility because I understand things about my dog that she doesn't understand about herself. She didn't appreciate the pain, but it was for her own good. Similarly, she didn't like taking her deworming medicine, but there was a spell of it going around, so I made her take it anyway. I pulled some quills from her side, and held her for her shots... she didn't like any of this, but she let me do it because she's a good dog and, I would hope, cares about me, or at least considers the good moments to outweigh the bad.
Now, you can have another owner who looks after their dog in a way more agreeable to the dog, but they are doing the dg no favors. Feeding the dog human food in excess will lead to health problems for the animal... but the dog loves it. Many dogs don't like being bathed or clipped, but they will be itchy all the time, not to mention the risks of becoming infested with parasites, but the dog will be happy that the owner didn't put them through the hated bathing and clipping. Hell, you could feed a dog chocolate and they'd love you for it... before they died.
My point is that an animal's reaction to any sort of feeling is defined by what they like right now. They have a few instincts to protect them from natural phenomena, but they don't have any way of coping with what people do to them. You can do something, in other words, that an animal will not only "consent" to, but will adore, even if in the same action you are killing the animal. It's called taking advantage of trust, and it's invariably reprehensible... doubly creepy when done in the name of “love”.
The kind of love involved in bestiality only goes one way. Sure, the dog (or whatever animal) may love their owner, but they do NOT experience the sentimental romantic love that we humans have invented (with a few possible exceptions, but they rarely seem to be involved). Also, bestiality can well be practiced without hurting the animal, whether it’s too big, or because the person involved is gentle... regardless, it’s the human taking advantage of the animal for the purposes of sexual gratification. The animal doesn’t know better, the person either knows better, or is in an acute state of denial... or crazy; whatever the case, the animal is being used for selfish ends.
Now, as a vegan, I’ve grown very frustrated with wide scale animal treatment over the years. Animals are killed and tortured, rarely with any sort of point in mind. It’s disgusting, and we should know better, and while I don’t consider bestiality to be as bad as most of that, I do consider it to be bad; very bad. That’s why I’m satisfied to a degree at the moment. Right now, it is highly frowned upon at best, and brutally punished at worst, and to be quite frank, as long as the best arguments presented are: “they can so consent” and “it’s only natural to give into your urges”, there is no way this is going to change.
Just think about those arguments for a moment. They’re ludicrous! If giving into your primal nature was an excuse, theft, rape, and murder would all be perfectly acceptable, among other things. As a human, it is your responsibility to control your urges lest they hurt someone. Those who fail to do this are criminally deviant, and thankfully, there are sturdy, guarded facilities for them. The other... consent... just, no. Animals lack the capacity to reason, and their actions are instinct. They don’t consent. They aren’t consenting to be humiliated, they aren’t consenting to being slaughtered, and they aren’t consenting to rape either. Sheesh, they can’t even understand consent!
Well, for what it’s worth, that’s my stance. Again, if anyone ever hopped the fence and had sex with my dog, I can’t think of a word to properly illustrate the extent of my rage. I’m not trying to be an insufferable conservative shit here... I’m trying to be open minded about this, but I haven’t heard anything that sounds like an even remotely feasible explanation on the matter, and until I hear such an explanation I’ll continue to be one of those in the crowd who, if on a jury, invariable vote guilty for the strictest punishments on the matter, and fully support any political figure who objects to such actions. Why? Because I love animals, and they have quite enough to suffer through without playing the part of someone’s sex toy.
Oh, just to point out that whether or not it happens has nothing to do with the morality involved. The government does things things without consent, and that's wrong... though in that case, they often get voted back in anyway, so majority consent is an arguable given. :/ booo...
Janglur at 28 Apr 2006: 22:24
The whole thing can be answered so simply.
"Does it hurt anyone, physically or emotionally?"
We'll use a horse for example. Let's say someone masturbates this horse. The horse is not being physically harmed. The horse does not display a lack of consent by shying, kicking, or avoiding contact, which a huge powerful creature like a horse can easily do.
(In fact, many horses will 'request' this by backing up to their owners. Many people who work with artificial insemination encounter this behavior.)
The horse, having failed to display a lack of consent, or displayed a willing desire, does not experience emotional damage from being taken advantage of.
Finally, being unintelligent by human standards and lacking our social heirarchy and ethics, the horse is not ostracized or outcast by his/her peers for contact with humans.
The answer is ultimately 'No', provided all three criteria are filled.
To argue otherwise would be to argue that my having taken my fiance out last month to an expensive dinner, followed by a romantic evening, is rape. Solely on the ground that she did not refuse the actions.
Animals do talk, and communicate. Humans are just so damned narrow-minded that they beleive that if they can't understand it, it's not a language. Humans even treat other humans the same way.
In a certain era of germany, rape and murder of a certain religion was fully permissible, solely because they were considered sub-human. We are doing the same thing by assuming Dolphins aren't intelligent, despite their clear ability to display emotion and communicate in a manner even more complex than us. We are doing the same thing by assuming gorilla's are just dumb animals to be killed and ashtrays made of their hands, just because they speak with grunts and noises and physical displays, not proper English.
So in closing, i'm sick of this conversation. The people who are wrong, know they are. Animals can display consent. The rest speaks for itself.
Ignorance, the willing refusal of indisputeable facts, is a sin.
Juberu at 28 Apr 2006: 23:17
What scares me about Zoos is that you guys always seem to have a complex array of rationalizations and circular arguments to prevent any valid point made by the opposition from ever penetrating to your remarkably impregnable skull.
And yes, I did just call you close-minded in a manner that would make even Nathaniel Hawthorne declare it verbose.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 01:00
I would actually be more worried if they argued more convincingly. As it is, they spend so much time condemning their condemners that they haven’t a hope in this lifetime of instigating even a slight change in the mind of the clear majority. The laws that at least lessen the impact them make will remain in place.
I seriously don’t know how I can phrase this in a better way. Animals can’t consent. If you think they’re consenting, that’s you consenting for them. Any and every student and professor of law and psychology has confirmed as much for me in the past, and no matter how belligerent you become in your wording, that won’t change. Bestiality, no matter how “tender”, is a projection of one’s fantasy onto reality.
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 01:51
Then an animal cannot say it is hungry, by that same regard.
Or say it is sad, or lonely.
Or say that it is in pain.
This is what you have said. If you disagree, then explain the difference between an animal humping your leg not equating to desire for sex, compared to a dog begging for food IS expressing desire for food.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 02:27
But that's just it; they're animals (or if you're going to get picky about language, non-humans). They aren't capable of rational thought, so they can't weigh their actions in a reasonalbe manner, so they can't consent. It's not that they don't react. They don't consent. Absolutely no law that I'm aware of considers an animal capable of consent, and absolutely nothing I've seen in your post or anyone else's has indicated that animals are capable of RATIONAL thought, which is required for LEGAL consent.
But sure, I'll take a crack at it. The dog humping your leg... okay, yes, the dog is horny, and it's trying to hump a human because it doesn't know better. Luckily, us human are capable of logical thought, and find the dog another dog so that nature can take its course, or, if that isn't the goal in mind, gently discourages the dog so that it doesn't get in trouble sometime.
Dogs also beg for food if you're eating chocolate by the way. You wouldn't give a dog chocolate just because it begged for it would you... because that would make you a rather terrible person, or at best, ignorant.
at 29 Apr 2006: 03:17
Sex between humans is nothing more than two individuals mutually exploiting one another for pleasure. When exploitation is mututal between parties, it's no longer exploitation, but an exchange. If one was to say sex should only be performed for procreative purposes (the logical conclusion as why humans have sex) and only when a couple can actually procreate (i.e., when the woman is fertile), only the most inhuman would say that it should be that way.
And, if animals are such slave to instinct (as they probably are), they will only allow things done to them and do things that they like. Masochism is a phenomenon unique to animals in unnatural states such as overrcrowding, etc. Under natural conditions (humans included) no animal will choose to harm itself, or do nothing while something harms it.
You are right, in the way you put it, but you completely assume the animal gets no pleasure from it. You are equating genital stimualtion with cutting open of one's belly, which is completely off base. Touch someone's genitals and ask them how they thought it felt. They will NOT react the same way as if you were to cut their stomach open. Animals probably like genital stimulation just as much as you, except they, because they don't have the curse of human reason and morality placed upon them, can enjoy such stimulation in and of itself.
You do NOT need to possess rational thought to consent or not consent. To show that you don't consent, you must resist the action in some way, either verbally, physically, whatever. Your instincts should be given the same rights to make you consent/not consent as your reason. Instinct is usually more valuable to rely on than reason in certain instances.
at 29 Apr 2006: 03:18
By the way, this has turned into quite an interesting conversation on the nature of consent. I am appreciative of all parties who have taken the time to respond and contribute, despite that the subject matter and various points of view may be disturbing. Thank you.
DragonFlame at 29 Apr 2006: 03:31
It is unfortunate that there are people from both sides still arguing about the moral justification of Bestiality. My god this was supposed to be about if Illustrated Bestiality is alright on Fchan. It’s a pity that so many people out there are so un-acceptant about other people’s feelings and beliefs and claim that they are wrong with stupid explanations such as “Its Just Wrong” and “Animals can consent”.
These people do not look at the situation from both sided and have not read what has been written on this board.
Quit with the Bestiality is Moral / Immoral crap and get back on to the topic which is Illustrated Bestiality is it alright on Fchan.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 03:43
I'm sorry to play the child molestation card here, but by this rational, it is perfectly fine to engage a child in sexual activities as long as they enjoy the sensation and aren't being harmed. It isn't simply a matter of pleasurable stimulation, it's a matter of the intent behind it. For animals, it's basic, primal, and innocent. For humans, it's exploitive.
The kind of consent you are describing can be attributed to the cattle that go quietly to their slaughter every day. Just because they aren't stampeding out of there doesn't mean they want to die. The fact that they've been bred to be docile and compliant to humans doesn't mean they're asking for it. Animals are constantly "willingly" doing things that are extremely terrible for them; from walking into traffic, to begging for food that is poisonous to them. Animals aren't capable of making a rational judgment call, therefore, their autonomy isn't sophisticated enough to allow something like the KIND of consent that I'm talking about.
Consent: An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.
An animal is not capable of that, therefore, any actions done to them are done without consent. Sex without consent is a form of rape. Non-violent rape, but rape none the less. If you brainwashed a human into a state of utter compliance with everything, you’ve robbed them of their reason, thus no matter what they say, it isn’t consent, and again, it is rape. Reason is the key here. Not reacting to stimulus or instinct. Reason. Reason is a requirement for consent. Informed consent is the ONLY consent that matters in formal and legal terms, and that is the only consent that can change it from a form of rape to an act of acquiescence.
Reason! For the love of all that is holy, if anyone responds to this, keep in mind that I’m talking about the kind of consent that requires Reason! Rational Thought! Reasonable, Rational, Logical Process Thought! I’m starting to feel like a record on skip here! Of course my arguments are blown out of the water when you Ignore What I Say!
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 03:51
Oh that. That's already been resolved.
Bestiality, the reality = not okay.
Bestiality, the artwork = /ah/.
It isn't strange for threads to branch out to other ideas. The good Sage herself said as much a ways below here in that thread by Echoen. ^_^
at 29 Apr 2006: 04:52
>>73, see >>43. Animal pedophilia is wrong, your child molestation card attack is parried.
Reason is a tool, not a god. It can help us, but is not an end to itself. Make no idol of it.
There is nothing wrong with being exploitative unless you are trying to kill or harm (inflict physical injury) someone. It is completely necessary to be at least slightly exploitative to survive. Nature is exploited, your friends are exploited, *something* will be exploited. Opportunism is the method by which we live. Civilization has only switched it from violent to non-violent things we exploit and opportune for.
Consent: An agreement to do something or to *ALLOW SOMETHING TO HAPPEN*, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.
Relevant facts can be different depending upon the individual. What may be relevant to me may not be to a dog or cat, for example. I'd like an enumeration of things that you think should be relevant for informed sexual consent. I'm sure the dog or cat or animal in question knows what is relevant to him or her. Most animals have enough reasoning ability to learn and know when things are going to hurt them. If you hurt your dog trying to do something sexual with him, he will not want to do anything with you anymore. If then you approach him sexually, most likely he will run and hide. If you continue to impose yourself on him after that, you are being abusive and wrong.
Available alternatives. Yes, the dog may wish to hump your leg instead. I'm sure, bringing in a female dog, that the male dog would demonstrate good knowledge of his alternatives.
Many people give consent to many different actions without a complete knowledge of all relevant facts. At some point you have to let "yes" and obvious indications thereof mean "yes" and not worry about why one says "yes." Especially for something as non-harmful as gential stimulation.
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 05:15
Okay, whatever, I give up. These arguments have absolutely never held up in a western court, and probably haven't held up in any others, but I'm tired of trying to explain my position only to have someone spin four or five words of my post against me. I'm done trying to actually figure out what goes on in the heads of such people. It's easier to classify you as self indulgent, immoral monsters, and that seems to work well, so I'll go back to that. Well played my friend, I never had a prayer of convincing you of anything did I?
Xenofur at 29 Apr 2006: 06:37
changed the title in order to prevent regression.
at 29 Apr 2006: 07:18
small cages = good
medical testing = good
killing spike to the head = good
any of thousands of atrocities = good
love an animal = bad
an animal using you for sex = bad
wtf is wrong with huimans?
at 29 Apr 2006: 08:00
Who said that small cages, medical testing, and killing was good? Did anyone in this thread actually say that? Some of them are saying that it's all wrong, and some are saying that everything but sex is wrong.
My revision of your list.
small cages = bad
medical testing = bad
killing spike to the head = bad
any of thousands of atrocities = bad
befriend an animal = good
using an animal for sex = bad
at 29 Apr 2006: 10:04
don't feel too bad. you tried. if it makes you feel any better, I was kinda sitting on the fence about it before, and I think you made more sense then th other guys.
at 29 Apr 2006: 10:12
78 indeed - i was referncing the way things are - my bad should have said overall this is an impression given by culture.
sometimes things are not as plain as they seem.
||This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.|