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
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 19 May 2006: 13:11

You seem to be confusing a hypothetical question with a statement. And you haven't properly explained what the relevance would be.

And no, lack of dissent does not mean consent.

Svansfall at 19 May 2006: 14:23


So in this post animals are being compared to trees.  In an earlier post, dogs, cows and horses were compared to insects and computers, when it comes to intelligence.  Why do you think there are animal psychologists that work with mammals?  Because the mammals have a higher level of intelligence than bees have.

So the fact that I know that mammals have intelligence enough to communicate does not compare to people who "know" that trees have feelings.  Ask your local vet, ask your local animal psychologist, ask your closest horse trainer.  They will all tell you that animals are intelligent enough to communicate.  People who deal closely and regularly with animals, will all know that they can communicate well with their animals, know how they feel, what they want, what they don't want.

If you keep denying this, go ahead, but it is a fact.  I understand your belief that animals lack enough intelligence to communicate is the key reason for why you feel it is wrong to be sexual with animals.  If it was the way you claim it is, I would agree with you, but it isn't.  Animals are not mindless or incapable of communication.

You're claiming that cows cannot communicate, and cannot come up with a language... not even body language.  Well, feel free to "know" that... just like some people "know" that trees have feelings.  Anyone who's ever spent enough time to get to know a cow well, will know that they have a clear and expressive body language.

As for what would happen to cows if people quit exploiting them.  That is happening a lot in the country where I live, because it is extremely hard to gain enough income by farming, so a lot of farmers just give up and quit.  What usually happens is that someone who has a regular job on the side keeps cows just to graze and keep the pastures and meadows open.  And to keep the land from becoming overgrown with trees and weed, the government gives funding to everyone who does keep the landscape open, to make more people do it.   Most of those people do sell the cows to slaughter after a few years, but far from everyone.   There are also a lot of people who work without gain, because they have the genuine interest to keep the ecosystem running, preventing rare species of insects, plants and snakes from becoming extinct as monoculture takes over the previously open land.  Cows are an important part of this, so a lot of people keep cows, solely for the ecological aspect.

I am not a farmer, and would never dream of selling a cow to become meat.  But I care about keeping my pastures in a good shape for the sake of the eco-system.

But all this is a side note and not really relevant to the discussion at all.  The only main thing I can see we disagree on is the level of the animals' intelligence - that is your reason for comparing it to pedophilia.

at 19 May 2006: 15:07


By saying that most animals only have sex to procreate, you imply that they are cognizant enough to understand that, by not having sex, there species will go extinct.  Thusly, they chose to have sex because they want to preserve there own species.  This is complete rubbish.  Animals have sex because they want pleasure, not because they think it is a sensible practice.  Animals simply are not smart enough for that.  In fact, this type of sensible reasoning is hardly something that even humans ever consider, even though we are fully capable of it.  When we consider somebody as a mate, we rarely ever think “would they make a good father/mother?”  On the contrary, we based who we want to mate with on how attractive they look to us and how strong our desire for them is.  This phenomenon is not just observed in humans, but is also frequently observed in other mammals and even birds.

True, sex is not necessary for the survival of the individual; however, sex is a fundamental necessity for the survival of the species, which makes sex a need by default.  The desire of the individual reflects the need of the species.

But even with this reasoning, one could still make a case that sex is essential for the survival of the individual.  Most people don’t realize this, but if a person has sex at least three times a week, they optimize the performance of there immune system making them more resistant to disease?  The same may also be true for animals.  We also know that humans who have sex frequently at a young age have less prostate problems later in life.  The same can also be said for intact male dogs who are allowed to breed, versus intact dogs who are not allowed to breed.  Sex has health benefits in humans and probably has similar benefits in other species. 

We can assume that all animals with at least some higher brain function want to feel good.  Feeling good, after all, reduce stress levels and eases our discomforts.  Why then is it so hard for us to understand that animals desire sex because it is so pleasurable?  Nature built into our makeup a reward system to encourage us to repeat certain beneficial behaviors.  But like all reward systems, the focus is not on the behavior that gets the reward or the real world benefits of the behavior.  On the contrary, the focus is on the reward itself, which is why this system is so effective and why it has been preserved for millions of years.  Again, why is it so hard to understand that animals seek out sex for pleasure?

I think the real question is not “do animals have sex for pleasure or reproduction”, but how much of a social function does sex play in a given species.  Sex, by its very nature, is a social activity because it requires two individuals to interact with one another with a certain degree of coordination and cooperation.  But how much of a role does sex play as far as social groupings are concerned?  We all know how social sex is for humans, and I'm sure a lot of us are also aware of how other primates and dolphins also use sex for social purposes.  Any creature smart enough to understand the individuality of another is capable of understanding that, not only do they enjoy the pleasure of sex, but other individuals enjoy sexual pleasure as well.  With this understanding, it isn't too far of a leap to figure out that sex can actually be a means to an end.  In other words, if you want something from somebody else, use the gift of sexual pleasure as a bargaining chip.  As they say, prostitution is the oldest profession. 

We all know that sex is pleasurable for humans and we can also infer that other animals, such as dolphins and pigmy chimps, also enjoy sex because they exhibit behaviors analogous to human behaviors that indicate sexual enjoyment.  If humans and dolphins both show visible signs of sexual enjoyment, then perhaps sexual pleasure evolved from a common ancestor to dolphins and humans millions of years ago.  If so, this means that all other species of mammal that evolved from this common ancestor likely also possess the traits that allow them to feel sexual pleasure.  If that were the case, then every descendent from that same ancient animal would also likely possess the ability to experience sexual pleasure as well.  

If sexual pleasure, as a trait, has been preserved for millions of years, then it is obviously a critically important and necessary component for reproduction.  Let's face it, if sex didn't feel good, we wouldn't have sex in the first place.  It takes a lot of energy, places you in an awkward position, and leaves you vulnerable.  The same goes for every other creature out there.  SEXUAL PLEASURE IS NATURE'S WAY OF TRICKING YOU INTO BURDENING YOURSELF WITH OFFSPRING.  Without pleasure, we have no incentive to have sex.

In the cases of other animals who only engage in seasonal sexual activity, the social function of sex appears to be quite limited.  In these cases, sexual desire seems to be switched on and off by seasonal/hormonal control.  When the switch is turned on, they actively seek out sex and when it is turned off they could care less about sex. 

Since sexual desire in these creatures is rhythmic, rather than static, does this mean that they have sex out of mindless mechanical impulse, or is it more likely that they enjoy the pleasures of sex just as much as those who have it year round?  Do we really know enough about seasonally sexual animals and there psychology to conclusively prove that sexual activity does not feel like a fun recreation to them?

The only real difference between those who have sex seasonally and those who have sex year round appears to be the degree sex plays a social role, which also appears to be more relevant to an animal’s level of intelligence than how much they actually enjoy and appreciate the physical act.   What remains constant between the two groups; they all have sex because it feels good and because not having sex feels uncomfortable.  We want to feel good as much as possible and we want to avoid as much discomfort as possible.  We eat because we are hungry, we scratch because we itch, we drink when we are thirsty, and we have sex when we are horny.

at 19 May 2006: 15:17

This would hold true so long as the situation was as you described
there are far to many instances of agressive male dogs or (insert apropriate species) being the agressors - this line of argument fails due to one presuming that an animal is conditioned to this behaviour. which at least in numerous situations they are most decidely not. as for the domestication angle. there are enough
animals out there that the domestication has not taken well, for that to be a moot point.
so....... next try please.

at 19 May 2006: 15:46

"What my point is, and ever has been, is that they lack sufficient intelligence to be capable of informed consent, and informed consent is required for sex to not be rape."

By your logic, all sex for non-humans is rape!  If a bitch and a male dog are unable to have informed consent they rape each other every time they have sex!  This is a ridiculous conclusion which demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.

at 19 May 2006: 16:06


This is supposed to be an intelligent debate not an incoherent rant fest.

Be quiet, for you do a disservice to your side's argument.

at 19 May 2006: 16:11

Read everything dude.  Animals can't rape because they lack the capacity to be immoral, so consent isn't an issue on their side.

Hit the nail right on the head there buddy.  Everything's been said like 3 times now.  All of these "points" that people are coming up with have been stated before and better.  Nobody has read back.

at 19 May 2006: 16:58


"I was not able to find any evidence of horses, dogs, rodents, etc. having sex for recreational purposes."

Of course you didn't because that topic isn't researched very much!  In fact, the scientific community is rather reluctant, if not resistant, to the idea that animals could behave in a homosexual manor.  Do you honestly think that, just because there sexuality is seasonal for some animals that sex does not feel like a pleasurable recreation to them?  For all we know, the very quest for pleasure is the one and only reason why they have sex in the first place.  You assume too much without proof. 

"Nor was I able to find, aside from a few photos which showed mounting, documentation of male animals having anal sex with one another whereupon there was -actual sex- and not just mounting. Feel free to point me to the place where you found your information regarding such. I would especially love to read about horses, dogs, and rodents having recreational sex among themselves and outside their breeding season."

My friend, you simply are not looking hard enough.  For research, academic and intellectual discussion on the subject, try these links:


I’m sure that the citations in each will give you enough leads to examine hard research papers on the subject.

For photo documentation try these links:


at 19 May 2006: 17:01

There was a test done with rats involving overpopulation. Five generations into the experiment, the male rodents were having homosexual sex, raping and hoarding females, and breeding outside their normal breeding cycles.

Maybe bestiality is a symptom of human overpopulation, since it makes "unintelligent" aminals into sexual deviants.

at 19 May 2006: 17:03

perhaps the most important thing abought this whole discusion is that both sides are willing to continue discussing it thereby illistrating how signifigant of a role such trully plays within the furry community.

at 19 May 2006: 17:11

>>450 Actually, since I started the thread, I'm going for 1000 replies. I want to win a free T-shirt.

at 19 May 2006: 17:32

that explains your part - what abought all the rest?

at 19 May 2006: 19:07


Psychological Harm VS. Physical Harm

I don't think that pedophilia is illegal because children are unable to give consent.  We make pedophilia illegal because it can cause psychological harm.  Children are developing psychologically and introducing sex during there development will cause them to be abnormal once they fully develop.  We protect children so they can stay in a happy little world where they don't have to worry about sex or be burdened by the ideals of attractiveness.  We, as a society, protect the innocents of our children so they can continue to play with Babies and GI-Joes until they grow up and are mature enough to handle sex.  Consent has little to do with the arguments against pedophilia.  Consent has more to do with adult interactions and guardianship over minors.

The confusion of arguments over pedophilia and zoophilia come in to play because animals and children think on a lower level in comparison to mature adult humans.  But what isn’t fair about this comparison is the fact that animals reach sexual maturity and adulthood many years before humans ever do.  Animals other than humans are not as complex as humans, so they do not need a protracted childhood for proper maturation.  A bitch could have her first litter of puppies during the second year of her life while most humans wait at least 10 to 15 times that amount before they ever have children. 

One thing that is continually missing from this debate is the concept of psychological harm rather than physical harm.  Does having sex with a sexually mature animal cause that animal psychological harm?  If they are large enough and lubricated enough to accommodate a human comfortably (assuming the zoophilic activity involves a human male and animal female) we can safely rule out physical harm.  What we do not rule out is whether or not having sex with an animal causes that animal PSYCHOLOGICAL harm?  For that matter, does it also cause the human any psychological harm?


The reason we use consent, informed consent or acquiescence to differentiate between rape and love making is the fact that having sex with somebody against there will causes them psychological harm.  This is why rape is considered a violent act and why we consider it immoral.

Although animals are not capable of verbal or informed consent, they are capable of acquiescence, which is a type of consent.  We know that animals are able to consent in this way because we know they are individuals with there own will and agenda and are, thus, capable of making there own choices.  They may not an agenda as complex as a human’s but they have there own agendas, nonetheless.  This type of independence can be observed every time you are deliberately ignored by your pet when you call for them.  This allows us to infer that, by ignoring you, they made a choice to do so.  Thus, animals have the ability to make choices for themselves.

Even though an animal is unable to verbally express consent or approval, they are perfectly capable of showing disapproval and delight.  No matter how well trained an animal is, they will cry, growl, attack, snap, claw, bite, kick or run away when they feel pain or discomfort.  On the flipside, though, animals are also able to show signs of enjoyment when delighted.  Scratch a dog in the right spot and one of his or her legs will gun nuts.  You could also, perhaps, scratch a place behind or inside there ear and listen to them give you a moan/growl of ecstasy.  You could also rub a dog between there front legs and watch as they quietly smack there lips.  Animals can do more than just acquiesce; they can show enjoyment as well.

Do animals enjoy sex with each other, even if only seasonally?  More than likely, they do.  Do animals enjoy being sexually stimulated by humans?  Perhaps they do, or perhaps they don’t.  It really depends on the given animal’s preference.  If an animal enjoys the stimulation and wants it to continue, they will not resist or walk away.  This is, in effect, acquiescence.  Likewise, if an animal does not like the stimulation, they will resist and flea, which is the animal equivalent of saying “no”.

Does having sexual relations with an animal cause that animal psychological harm?  We all can agree that forcing sexual relations when an animal resists is probably harmful, but what about when the animal acquiesces?  Would sexual relations still be harmful then?

Answering that question would help us better answer the bigger question, is sex with an animal immoral.

at 19 May 2006: 19:18

>>453 very well thought out and well spoken *bows*

at 19 May 2006: 20:03


I laugh at you!  Ha ha ha ha ha!

Seriously, it is impossible to make with another animal and produce offspring of any sort.  It just can't happen.  The only exception could possibly be a chip/human hybrid, and I have heard rumors of such creatures existing in Africa, but they are just that, rumors.

The chromosomes and genetics are to different to be compatible.  This arrests development at an extremely early stage if development can begin at all.  It's just not possible to produce offspring, much less fertile ones.

at 19 May 2006: 21:18

"Animals, especially herding or pack animals, easily adopt humans into their pack mentality, and as such, will see them as potential sexual partners---for the purpose of procreation. To imply that your dog, cow, ect., simply wants sexual gratification for the sake of being pleasured is delusional.  Animals don't have recreational sex with the exception of 'higher' species, such as dolphins, humans, and some primates."

You’re absolutely right.  Animals have enough mental capacity to understand that, if they do not have sex, there species will become extinct.  Therefore, they have sex, not because if feels good, but because it is a good idea.  In fact, just the other day, my dog asked me to find her a husband.  She said she felt her biological clock ticking and wanted pupies.  Specifically, she wants me to order her a mail order pit bull to be her stud because she's really into muscles these days.

Of course, you should realize I am being sarcastic at your expense in order to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument.  Animals are simple and what could be simpler than doing something because it feels so fucking good!  Just because they only get in the mood during certain seasons or times of the year does not mean it isn't recreation to them when the biological switch turns them on and makes them horny.  The difference between humans and seasonally sexual animals is that our switch is turned on all the time 24/7 until you remove our gonads.  Of course, that's more akin to taking the batteries out of a toy than flipping a switch.

at 20 May 2006: 00:42


So, if you had sex with a child who was also a sociopath, and thus, not capable of psychological harm, then it's fine?  I'm sorry, but the exception disproves the absolute.  Psychological harm isn't key, it's just one of many components.  Here's one.  I can feed pork sausage to pigs, and it doesn't mess with their heads.  Does that mean I'm right to do it, or does that make me a twisted fuck who gets off on messing with animals that don't get it?  I'd go with the latter, but I guess the pig isn't traumatized or anything, so that makes me a good person for doing it.

at 20 May 2006: 01:09


Consent (intransitive verb) - to give permission or approval for something to happen; acceptance of or agreement to something proposed or desired by another

Acquiesce (intransitive verb) - to agree to or comply with something passively rather than expressing approval or support.

Synonyms: agree, comply accept, CONSENT, assent, give in, submit, go along with, yield, concede, concur.

Antonym: Resist
(Definitions and synonyms were taken from the Encarta English Dictionary.)

So, in other words, Animals can consent through "acquiescence".  Acquiescence has held up in court in cases of sexual harassment.  If you treat somebody sexually at the workplace, and the person you are treating sexually does not say no, but instead automatically silently files a suit, they have no case!  In order to win a sexual harassment case, you must make it clear that sexual advances are unwanted and unwelcome.  Only then does a sexual harassment victim have a case if the advances continue.  Legally, not saying “no” is the same as saying “yes”. 

Since animals lack a speech center in there brain, they are only able to communicate via body language.  Therefore, we can assume that “residence” which is negative also means “no” which is also negative.  “Acquiescence”, which is positive, can be equaled to “yes”, which is also positive.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

But what about this “informed consent” I keep hearing people talk about?  Let’s look at a definition of informed consent before I continue this discussion.

Informed Consent (noun) - agreement by a patient to undergo an operation or medical treatment or take part in a clinical trial after being informed of and having understood the risks involved. (Encarta English Dictionary)

Informed Consent n.  Agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known. In contracts, an agreement may be reached only if there has been full disclosure by both parties of everything each party knows which is significant to the agreement. A patient's consent to a medical procedure must be based on his/her having been told all the possible consequences, except in emergency cases when such consent cannot be obtained. A physician or dentist who does not tell all the possible bad news as well as the good, operates at his/her peril of a lawsuit if anything goes wrong. In criminal law, a person accused or even suspected of a crime cannot give up his/her legal rights such as remaining silent or having an attorney, unless he/she has been fully informed of his/her rights.

From Wikipedia: Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions. The individual needs to be in possession of all of his faculties, such as not mentally retarded or mentally ill, without an impairment of judgment at the time of consenting. Impairments include sleep, illness, intoxication, drunkenness, using drugs or other health problems.

Of these definitions, two of them pertain to medical procedures.  Sex is not a medical procedure, so it does not apply to the cases of rape or acts of bestiality.  But for the sake of the discussion, let’s toss out the medical connotations of informed consent for a moment.

Basically, informed consent is where all relevant parties are of sound mind and body, and understand the significant of the agreement being reached and all risks involved, if any.

Sex is a very basic function that even animals can understand.  It isn’t hard to figure out because it is so reflexive and automatic in many stages of its natural progression. 

Now, lets look at the two main halves of informed consent: physical condition and understanding and see if how well they apply to an animal’s perspective.

If one is to engage in sex with an animal one must first make sure that the animal is of sound mind and body.
1.    Does the animal have any mental handicaps or impairments?
2.    Has the animal been drugged (such as been given tranquilizers to make it more docile and compliant)?
3.    Does the animal suffer from a mental illness?
4.    Does the animal have any other health problems or issues that would impair its judgment?

If the answer to these questions is “no” then the first qualifying half of “informed consent” has been met.  Next, we need to look at the risk and significant of sexual relations with animals.

1.)    Injury could be incurred if the female’s vagina is too small to accommodate a male’s penis.  If the female is large enough, then this point is irrelevant.
2.)    If the human has a disease that could be transmitted to the animal, then the animal should know about that disease.  Since it is impossible to explain this to an animal, any human with such a disease should never have sex with an animal.  On the other hand, a human who is clean need not explain anything of this sort, which makes this point irrelevant.

1.)    Sex has the potential to create emotional bonds which may amplify separation anxiety.  (Actually, this may be more significant to the human than to the animal, since animals do not seem to exhibit the sentimentality that humans do.)
2.)    Sex with a human will never result in the production of offspring.  (To my knowledge, animals do not have any emotional ideals pertaining to the creation of offspring.  This is often pointed out by those who encourage spaying and neutering.  No need to inform the animal about this because the fact that sex is unproductive is not relevant to them.)
3.)    Sex has the potential to feel quite pleasurable.  (This point is both relevant and obvious to all parties involved.  No need to inform the animal because it is so obvious.)

Conclusion: Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out.  Hell, even some bacteria can do it, and they don’t even have a cell nucleus! 

If sex is so hard and so difficult to understand, is it because we humans have complicated it so much.  We are the ones who have the hang-ups and the fetishes, not them.  Animals keep sex simple because it is simple.  Because sex is so simple, animals are informed by default.  So, as long as an animal remains receptive to a human’s advances, informed consent, not just regular consent is given through acquiescence.

This is ironically, very similar to what humans do with each other.  If the other party does not resist, is not under duress, and is a legal adult then the sex they have is not rape.  It does not become rape until one of the two people either resists or says “no”, or one of the individuals is under the age of 18 (legal minor).  This whole idea behind “informed consent” to qualify “animal rape” is really quite absurd because not even humans go through this ridiculous checklist to make sure that the sex they are having with each other isn’t rape.

at 20 May 2006: 01:20


Dude, it isn't like the gay political agenda where we are trying to convert the whole world into flaming butt-bandits.  The reason why this is such a hot topic is that so many people feel persecuted because The Law in many localities stands against them.  All they really want is be left alone, but when people say things like "you should go to jail because you abuse animals" by somebody who hasn't even a clue where the people they are attacking are coming from, it is a little difficult for them to stay silent.

Now, I can appreciate your disgust.  I truly hear you, but try to understand where they are coming from as well.

at 20 May 2006: 01:31


Most of my post have been pretty long winded but well though out.  For you, I will make an exception because of the emotional response you have elicited within me.

Once again, an Anti-Zoo demonstrates just how stupid they think animals really are.  Clearly, the view themselves as the grand protectorates of animal kind because animals are incapable of making any choices on there own and because they must be protected from evil h00manz and there evil cocks!

How the animals survived in the wild for millions of years without the Anti-Zoos protecting them is beyond me.  Somebody please explain this because I won't be able to sleep until I have the answer!

at 20 May 2006: 01:37

>>459 trully spoken, by the manner in which many in this speak of consent then very few humans regularly engage in consentual sex
most of it is rape.
(460 the size of a very good ford lima series engine)

at 20 May 2006: 01:45


"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 definitely aren't."

Do you mean to explain that we have bread animals to the point that they are complacent and compliant with us killing them?  Forgive me, but you speak from complete ignorance.  Cows very much fear death just like every other living creature does.  If they were not prone to fear, there wouldn't be such a thing as a stamped!  Why do you think that large scale slaughter houses funnel cattle into a "U" shaped corridor before they reach the killing room?  It's so that they can't see the other cattle in front of them getting killed, because when cows see other cows dying in front of them, they panic because there survival instincts tell them they are most likely to die next.  When cows panic en mass, you have a very dangerous situation on your hands.  Cows don't want to die, which is why I don't eat beef.

I'm beginning to thing that the Anti-Zoos have extremely limited contact and knowledge with and about animals.  Arguments based on false assumptions are a waist of time.

at 20 May 2006: 02:13

"Animals can't rape because they lack the capacity to be immoral, so consent isn't an issue on their side."

If I ever see you being ass raped by a dolphin I won’t come to your aid because what the dolphin is doing to you isn’t wrong.  In fact, I'll just sit there an laught at you like Nelson Muntz.

When was it established that non-human animals are incapable of morality/immorality?  I'm not saying that animals are capable of deep thoughts on moral issues, but it seems to me that they can develop at least a very rudimentary concept of right and wrong.  I’ve been around dogs my whole life and it seems to me that they do have a basic concept or morality. 

at 20 May 2006: 02:25

“So, if you had sex with a child who was also a sociopath, and thus, not capable of psychological harm, then it's fine?”

So, in order to shoot down my argument, you are going to resort to ridiculous hyperbole and straw man tactics?  Please!  Secondly, who says that having sex with a sociopathic minor does not bring them psychological harm?  I would argue that such an act would undoubtedly exacerbate there psychological derangement.    Can you explain to me how it would not bring harm or even give me any credible sources to back up your claim?  On second thought, don’t tell me because I don’t want to know which hole of your body you pulled it from.

“I can feed pork sausage to pigs, and it doesn't mess with their heads.  Does that mean I'm right to do it, or does that make me a twisted fuck who gets off on messing with animals that don't get it?  I'd go with the latter, but I guess the pig isn't traumatized or anything, so that makes me a good person for doing it.”

I don’t think you can logically conclude that it is morally wrong to feed pigs pork.  Yeah, it’s weird and unnatural, but it isn’t wrong per se.  As a matter of fact, the cattle industry feeds its cattle bovine bone meal, so this practice is going on as we speak. 

at 20 May 2006: 06:27

Alright, whatever, this "anti-zoo" has had enough of having himself villified for not accpeting all you enlightened super smart people out there.  Guess I'm just to ignorant and stupid to know what I'm talking about.  Do whatever the fuck you want.  It's not like I could stop you to begin with.

Oh god, I cursed... there's my ignorance showing again.  Damn me, I must be wrong because I'm not likable.

Bizzle at 20 May 2006: 08:24

>>419  Um....no.  That's called a joke, an attempt to lighten the discussion a bit.  It's amazing how emotional people get about such an amusing topic.

at 20 May 2006: 10:34

>>465 It's an intersting feeling being vilified for the way one believes...... wow, pot calling kettle what ?
welcome to what zoo's are exposed to consistantly.
now engage critical reasoning and at least 10% understanding.

Svansfall at 20 May 2006: 10:39


Well, I don't know who you are, but it is easy to tell which posts are written by you.  All I can say is: I wish I was as good at expressing myself as you are.  In my defence I can say that English isn't my native tongue, but to be honest, even though I express myself better in my native language, I am still  far from being able to explain something as good as you can.

Hats off to you!   :)  Look me up and say hi?

Svansfall at 20 May 2006: 10:55


I am not super smart.  But I don't have to be super smart to understand the body language of animals.  All there is to it, is to interract with a certain species over a long time, to watch them closely, to study them as they interract with each other, and then to study them as you interract with them.

Patience and a genuine interest to understand them is the key point.

And... I am repeating myself here, I respect every anti-zoo's right to be disgusted and feel repulsed by zoophilia and bestiality.  I do think it is a very understandable emotion. 

But if you really want to protect animals against people who treat animals bad, zoophiles are in general not the ones to attack, since zoophiles usually treat their animals with respect and give their animals good lives.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 20 May 2006: 11:53

Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?


Conclusion: Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out.

How does that follow? It looks like you just leaped from one point to another. Yes, sex is a basic, *biological* part of life. What does that have to do with the *mental* act of informed consent?

The syntax for a conclusion is
[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts], therefore [logic linking the two]

You went
[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts]. The link is obvious.

But if you really want to protect animals against people who treat animals bad, zoophiles are in general not the ones to attack, since zoophiles usually treat their animals with respect and give their animals good lives.

And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad".

That's it.

at 20 May 2006: 13:38

>>470 the aspect of rape / consent in regards to animals has been thoughtfully and id suspect fairly well disected in these discusions.
if the angle of rape is the angle being used that should be hung up as it has been both logicly and emotionally shown to be untrue that animals are incapable of consent. 
you are taking the illogical leap of saying that sex with animals with rape.

at 20 May 2006: 13:39

sex with animals is rape rather

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 20 May 2006: 15:34

The point being made by my side is that sex without consent, or where the partner is not capable of informed consent, is rape. That help?

you are taking the illogical leap of saying that sex with animals with rape.

The leap from what? Are you talking about my asking you to make the connection between "sex is natural", and "animals are capable of informed consent"? Or the statement at the end of >>470? The latter is me simply restating what I see as my side's main argument.

if the angle of rape is the angle being used that should be hung up as it has been both logicly and emotionally shown to be untrue that animals are incapable of consent.

Would you please link to those posts, and optionally summarize them? In fact, please summarize your major points in >>458.

at 20 May 2006: 20:42


"Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?"  How is this question relevant to the discussion at hand?  If this is how you are going to begin discrediting me, you have little hope of winning.  Seriously, did you come up with this attack all on your own or did your mommy help you?  Step aside and let somebody else more capable of defending your position hold the line while you go bring them hot coffee and donuts.

First, you do not understand the logic because you do not comprehend that sex is genetically programmed into all of our genes through hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary conditioning.  This is a critical part of my argument, so pay attention.

Everything we need to know about sex in order to have sex is already inside our brains by the time we are fully mature.  The rest is a matter of experience and practice. 

Did you even read how I reached my conclusion?  It's all right there in black and white.  I quoted definitions so that I could define, in a clear and concise manor, things like informed consent.  From these definitions I then derived a list of criteria to be met in order to qualify something as "informed consent". 

In most intelligent discussions, you don't attack the conclusion but the logic that was used to reach said conclusion.  I pointed out, for the sake of argument, that animals can meet the criteria for legal informed consent (on the basis that sex is universally understood by all sexual creatures who mature and of sound mind and body).  Did you bother attacking this logic?  If you were smart, you would have attacked me here because my saying that animals have defacto informed consent pulls the rug out from under your "it's rape" argument. 

Are you so unwilling to engage this discussion with an open mind that you ignore the body of what I wrote?  Please don't be so little.

Now, just in case you are still having trouble understanding this, I'll spoon feed it for you.  You define the syntax of a conclusion as:

"[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts], therefore [logic linking the two]". 

Now, let us go test my original conclusion against your defined criteria for a proper conclusion.

The original quote:
"Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out."

The quote dissected via your criteria:
[conclusion]:Animals are capable of informed consent
[premise/facts]: because sex is a very basic part of life,
[logic linking the two]: which means that it isn't difficult [for an animal] to figure out.

To reiterate, because sex is so basic and so easy to understand animals are able to comprehend it enough to have informed consent without the need for sex ed. classes, instruction in the proper use of a condom, signed contracts, or a medical examination to evaluate for mental and physical soundness.

If I have to spell this out for you to this extent, it's obvious to me that you either lack the mental capacity for this discussion or you are so closed minded that you are more concerned with finding evidence and reasoning to prove your point rather than reaching a conclusion based on facts.  Frankly, I think most of the people on your side have use an inverted method of reasoning on this matter.

"And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad"."

You miss the point entirely.  If a zoophile's interest is for the good of the animal, then why would he or she do something that is harmful to the animal?  For that matter, your side has not once talked about how having sex with an animal universally causes harm to that animal?  It looks to me that your side has actively dodged the question "does it cause harm?"  Unlike you, the zoos have actually worked closely with animals, so they actually can speak with some authority on this matter.  When you work with animals closely enough, you can learn enough about them to draw certain conclusions without impressing upon them human motivations and emotions.  Through years of close contact, you learn how to read animals in order to figure out what is going on in there brain.  When an animal comes back for something again and again, it is a clear sign that they like something.  If they avoid something again and again, it is a clear sign that they do not like it.  When a zoophile says that they pleasure there animal because they like it, the anti-zoo side says things like “you obviously trained your animal to do that” or “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them”.  Both responses are pure conjecture, yet they are being used as proof that sex with an animal is rape.  You can’t use conjecture as evidence!

But again, let’s look at both conjectures for the sake of the discussion.  The first one, “You obviously trained your animals to do that” suggest that the writer has enough experience in training animals to perform sexually that he or she is able to profile another writer well enough to reach this conclusion.  This is complete non-sense.  If training be the case, it is the animal that trains and teaches the human what the clues and signs are that say “pleasure me”; it’s not the other way around.  As a matter of fact, the human must use at least some trial and error to figure out what an animal likes best when stimulated.  I don’t think there is a zoophile here who would disagree with this conclusion.  Of course, if you have never experimented with animals (even with a genuine banner of science) you wouldn’t know this, which explains why your side sounds so ignorant to use when you make this conjecture.

The second conjecture, “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them.”  Please tell me how this conclusion was reached?  Are there any sources that you can find to back up this claim?  Nobody who works with animals would ever reach this conclusion.  Animals can be quite unpredictable at times and don’t always do as they were told.  Sometimes, believe it or not, domesticated animals will disobey or even attack with or without provocation! 

Instead of explaining why sex with an animal causes universal harm to them all, you couch your argument in legalese by using words like "informed consent" yet you never define what informed consent is and how it is impossible for an animal to have informed consent.  This is another gaping hole in your side's logic that must be patched up.  If you can't, then you force my side to view your side as full of puritanical conditioning and "because we say so" thinking.

I challenge your side to define informed consent using independent sources and then explain how an animal is incapable or capable of meeting the criteria of informed consent.  I've already done this on my side.  It is time for your side to do the same.

475Report (sage)
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 20 May 2006: 21:51

>>475 GET!!!

at 20 May 2006: 22:08


Get...with it?
Get...a life?
Get...it on?

I don't get it.

at 20 May 2006: 22:14

Get... da cool show shine!
Getting off topic now eh? xD

at 20 May 2006: 22:17



I guess with this heavy topic, everybody needs a break.  Just so we don't forget, this is about pro-zoo vs. anti-zoo.

at 20 May 2006: 22:32

*shoe shine. Darn it cant edit x-x

at 20 May 2006: 22:39

Here are my thoughts on this subject.

I don’t think it is wrong to pleasure an animal manually, because if it were wrong, it would be wrong for vets to collect semen from animals. 

I do think it is wrong to have sex with an animal, but not because an animal is harmed by it.  I feel that animals lack the mental complexity necessary to sustain psychological injury due to non-forced sexual encounters.  I do, however, feel that the act of bestiality (having intercourse with another species), creates an emotional pair bond between the human and animal, with the sentimentality of the relationship burdened almost entirely on the human.  Since companion animals do not live as long as we do, we suffer because we must watch them grow old and die.  When we have emotionally bonded to them through orgasmic stimulation, the pain we feel from there death is greatly amplified.  This is the only truly “dark” side of zoophilia, which all zoophiles must deal with.

It isn’t the animal that gets hurt, it’s the human.  But as long as a human who engages in bestiality knows that they will suffer terrible grief when they loose there companion and takes full responsibility for that consequence, who am I to tell them they shouldn’t behave in such a manor?  They already know the consequence, so badgering them will do little good.

The other downside to zoophilia is the fact that animals cannot be as emotionally intimate with us as another human can.  You can’t sit and hold a conversation with a horse or dog, much less plan a life together.  I think this leaves zoophiles unfulfilled, especially if they are exclusively zoo.

I thought it might be a good idea to stray away from the animal element of this topic and explore human element for a moment.

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.