fchan

discussion

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
681Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 Jun 2006: 22:05

>>676

The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.

I'm making the claim that it is necessary. Because you're a human. You're bringing into any 'relationship' automatically. Debate that part of the post; I'd like some feedback.
  There is the need that the animal understands you, that you understand the animal,

So the animal doesn't need to understand *consent*?
that you make absolutely sure you understand what the animal is meaning, when they show what they want or do not want, and that you respect what they are showing.

What about the animal understanding what *you're* meaning?

>>677
Animals operate within a certain sphere of intelect and knowlege, which is much smaller than the sphere in which a human operates.  The concept of consent or informed consent is too complex for them to understand, thus, it cannot possibly be a relivant concept to them.

So it's not relevant because they can't understand it. Got it. I am *really* tempted to make another pedophilia comparison at this point.

>>680
my experienece says animals are perfectly capable of consent many peoples experiences say the exact same thing, are they the sole experts, hell no, but they are also the only ones who have stepped up with reasonable sounding evidence as well as personal opinions saying the same thing, "here is study x with research links and data" "here is my personal reasoning why i think this is so."

I did precisely that. Post >>674 .
human standerds and morals are not aplicable to a non human relationship or interaction.

Not even when a human is involved? Odd.

I'm arguing, again, that even if the animal doesn't understand consent, the human in the 'relationship' does, and they're dominant. Also, just because a lack of understanding exists doesn't mean that it makes going without right.

otherwise we are suddenly murdering many many cows goats sheep and other beings.

No, we're largely killing them for food. Not boning them for pleasure. Also, we've been over this.

682Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 23:42

Personally I think a dog mounting -you- is not "animal cruelty" or "rape" because clearly, you're letting the animal decide whether or not he wants to proceed. Clearly, he most likely will(especially if you're a female) but it's not rape if you give someone an option. And for those who say "Dogs can't decide, it's instinct," I've been in several scenarios where a dog will get "horny" and start humping my leg, I'll get ready for some action and he'll become uninterested. It's ludicrous to say that an animal such as the dog cannot express their non-consent or disinterest of a certain situation. If you stick a big thing up a dog's butt, they'll fucking bite you. Is that not showing consent?

However: The way I see it, as long as you give the animal a way to "escape" or move away, it's not rape. Rape implies struggle and use of force. I've seen some rather non-forecful matings between human males and female dogs, as well as male or female humans with male dogs. Usually speaking, they are(for female dogs) in a normal mating position, and with male dogs, they're on top.

Now, there are a few things I've seen of dogs being lied on their backs and yiffed, and while it didn't appear that they were wanting to get away, they couldn't have if they wanted to. That's the only area I see a problem. That's the only time it's non-consentual.

Think of it as if the dog were a human, "I wanna fuck you. Yes or no?"  "Well, it would feel good. w00t." OR "I wanna fuck you. Yes or no?"  "Back the fuck off before I bite your face open."

Anyhoo, since I have really nothing else to say, I simply hope I offered an insightful and interesting opinion on the topic of the morality of bestiality...

...

683Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 Jun 2006: 23:50

>>682

However: The way I see it, as long as you give the animal a way to "escape" or move away, it's not rape.

So we've dropped the discussion of consent entirely? Or are you someone new?

Rape implies struggle and use of force.

You're confusing "implication" with "entailment". There is such a thing as a non-violent rape.

Usually speaking, they are(for female dogs) in a normal mating position, and with male dogs, they're on top.

It's humans. Not "normal" by any stretch of the word.

Now, there are a few things I've seen of dogs being lied on their backs and yiffed, and while it didn't appear that they were wanting to get away, they couldn't have if they wanted to. That's the only area I see a problem. That's the only time it's non-consentual.

Buh?

684Report
at 2 Jun 2006: 01:11

>>678

"Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other. It's more like a relationship with a pet. If you think they're similar, it's because you're discounting a lot of stuff; stuff that I happen to think is really important. My girlfriend can say "I love you", and I don't need to banter with people about interpreting the body language properly or anything. That's just ONE of the reasons."

For once, I'm going to agree with you.  As a pro-zoo, I can say that the relationship between an animal and a human will never have the same level of depth or quality that can be had with another human.  Animals are just to limited for that kind of intimacy.  At best, animals are companions and friends, nothing more. 

"But dude... they think zoophiles rape animals."

This goes to show how little this debate has acomplished.

"Okay, I'm not gay, but I'm reasonably sure if I was, I wouldn't appreciate that comparison. A homosexual's lover isn't comparable to a cow. Again, you're really reaching here, and it doesn't even make sense anymore."

Again, I must agree.  Zoophilia is more of an accessory to an existing sexual orientation, rather than a sexual orientation unto itself.  Any zoo who thinks they are exclusivly attracted to animals is either ignorant of what they are missing, or 2, is damaged in the head.  I get the feeling that Svansfall has convinced himself that his relationships are far more significant than they really are. 

>>679
But I'm not talking about animals and there lack of ability to make moral judgments.  My ultimate point was that "informed consent" may not even be relivant to animals in the first place.  If it isn't appart of there world, why should we care?

Of course, the reply always is, "But the animal always suffers because you are raping them." 

Okay, then let's define rape.

Forcing somebody (or some thing) to have sex with you against there will.

Okay, I'll agree to that.  So what if the animal doesn't resist?  What if the animal appears to like what I'm doing to them?

And then they say, "It doesn't matter because you never got informed consent."

But informed consent is beyond the ability of animals, right?

"Exactly,"  They would say.  "Which is why sex with animals is always rape."

But I thought rape had to be forced?

"Not in the case of statutory rape."  They would say.  "We are comparing sex with animals to statutory rape.  Sex with minors, in other words."

But that applies to PEOPLE under the age of 18?  Wait a sec, this is turing into a legal argument!  Unfair, unfair!

"No, really."  They would say.  "Animals are a lot like children if you think about it."

Since when did animals have the same status as children?

"Uh..."  They would say.  "Like children, animals are not as smart as adults and they lack wisdom."

Okay, fair enough, but that still doesn't explain how sex with minors mirrors sex with animals.  Sex with minors causes real psycological harm with negative long term effects including behavioral problems, sexual disfuction, and social ineptitude.  What evidence can you give to show me that having sex with an animal will cause them harm?

"Who needs evidence when you have common sense!"  They would say.  "Sex with animals is rape!  That's how I know it is harmful.  That's how I know it is a lot like pedophilia."

Wait just a sec.  That's a circular argument.  You can't do that!

"It's not circular if you think about it."  They would say.

We keep going in circles because we are dealing with circular arguments! 

685Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 2 Jun 2006: 03:57

>>684

For once, I'm going ot agree with you.


Uh? Anonymous agrees then?

Yeah, babbling the other side's arguments so you can smash them doesn't mean you've beaten them. Read back man, the anti-zoos that bother to explain themselves are a lot more clear than you're pretending.

My argument would be that animals don't have enough rights to be raped, because in my opinion, rape is ingoring someone's right to consent. If animals had those kind of rights, I imagine it would be rape.

Forcing somebody (or some thing) to have sex with you against there will.


Sex without consent dude. What you're describing is Violent Rape, which is a KIND of rape. Sex with minors is considered rape because even though they can technically consent, it's not good enough because it isn't informed. It protects them from agreeing to things (sex, contracts, etc) that they aren't savvy enough to understand yet, and last time I checked, the 18 year mark is there because most people are mature/educated/wise enough by then.

"Who needs evidence when you have common sense!"  They would say.


Yeah, cool there buddy. Cause only the anti-zoos are doing this right? Take a look back. The zoophiles do it just as much. "They obviously consent" vs "They obviously don't". Doesn't seem so obvious to me.

We keep going in circles because we are dealing with circular arguments!


No, the circles are because people don't read before they post. They maybe skim, or read the last few, then they come up with some "stunning idea", which has already been gone over before, usually a few times.

No really, go back in the first 300 and read all the posts by Dragonflame, Juberu, Janglur, and that tripcode anon guy. They pretty much covered the basics and identified the point, before a bunch of asshats came in and just started posting the early arguments again. But if you ignore the anti-zoo 4chan /b/tards and the offended "what right do you" and "how can you say" types, you'll see some reasoning.

Well, excpet when the tripcode anon guy got pissed at janglur, and dragonflame got pissed at juberu... things kinda slow down there.

And for the record, I don't think animals are even remotely like children. Children are WAY more intelligent than any animal. They're little people, not animals.

That, and now that meat eating is ebbing out of this thing, I'm leaning back toward neutrality again. I still don't think bestiality is right; I just don't think it's a big deal. It's more humiliating than evil from my perspective... like when Jim was caught fucking the pie type thing. I suppose I might feel different if I ever caught someone with my dog or something though.

686Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 2 Jun 2006: 04:16

>>682

Now, there are a few things I've seen of dogs being lied on their backs and yiffed, and while it didn't appear that they were wanting to get away, they couldn't have if they wanted to. That's the only area I see a problem. That's the only time it's non-consentual.


What? Seriously... what the hell? It's only wrong to fuck dogs in the missionary position? Where the hell did you get that from?

>>683

Hey Juberu, I'm gonna hop to the other side for a second for a quick question. Now, some (not many, but some) animals have shown IQ levels that are comparable to extremely low IQ humans. Washu the Chimp for instance. In those cases, are animals able to consent in your opinion? And if not, are the extremely low IQ humans able to/not able to?

687Report
DragonFlame at 2 Jun 2006: 11:42

>>685
Hey dude awsome post. I was about to reply to >>684 my self but you got there before me.
Just to make it clear I was annoyed at Juberu for a while because of his approach to my opinions but after reading the post back at a later date I have realised that there was just a big misunderstanding between us. I currently have no grudge agians Juberu and find a lot of his points quite valid.
Sorry if I have writen anything which caused you to misunderstand me Juberu I have a habit of writing things in a strange way especialy when im tired.

I think we should add you too that list GrapeTang, you have obviously read through this thread and have rasied some very good points.

>>686
The IQ question is a dificult one. Most anti-zoo's think (and im generalising) that consent can only be given through verbal comunication. I dont really agree with this but if it is true then yes it would be called rape.

Heres a hypothetical question for you guys. If a girl is lying naked on a bed and a male comes up and tries to have sex with her, but the female does nothing to indicate that she does not want sex (She doesnt say no, She doesnt try to get away). Is this considered rape? If so it seems a bit odd to me. If a human doesnt care if its having sex how is that rape. It is only when they dont want to have sex is it called rape.

Why does consent have to mean Yes. For consent to be related to rape the victim must be able to say No and from an anti-zoo point of view animals are unable to do this, thats why anti-zoo's think that its wrong. From a pro-zoo point of view consent is not verbal but done using body language, through body language they think they can determine if an animal is saying No.
Consent should not be determined by the person or animal saying Yes to sex but the opposite, if the animal or human is saying No. The question is can an anmial cominicate No through body language?

I am talking about the basic concept of consent here not the inteligence of the human or animal. I think we should work out what consent is before we even go into that.

688Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 12:46

>>684

But I'm not talking about animals and there lack of ability to make moral judgments.  My ultimate point was that "informed consent" may not even be relivant to animals in the first place.  If it isn't appart of there world, why should we care?

Because it's a part of our world.

Forcing somebody (or some thing) to have sex with you against there will.

No. It's sex without consent. Force need not necessarily be involved.
But I thought rape had to be forced?

Nope. There is such a thing as rape by coercion.(sp)
Since when did animals have the same status as children?

Wait, you're contradicting your hypothetical opponent's argument.
Okay, fair enough, but that still doesn't explain how sex with minors mirrors sex with animals.

Because neither are considered intelligent enough to have an idea what 'consent' is, nor to give it. We've been over this, and I wish you would stop misrepresenting your opponent.
Sex with minors causes real psycological harm with negative long term effects including behavioral problems, sexual disfuction, and social ineptitude.  What evidence can you give to show me that having sex with an animal will cause them harm?

We don't have to. We just have to show that it's rape. The 'harm' part is secondary.

>>686
Hey Juberu, I'm gonna hop to the other side for a second for a quick question. Now, some (not many, but some) animals have shown IQ levels that are comparable to extremely low IQ humans. Washu the Chimp for instance. In those cases, are animals able to consent in your opinion?

That depends on whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they understand consent, on an individual basis. IQ is no real guarantee of understanding.

689Report
Svansfall at 2 Jun 2006: 13:27

>>678

Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other.


You don't seem to think very highly of cows.  I still don't see why it could be even vaguely insulting, but out of respect for you I will not say anything.

Well, Verrimgard's a really unique name that only one guy has ever used as far as I can tell.


Yes, but how did this name suddenly pop up in this thread?  I did not mention the name.

Man... you're kinda bouncing back and forth a bit there. I thought you were insisting that your animals CAN consent... now it seems like you're saying that they can't, but they don't need to.


No, I didn't say they can 'consent' in the human defintion.  I said that they can clearly express in body language how they feel about things.  What they like, what they don't like, when they like something, when they don't like something.  That they can clearly communicate with us, and that we can read their body language and understand when they are saying "yes", or "no."  That they can clearly come up to someone and request something.  This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here.  What is valid is that the animal gets its meaning across and that it is respected by the human.

what the hell are you doing on the beast forum site anyway?


I went there to try and make contact with some new zoofriends, which I luckily found, and through their help I have found some good porn-free forums for more serious discussions.  For a while, there was some pretty decent discussions on beastforum also, but not lately.

And your assumptions are correct, I've actually been very upset and disturbed with a lot of the things on beastforum.

>>681
I'm making the claim that it is necessary. Because you're a human. You're bringing into any 'relationship' automatically. Debate that part of the post; I'd like some feedback.


Yes, I am human.  But when the animal's wants and needs are respected, and the human does nothing except what the animal has clearly showed that they want, and as long as the human stops as long as the animal shows that they don't want something.  Seriously what more could you ask for?   The animal signing a document, stating that: "Yes, I do indeed really feel like having my genitals stimulated right now."?  Sorry, it's not going to happen.

So the animal doesn't need to understand *consent*?


The animal needs to understand what they enjoy and what they don't enjoy, and wheter they want it at the moment or not.   And they do know this.  They don't raise their tail in the 'mating-way' if they don't wish to be touched there, and in case you touch them there and they don't like it, they make sure to lower their tail and get away from you immediately and clearly.

What about the animal understanding what *you're* meaning?


This is why it is important to know your animal well, and for the animal to know you well.

>>684
Again, I must agree.  Zoophilia is more of an accessory to an existing sexual orientation, rather than a sexual orientation unto itself.  Any zoo who thinks they are exclusivly attracted to animals is either ignorant of what they are missing, or 2, is damaged in the head.  I get the feeling that Svansfall has convinced himself that his relationships are far more significant than they really are.


Have you read Hani Miletski's book?  It's not the only study that researched the question of wheter zoophilia is a sexual orientation or not.  Page 168 to 172 in the book explores this in a very detailed way.  Unfortunately, it is far too much for me and sit and type into the computer.  Her study included 82 men and 11 women, who has had sexual contact with animals. Hani reaches the conclusion that zoophilia is a sexual orientation.

I'll quote a brief passage from Hani's book, where she reviews other studies made on the subject of zoophilia and bestiality:

"Fox (1994) believes that sexual relations with animals is as valid a sexual preference as homosexuality is.  Cauldwell (1948 & 1968) relates that bestiality is a result of an inherent passion, and Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia being a sexual orientation was supported by his doctoral study.  He, therefor, suggests using a scale resembling Kinsey's sexual orientation scale, which was also offered by Blake (1971).  Donofrio's model suggests that those who have no interest whatsoever in sexual contact with animals woukd appear at the Zero point of the scale.  Those individuals whose sole sexual outlet and attraction are animals, would be assigned the Six position. Along that continuum, between these two extremes, would be individuals who include animal sexual contact in their fantasy, or have had incidental experiences with animals, have had more than incidental contact with animals, place their sexual activity with animals equal to that involving humans, prefer animal contact but engage in more than incidental contact with humans, and those who engage primarily in contact with animals, with only incidental human sexual contact."

690Report
Svansfall at 2 Jun 2006: 13:57

Did any of you even read how I honestly actually have tried to make myself attracted to humans?

Ever tried to force yourself to become attracted to something that you don't feel the slightest of hints of attraction towards?

Some people are bi, and they can choose wheter they wish to lean more towards the hetero or the homo aspect.  But if you are fully hetero... tough luck trying to force yourself to become attracted to someone of the same gender.

Same with animals.  If you are attracted to humans as well as animals, then I can see they have the possibility to make a choice.  But if you are solely attracted to animals...  tough luck trying to make yourself attracted to a human.

691Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 14:24

>>689

Yes, I am human.  But when the animal's wants and needs are respected, and the human does nothing except what the animal has clearly showed that they want, and as long as the human stops as long as the animal shows that they don't want something.  Seriously what more could you ask for?   The animal signing a document, stating that: "Yes, I do indeed really feel like having my genitals stimulated right now."?  Sorry, it's not going to happen.

If the 'partner' in incapable of adequately understanding and/or expressing consent, then it's not consent. Sorry.
This is why it is important to know your animal well, and for the animal to know you well.

Clarification, "what one means by sex". As opposed to just rutting; an activity with more meaning than stick tab A into slit B.

Did any of you even read how I honestly actually have tried to make myself attracted to humans?

Tried therapy and mental counselling? A peer group?

Ever tried to force yourself to become attracted to something that you don't feel the slightest of hints of attraction towards?

Yes, and I love fried plantain. I do, however, have an illogical dislike of seafood, and can barely tolerate mushrooms. Point?

Same with animals.  If you are attracted to humans as well as animals, then I can see they have the possibility to make a choice.  But if you are solely attracted to animals...  tough luck trying to make yourself attracted to a human.

And? How does that make it "right"?

692Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 2 Jun 2006: 15:39

*If the 'partner' in incapable of adequately understanding and/or expressing consent, then it's not consent. Sorry.*
that is solely your opinion based upon your understanding of consent, as soon as one is dealing with a being tha has a different udnerstanding of consent then the definition of consent changes as their is point somewhere between teh animals understanding of consent and our understanding of consent that becomes what consent is defined as in such a relationship.

**Tried therapy and mental counselling? A peer group?**
  Actually scince you implied im sick and in need of help by what you have said to others, Yes I have sought out counceling through many different venues and eventualy the various therapists all said the same thing - "your fine and this falls under the same heading as a fetish or sexual orientation"
and no it dident """cure""" me.

**Same with animals.  If you are attracted to humans as well as **animals, then I can see they have the possibility to make a **choice.  But if you are solely attracted to animals...  tough **luck trying to make yourself attracted to a human.
*And? How does that make it "right"?*
  and how does that make it inherantly wrong?... You have failed so far` at showing inherant wrongness try again.

My relationship with an animal is very very much the same as that with my GF. they just speak different launguages.
and im stinking sorry if you have a problem with that but jeez
quit being so sodden narrow minded.
 
  Come on Jubero your job is to either show me im wrong or get me to think on how im wrong, so far you are failing.
 
  Picking at what ive said doesent win points, illistrate with clairity why its inherantly wrong wiothout relying on the tired argument of they cant consent. 

693Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 17:28

>that is solely your opinion based upon your understanding of consent, as soon as one is dealing with a being tha has a different udnerstanding of consent then the definition of consent changes
Hold everything. Why does it change *toward the animal*? What if it's two humans with different cultural ideas of 'consent'? What then?

as their is point somewhere between teh animals understanding of consent and our understanding of consent that becomes what consent is defined as in such a relationship.

All I've heard is based on the *animal's* probable definition of consent. The human side is generally dismissed, because it 'doesn't apply in a non-human relationship'. Which is technically correct, in relationships between non-humans.

"your fine and this falls under the same heading as a fetish or sexual orientation"

Which has what to do with making it 'right''? Some people have a fetish for stomping small animals to death, others have a fetish for certain types of soda pop.
and no it dident """cure""" me.

1. Are you trying to sound intellectual?
2. If they think there's nothing wrong with it, why would they try to "cure" it?

and how does that make it inherantly wrong?... You have failed so far` at showing inherant wrongness try again.

1. I think I've done a bang-up job. You don't. Clearly, you are obviously right.
/sarcasm
2. He's failed at showing inherent "rightness". Try again.

  Picking at what ive said doesent win points, illistrate with clairity why its inherantly wrong wiothout relying on the tired argument of they cant consent.

I'm not trying to "win points", I'm trying to argue my position. And I don't recall seeing you in the debate before; I would've remembered your quote and phrasing style, as well as the lack of proper grammar and spelling.

Oh, and the "tired" argument of lack of consent? Consent-or lack thereof-is what defines a sexual act as rape. It's central to the discussion.

quit being so sodden narrow minded.

That's "sodding", and I'm not being "narrow-minded", I simply don't agree. Narrow minded would be not listening to your opponent. I've been listening, and I still find their position flawed.

http://tinyurl.com/8ty32

694Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 2 Jun 2006: 20:57

  I have been in this discusion for a signifigant amount of time.
  I just had been posting as anon previously. Most definatly not all the anons, you may verify this with xenofur if he/she is so inclined.
xeno had enlightened myself in how anon grants one more respect in the long run so for the most part I post anon.
 this nick is here for the length of this discusion then shall go away. therby maintaining the same effect of being relativly anon while keeping my postings clumped together. I do not find the deep inherant need to build an image of what I think or a following, so that also plays in not continuing using the same nick long term.
thinking that I havent been interacting in this thread by posting is seemingly a display of your inherant abillity to notice subtlty and details at play? perhaps that is the best display of how one can be oblivious to the obvious.
  Sodden as in wet. as in dreary grey or damp.
to listen well you would be able to recognise my broken grammer
in the previous posts. this is perhaps at the seat of  your disbelief that animals are capable of consent.
(The broken grammer is the result of a head injury at twelve and sadly irreversable)
that however did not break my ability to add 2+2 in logical situations.
  You have indeed failed at showing inherant wrong by not being able to support well and with logic and data what you are proposing.
  The nice people with the hug me jackets never tried to cure me of zoo, they cured me of thinking zoo was bad.
 A relationship between an animal and a human is a non human relationship..... get it?  two humans in a relationship is a human relationship.
now please attack the logic behind what ive posted instead of attempting to personally attack either my grammer or supposed illness/wellness (see cure commentary) factor
show me how you pay attention to subtilties and deatils.
now, see, that was bad on my part I just jumped all over what is obviously a small mistake on your part.


*peace out people*
"the road less traveled often opens ones eyes to the smell of roses"

695Report
at 2 Jun 2006: 21:42

5 sub 700.

Wow, how quickly and often this thread has repeated itself.

696Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 21:52

>>694

to listen well you would be able to recognise my broken grammer in the previous posts. this is perhaps at the seat of  your disbelief that animals are capable of consent.

Congratulations. For the first time in 600 posts, I have facepalmed. With both hands.
that however did not break my ability to add 2+2 in logical situations.

Aparrently, it *did* impair your ability to refrain from ad hominem.
  You have indeed failed at showing inherant wrong by not being able to support well and with logic and data what you are proposing.

I wasn't trying to prove him wrong, just asking him to support his argument.
A relationship between an animal and a human is a non human relationship..... get it?  two humans in a relationship is a human relationship.

By the same token, a relationship between two animals is a *non-human* relationship. One involving a human and animal isn't either. It's a human-animal relationship. Also, I think you dropped your petard.

Would someone explain to me why the human associations of "sex" go out the window in a 'relationship' with an animal? It's equivalent (not equal) to saying an adult needs not a child's consent because the child cannot understand sex, therefore it isn't relevant.

697Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 2 Jun 2006: 23:45

  My intent was not to make you facepalm. my apologies for that
Simply understand that just because a person doesent seem capable dont presume that they are not by default.
  Also my apologies for misinterpreting your ongoing debate with one person for the overall debate that is happening.
unless ive overlooked details ive seen the zoo side post
much info with data and pics to back up: gay animals, animal intellect, animal choice, and animals having sex simply for pleasure. now with that said im "asking" *you* to provide links and data saying just the oposite (to support your seeming claim that animals are incapable of many things.(which is a large part of what this all hinges around) aka show me something to back up  your assertation.
 We are both guilty of ad hominum.
oh... congrats on having me look up a word (The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city.) courtsy of dictionary.com
  I do hope I've avoided large disharges of intestonal gas but then we both may be guilty of that as well.
""By the same token, a relationship between two animals is a *non-human* relationship. One involving a human and animal isn't either. It's a human-animal relationship.**
 
  Precisily  my point, its a human animal relationship not a human human relationship therefore it cant be judged by the same qaulifiers. so consent in a human animal relationship can be obtained in other ways than the "yes dear you can bone me" way.
  you thereby gave an example of why the rules become different.
**Would someone explain to me why the human associations of "sex" go out the window in a 'relationship' with an animal? It's equivalent (not equal) to saying an adult needs not a child's consent because the child cannot understand sex, therefore it isn't relevant.**
  I recognise and accept that you qualified that
with not equal.
  Not quite equivalant either - the difference is that an animal is sexually mature and ready for sex, while a child is most assuradly not. that has also been discused at various lengths before and roughly the same reply was stated (what was that abought going on and on?)
the comparison between zoophiles and pedophiles has been used enough in the past that the logical differences tween the two have been seriously thought through both by zoophiles themselves and by the previously mentioned "profesional" white happy jacket guys.


  Is it possible to leap beyond the small banalities and discusion of inanely trival points that have been relativly well charted so far?  or should we continue to spar with details of how we word things?
dammit lotsa text for a simpole idea.
*peace out people.*
may the road not give you big hairy blisters of doom.

698Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:32

>>681

Informed consent is a legal term and, thus, has no place in a debate about morality.  Simple consent (aquessense to be exact) is all that is nessesary.  Quit trying to mix legalism in a debate on morality.  We've already been over this many times, so quit with this stupid argument and come up with something new.

"So it's not relevant because they can't understand it. Got it. I am *really* tempted to make another pedophilia comparison at this point."

Don't you dare make comparisons to pedophilia.  That's an apples-to-oranges argument.  Go back and read this thread.  The differences have been stated several times and you keep ignoring them.

I don't need consent in order to swiftly kill and feast upon my prey.  Why should I need consent to have sex with them?  Even if it is rape by your definition?  So what?  Big deal.  They are animals and are here for my use.  I'm not causing them to cry out in pain or even act like they are in pain.  If they do not appear to suffer, what do you care?

You (or maybe it was somebody else, I don't remember) seem to think that a need justifies an action.  People need to eat, so the slaughter of animals is justified.  People need to have sex with the oposit sex in order for our species to survive, thus it is justified (under the right conditions).  Sex with an animal is not a need, but a want.  Since humans can survive without sex with animals, it isn't justified based on need.  However, just because something is a want and not a need does not make it wrong.  There are many things in this world that we enjoy that are wants and never needs.  Are those wants unjustified or illegitimate, too?    You are getting dangerously close to adopting a philosophy of Stoicism, my friend.

Here's a quandry for your noodle.  Let's say you are starving to death and you must eat in order to survive.  There is no food available, so you turn to canibalizm as a last resort.  Were you justified to become a canibal even though you had no other choice to survive?  Was the moral option to abstain and die?

Need does not automaticaly justify an action nor is something automaticaly unjustified because it is want.  Issues like this or eating meat are to complex for such simple reasoning.

699Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:43

>>687


"Why does consent have to mean Yes. For consent to be related to rape the victim must be able to say No and from an anti-zoo point of view animals are unable to do this, thats why anti-zoo's think that its wrong. From a pro-zoo point of view consent is not verbal but done using body language, through body language they think they can determine if an animal is saying No.
Consent should not be determined by the person or animal saying Yes to sex but the opposite, if the animal or human is saying No. The question is can an anmial cominicate No through body language?"

The word you are looking for (and the anti-zoos keep ignoring) is "acquiescence".

700Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:49

aye, indeed. verbal != the only way to say yes or no.

701Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:53

>>688

"Because neither are considered intelligent enough to have an idea what 'consent' is, nor to give it. We've been over this, and I wish you would stop misrepresenting your opponent."

Wrong!  We do not set he age of consent to 18 years because of intelligence.  Should the law be changed to accomodate people's IQ level?  Is it okay for a 20 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if the 15 year old is smarter than the 20 year old?  Of course not!

We set the age of consent to 18 years because of the assumed maturity level people have by that age.  You are ready to have sex by that age because you are a biological adult, not because you can score higher on an IQ test than somebody younger.

702Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 01:47

>>689

"No, I didn't say they can 'consent' in the human defintion.  I said that they can clearly express in body language how they feel about things.  What they like, what they don't like, when they like something, when they don't like something.  That they can clearly communicate with us, and that we can read their body language and understand when they are saying "yes", or "no."  That they can clearly come up to someone and request something.  This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here.  What is valid is that the animal gets its meaning across and that it is respected by the human."

Be very carful that you don't fall into any word traps here, because there are different types of consent.  The one that "Juberu#3LrT5NRVks" keeps using is "informed consent".  JuberGoober loves using that form of consent because animals cannot qualify for it.  "Acquiescence" is all you need because common sense tells us that animals will flee what they do not enjoy.

Next time, call it "Juber's definition of consent".

"And your assumptions are correct, I've actually been very upset and disturbed with a lot of the things on beastforum."

I haven't been on that board in a while.  What's going on that you don't like?

>>693
"Which has what to do with making it 'right''? Some people have a fetish for stomping small animals to death, others have a fetish for certain types of soda pop."

You said your self that "harm" was only secondary to your argument, yet you now make the implication that zoophilia is like stomping on a puppy's head.  The point is that his fetish is "harmless" like a foot fetish or a leather fetish.  If you are going to say that the fellow in question was not justified by his psychotherapist, then you must show me why having sex with an animal brings them harm, an agument that you won't touch.

"1. Are you trying to sound intellectual?"

What's your point?

"2. If they think there's nothing wrong with it, why would they try to "cure" it?"

He was being sarcastic about "curing" himself.  Apparently, you were unable comprehend that zoophilia was an issue he wrestled with for a long time.  His conclusion that there was nothing wrong with it only happend after he worked out this isssue.

Quit being a foolish contrarian!

"I'm not trying to "win points", I'm trying to argue my position. And I don't recall seeing you in the debate before; I would've remembered your quote and phrasing style, as well as the lack of proper grammar and spelling."

Once again, you pick out things that aren't relivant and you run with them.  Bravo!

"Oh, and the "tired" argument of lack of consent? Consent-or lack thereof-is what defines a sexual act as rape."

Wait, I thought you had to have more than just consent.  According to you, a zoophile must have "informed consent" in order to not be raping an animal.  But hey, if all you need is generic consent, which includes "acquiescence" under it's umbrella, then I'm okay with that.

"It's central to the discussion."

No it isn't.  It's only central to your argument.  You keep acting like you've discoverd this great thing.  Well I've got news for you.  It's only great to you.  To me, it's irrelivant.  Prove to me why it is and maybe I won't marginalize you so much.

"That's "sodding", and I'm not being "narrow-minded", I simply don't agree. Narrow minded would be not listening to your opponent. I've been listening, and I still find their position flawed."

I don't know if anybody has ever told you this before, but you are a pedantic asshole.

>>696

"Would someone explain to me why the human associations of "sex" go out the window in a 'relationship' with an animal? It's equivalent (not equal) to saying an adult needs not a child's consent because the child cannot understand sex, therefore it isn't relevant."

The reason we have anti-pedophilia laws is because pedophilia causes harm to children.  It doesn't matter if a child can consent or not.  Sex isn't good for them.

Sexualy mature animals are not analogous to sexualy immature children.  Adult animals are developed and ready for sex, just like adult humans.  Children have yet to grow up into there sexualy mature selves.

The morality behind the pedophilia laws is based on "protecting the child [from harm]".  Sexualy mature animals do understand sex as far as there sphere of relivance is conserned.  You are, once again, comparing apples to oranges.

703Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 3 Jun 2006: 04:14

>>687

Yo man, yeah no worries, people get angry, but they come out of it too.

Yeah, the ability to say "no" is the important one to be sure, but the reason informed consent is part of rape is cause somethimes you aren't allowed to say no, aren't able to, that kinda thing. Otherwise it wouldn't be rape if you got her drunk or drugged or caught her sleeping, etc.

Course, it gets worse there. Nambla types love to use the whole "But they DO consent" line of bullshit, so the definition moved to encompass children, and informed consent is used in courts for this kind of thing.

So in other words, it's important because otherwise people find ways around it... but that's all legal stuff. I happen to think it's moral too. If you get consent because you tricked or manipulate someone, you're a scumbag, legal or not. I suppose now that I think of it, I probably should have more of a problem with bestiality, but I just don't think about it that much. At least not until recently.

As for your hypothetical, that's what I would call a dangerous gray area, and you'd be better off erring on the side of caution. I see it this way: If you don't obtain consent, but she doesn't struggle, then you haven't raped her "yet", because she hasn't decided yet. She'd be within her rights to say later that "yeah, I didn't struggle, but I didn't say it was okay either". And that can be taken further too. Stuff like "Yeah, I agreed, but you never told me you had an STD" or "Yeah, I agreed, but only because I was drunk out of my mind; you took advantage of me".

This is where the legal/moral marks split. I'd say having sex with someone without complete consent is always wrong, but obviously it's not always illegal. And while you wouldn't need it, say, written every time obviously, the ability for her to be ABLE to if necessary is what would be important I think. If she's asked, does she say "Yeah, I consent", or does she squint and say "con...sent? What dat?" In one, she consents, in the other, she probably didn't struggle, but she didn't consent either, since she obviously doesn't get it.

>>688

That depends on whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they understand consent, on an individual basis. IQ is no real guarantee of understanding.


OH! Dude, I think I get where you're coming from now! Basically, you're saying that even if, say, Washu the chimp can consent, that doesn't mean all chimps can consent, just Washu.

So in other words, it's not the base intelligence, it's the education right! If you bother to teach a chimp about sex, what it means to people, and what they'd be getting themselves into if they signed "yes", AND they understood, then they can consent.

I can see why the zoos get pissed off at you if that's the case, cause seriously, I don't even think anyone's educated Washu with that kind of stuff, let alone whatever animal they get involved in. Duuude, no wonder you think it's creepy, and I get the child comparison now! It's not that children are animal-like, or that animals are child-like! It's that animals have little or no education on the matter!

Or maybe I missed it, but I'm closer at least! Rad!

704Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 3 Jun 2006: 04:46

>>689

Yes, but how did this name suddenly pop up in this thread?  I did not mention the name.


Sorry dude, I got it from that beastfurum site. You said you were pointed here, so I went there to see what was being said in there. Yeah, you didn't rat him out or anything. ;)

This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here.


Well... don't know what to tell you man. I can see why it's a valid concern, but I kinda apply it to humans only out of a harsh bias. I don't think it's evil, I just think it's gross, and I don't really sweat those kind of issues with animals. If you're claiming to care though, I'd suggest giving it a try to look at it "their" way, since you want them to change... cause lets face it, most people against bestiality aren't going to discuss it with you or justify their position, they're just going to verbally, socially, possibly legally, and maybe even physically attack you, and there probably aren't enough zoophiles to return in kind.

Not fair really, but yeah, it's kind of a one way thing here. They're on the accepted "popular" side, so they don't need to justify themselves to you. If you need to compare it to something closer to home, think of the struggle (ongoing struggle) for racial equality. What, did black activists just say "No, you guys are wrong, so you should all just leave me alone"? Well, some probably did, but I bet you it didn't really get them anywhere. Then there were the violent ones... and, well they kinda caused more harm than good really, as they "confirmed" all the prejudice against them. Then there were the ones who wouldn't back down, wouldn't be ignored, and FORCED people to look at it their way... but they had to explain themselves. Grown men and women had to explain why being born with a certain skin color didn't mean they deserved bad treatment.

Now... zoophiles... not really like the race struggles as far as I can tell. I mean, not every group vying for fair treatment is right. Nambla, creepy cults, the A.L.F., those kinds of people. They have a cause, but they're wrong... so just because you're an oppressed minority doesn't immediately mean that the majority are being unreasonable bullies. Not sure where zoophiles are really. Some of you don't seem terrible... most of you are creepy as hell if this thread is an indicator...

Have you read Hani Miletski's book?


Man, the only thing I can say to this, for both sides, is be careful. Just because it's written in a book by some scholar or scientist doesn't mean it's right, or even valid. Two people from the same university can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Just look at the psychology Nature/Nurture debate for evidence there.

>>690

Actually, yes. I used to think I was a bad person because I was a furry, and I tried to NOT be a furry... and then eventually came to the conclusion that being a furry isn't hurting anything, because all it really meant is I was looking at something. Yeah, it's damn near impossible to just completely deny a kink.

But seriously, that doesn't mean you shouldn't. What if your kink was snuff? I don't care how hard it is to deny yourself, you deny it or you're a murderer.

Now, zoophiles are aren't THAT bad... not even close... but the point is, just because it's hard to deny doesn't absolve you of any responsibility. The right or wrong of it aren't swayed in other words.

>>697
Dude, I have no idea what your points are. Well, I get that you're apparently for bestiality, but you kinda seem to be demonstrating the "fuck animal rights, I'll do what I want, when I want" argument, which lends to it being "wrong" as far as this discussion goes. Beyond that though, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you've had some sort of accident that makes it hard for you to type... but that doesn't make it easier to understand you, and I don't see it as "our" responsibility to shovel through it.

Jub seems up for the challenge though... for some reason.

705Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 3 Jun 2006: 05:04

>>698

Aw god damnit, every time this thread starts to go somewhere, someone like you pops up and just decides that a point (THE central point for the anti-zoos) just doesn't count. Well, you gonna say WHY informed consent doesn't count? If your answer is "animals can't do it", then that's the whole POINT isn't it?

Jesus... it doesn't count?

You (or maybe it was somebody else, I don't remember) seem to think that a need justifies an action.  People need to eat, so the slaughter of animals is justified.  People need to have sex with the oposit sex in order for our species to survive, thus it is justified (under the right conditions).  Sex with an animal is not a need, but a want.  Since humans can survive without sex with animals, it isn't justified based on need.  However, just because something is a want and not a need does not make it wrong.  There are many things in this world that we enjoy that are wants and never needs.  Are those wants unjustified or illegitimate, too?    You are getting dangerously close to adopting a philosophy of Stoicism, my friend.


Yeah, I'm not even going to explain myself if you aren't even going to paraphrase me properly. That isn't what I said, that isn't what I was getting at, and as a result, you don't have a point. You defeated an argument you imagined. Well done.

>>699
The word you are looking for (and the anti-zoos keep ignoring) is "acquiescence".


Naw man, it's consent. I know it's a pisser to deal with, but rape is nonconsensual sex. Acquiescence isn't enough unless you're using a personalized definition of rape, which is basically a "Well, in MY world it isn't rape" type argument.

>>701

You can have an IQ of 200 and fail at math dude. If your gonna try to wow people with your intelligence... well, just don't dude, we're not idiots, and these "strong forceful statements" still need some reasoning to back them up before they make any sense.

>>702
Next time, call it "Juber's definition of consent".


So what, should people call your definition the "No means yes" definition? I mean, I can't back that up, but it sure would make it easy to dismiss everything you say. JuberGoober? Jesus...

706Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 3 Jun 2006: 08:44

>>697

Not quite equivalant either - the difference is that an animal is sexually mature and ready for sex, while a child is most assuradly not. that has also been discused at various lengths before and roughly the same reply was stated (what was that abought going on and on?)

Did you just say something is "obvious" without stating how? Yes, the animal is mature enough for sex; with other animals. How does that make them mature enough for humans?

We are both guilty of ad hominum.

Except that I did it as secondary, as a direct criticism of your grammar. You didn't even get to the subject at hand until the last four lines of >>694.
  I do hope I've avoided large disharges of intestonal gas but then we both may be guilty of that as well.

As in "hoist by one's own...".
the comparison between zoophiles and pedophiles has been used enough in the past that the logical differences tween the two have been seriously thought through both by zoophiles themselves and by the previously mentioned "profesional" white happy jacket guys.

And?

>>702
You said your self that "harm" was only secondary to your argument, yet you now make the implication that zoophilia is like stomping on a puppy's head.

No, my implication was that being a "fetish" doesn't make something right or wrong.
/mmm, Sprite

Informed consent is a legal term and, thus, has no place in a debate about morality.  Simple consent (aquessense to be exact) is all that is nessesary.

Consent to something they don't reasonably understand. Got it.
Quit being a foolish contrarian!

I love how everyone who disagrees with an opponent is a "contrarian". A contrarian is someone who takes positions flouting conventional wisdom, and attempts to show people there's something wrong with their limited worldview.  Conventional wisdom states that bestiality is wrong. Therefore, I am not a contrarian. You are.

Be very carful that you don't fall into any word traps here, because there are different types of consent.  The one that "Juberu#3LrT5NRVks" keeps using is "informed consent".  JuberGoober loves using that form of consent because animals cannot qualify for it.  "Acquiescence" is all you need because common sense tells us that animals will flee what they do not enjoy.

Doesn't that also call for animals to understand what sex with a human implies?
No it isn't.  It's only central to your argument.

Rape (n); 1 : a crime defined as sexual intercourse or penetration without valid consent by both parties.
I don't know if anybody has ever told you this before, but you are a pedantic asshole.

Not in so many words, no.
If the debate is-and it is-largely over whether bestiality=rape, then it's central.
Sexualy mature animals are not analogous to sexualy immature children.  Adult animals are developed and ready for sex, just like adult humans.  Children have yet to grow up into there sexualy mature selves.

Very good. Now answer the actual question, not attack the illustration.

>>703
Duuude, no wonder you think it's creepy, and I get the child comparison now! It's not that children are animal-like, or that animals are child-like! It's that animals have little or no education on the matter!

That, and they'd probably wouldn't "get it" anyway. Thank you. Can we move from there?

>>704
Now... zoophiles... not really like the race struggles as far as I can tell.

http://www.journalfen.net/community/jurisimprudence/79957.html
Jub seems up for the challenge though... for some reason.

I have no life. :D
Acquiescence isn't enough unless you're using a personalized definition of rape, which is basically a "Well, in MY world it isn't rape" type argument.

It also isn't enough unless the acquiescer knows what they're getting into. And I've heard the argument that animals can't understand consent from zoos, therefore it isn't relevant to them. (Which makes little to no sense, but I'll leave it be for the moment.) But if they don't understand it, doesn't it mean they can't acquiesce?

707Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 08:57

mostly in responce/ agreement to grape tang.
agreed some zoos/bestialists  are not only creepy as hell but probably shouldent be allowed to own animals (if any of you actually take that personally you probably either fall into
the first catagory or the "im to sensative to be on the internet" catagory)
good lord of course you and some others find it icky, yay for having individual choices and tastes.
those that step forward and go "you are raping that animal"
or "you are abusing that animal"
get real ... gory squicky details follow.
first time I had sex and what started me fully down the road to zoo..
i was roughly 12 had grown up on a farm  knew what the animals did and was curious so therefore kneeled in front of the st bernard new foundland male we had. (he had been bugging me for sex for at least 2 years prior) well next thing I know im part of a siamesed at the but dog and human.  I was hooked... at 14 i got caught and thrown out of the house for good, hence my search to ""cure"" myself. and also why my opinion on this is neither rape nor wrong can be inherantly swayed.
^begin sarcasm
(*gasp* was that first hand personal experience showing how that sure the hell wasant me raping the dog? nah it must be my imagination or me trying to find a way to make it seem right)
^end sarcasm
again I can undersatnd how it can squick people, hell for years it squicked me even tho I was more drawn to them than humans.
comparing animals to children - again puhhhlease.
If one continues to compare animals to children at any level one should have neither as one trully fails to grasp the inherant diffrences between the two.
wow i think i said something relativly new that hasent been repeated extensivly.
attacking ones nick or such, like has been recently done, is actualy lower than charecter attack, at least charector attack can prove a point (one doesent live up to what they say etc)
but nick attacking.... cmon people act slightly less like 11 year olds other wise this 40 year old grouch will likely ignore you as there is no inherant way to intimidate you into behaving online.
peace out people.

708Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 09:06

>>706
As in "hoist by one's own
that doesent fit within your sentance use before where you used dropping my petard to early. c'mon at least be comsistant.
if you had used hoist then i wouldent have went and looked it up.
 I missed where i said obvious in regards to children do not equal animals. perhaps you could enlighten me?

709Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 09:37

correction due to to stupid typo - droppage of a few important words.
"and also why my opinion on this is neither rape nor wrong can be inherantly swayed."

should be

 and also why my opinion on why this is neither rape nor wrong can not be inherantly swayed.

710Report
Svansfall at 3 Jun 2006: 09:40

>>702

I haven't been on that board in a while.  What's going on that you don't like?


That is too much to mention here, and I will not go into details.

>>704
Man, the only thing I can say to this, for both sides, is be careful. Just because it's written in a book by some scholar or scientist doesn't mean it's right, or even valid. Two people from the same university can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Just look at the psychology Nature/Nurture debate for evidence there.


No, it doesn't have to be valid just because it is written in a book.  But a majority of recent studies on the subject has all defined zoophilia as a sexual orientation.  Hani Miletski's study is only one of the most in-depth studies on the topic, and she has extensive research behind her study.  http://www.drmiletski.com/about_hani.html

The reason why she started researching the subject was that one of her clients came to her and wanted to be 'cured' from zoophilia.  She was trying to find information about it, and found no recent studies, so she started doing her own research.  She eventually came to the conclusion that her client could not be cured from zoophilia, because you cannot cure someone from a sexual orientation.

Actually, yes. I used to think I was a bad person because I was a furry, and I tried to NOT be a furry... and then eventually came to the conclusion that being a furry isn't hurting anything, because all it really meant is I was looking at something. Yeah, it's damn near impossible to just completely deny a kink.


The difference is that zoophilia is not a kink, nor is it a fetish.  It's a sexual orientation.  A fetish is when you are aroused by an object or by an action.  I.e. snuff, foot-fetish, etc.  A sexual orientation is when you feel emotionally and physically attracted to another living being.  The animal is not an object, nor is it an action.

The reason why I mentioned that zoophilia is a sexual orientation was not to explain why it would be "right", but why it is upsetting when someone says: "Go find a woman instead of a cow."  I guess a kink or a fetish would be more easy to ignore even if you're unhappy with them, but a sexual orientation is rooted deep down.  It's like in the old days when they tried to force left-handed people to become right-handed, by forbidding them to use their left hand.

Sexologists and therapists who have researched zoophilia are aware of that you cannot "cure" a sexual orientation or make it go away.  So to tell someone to "Go find someone you are not sexually attracted to!" isn't a very kind thing to say.

Now on to the issue of so-called 'consent'.

The reason why I don't feel the human definition of 'consent'applies to human/animal relationships is because the term is not constructed wide enough to fit with clear and absolute non-verbal communication.

As I have explained earlier, an animal will show very clearly what they want and what they don't want.  No matter how clear this is, it still falls out of the human definition of 'consent'.

I am not going to participate much in this discussion anymore, because I am getting a bit too many things that need to urgently be done IRL, and my time to sit by the computer is limited.  It takes me a while to write those posts, because of having to use the dictionary and look up a lot of English words all the time.

Another reason is that I have basically already said most of what I can say on the subject, and the rest will just be repeating myself.  I'll most likely slip in a few comments now and then anyway, though.

So, to sum up what I really mean:  As long as the animal and human know each other, and feel comfortable and safe in each others company.  As long as the human makes sure to read the clear and direct body language of the animal, and respect it.  As long as no one is coming to harm, I do not see anything that could be wrong with a human and an animal both enjoying sexual contact with each other.

Human definition of 'consent' does not even come close to being relevant here.  Juberu may think it is valid, but an animal who tries to rub her genitals against a tree in a futile attempt of getting stimulation, will be noticably relieved once she has recieved the stimulation from a human, and if I would instead stand before her and say: "Sorry, you cannot give me human 'consent', so therefor I cannot touch you", she'd just get more frustrated, turning around and exposing her genitals to me. Not because she understands my words, but because I am not helping her find relief.

I've had to ignore cows who try to get me to stimulate them, when I have had to go to work in the morning, or having other things that I must attend to.  To expect me to not stimulate her, when she wants to, when I want to, and when both have time, solely for the reason that she cannot meet the human definition of 'consent'.   Sorry, no.  It harms none of us, and both of us like it.

In short: If everyone involved enjoys it, and no one gets any harm from it, do what you please.  Giving harmless pleasure can never be wrong.

That's my opinion, and feel free to disagree if you like, but don't be mean to people who treat animals good.

711Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 10:24

totally understood abough the "just because its written in a book" part, but there are enough various different books and sources that all say a variant upon the same idea and also aproach it from enough diferent angles with simaler conclusions for myself to accept such as a logical thing.
Svansfall thank you for another supporting link, that is what i was hoping the anti zoo people would do, give us some links.

712Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 3 Jun 2006: 13:24

>>710

Not because she understands my words, but because I am not helping her find relief.

Did you just say that you touch your dog because she's horny?
I am not going to participate much in this discussion anymore,

Actually, I meant to leave without announcement somewhere in the 300s, but I came back, just to contest some points of logic, on both sides. Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in. I think I and others have argued this to as close to a conclusion as it's going to come: the sticking point.

Those on my side say the human definition of consent matters because there's a human in the relationship, and the animal doesn't know any better. Zoos say it's irrelevant precisely *because* the animal doesn't, and never will, understand the human idea of "consent". While I'm probably missing the subtleties, I think both sides can agree that there's not an inch to be given here. unless I'm missing something important. Anyone?

713Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 14:18

   Pretty good summing up.

 Perhaps refine it by  "never will be able to give consent in the manner in which some people understand consent." that of course is your choice on how you word such.

  What im at something of a loss on is why alternative forms of consent *HAVE* to equal rape so far as some are concerned.

714Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 3 Jun 2006: 15:51

We're arguing that they're not valid forms of consent for humans, but for other animals. Sex without valid consent is rape, as far as we're concerned. Your side thinks those forms of consent are valid, therefore it is not rape.

Are we done here?

715Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 16:19

>>706

"Did you just say something is "obvious" without stating how? Yes, the animal is mature enough for sex; with other animals. How does that make them mature enough for humans?"

Why doesn't it?  You have yet to show how "animal" sexual maturity and "human" sexual maturity are different; I use quoats because humans are technicaly animals.  The only difference I have ever seen demonstrated is complexity, which we humans have in spades.  But is that really enough to make a difference, and if so, why?

"Except that I did it as secondary, as a direct criticism of your grammar. You didn't even get to the subject at hand until the last four lines of >>694."

Let this be a lesson to you, then.  Avoid trivial matters like this and refrain from humiliating your oponents with cheap shots like pointing out errors in there spelling, grahmar, etc.  People will be most inclined to listen to you and be less inclined to dismiss you as a contrarian and trollish asshat.  And I don't mean to sound insulting to you, I really don't.  I'm just saying that's how you come off some times.

"/mmm, Sprite"

You are the first "spritesexual" I've ever met.

"Conventional wisdom states that bestiality is wrong. Therefore, I am not a contrarian. You are."

That's conventional morality, not wisdom.  You just love to twist things to suit you.  Your very good at being a contrarian.

"If the debate is-and it is-largely over whether bestiality=rape, then it's central."

The debate is on the morality of bestiality, not if it bestiality = rape.  The rape issue more of a sub-heading.  There are other issues regarding the morality of bestiality besides of it is the same as rape. For example, does sex with animals cause the human in the relationship any harm.  I've seen only one post make the case that it could be harmful to the human emotionaly, but this avenue has yet to be fully explored.  This entire debate has been far to animal centric.  The human side should not be so ignored.

>>707
"wow i think i said something relativly new that hasent been repeated extensivly."

Actualy, the differences between children and animals has been stated many times.  It's just that nobody on the anti-zoo side listens.

>>710

"That [stuff on Beastforum] is too much to mention here, and I will not go into details." 

Can't you at least "reader's digest" it for me?  You can spare me the details.

>>712

"Did you just say that you touch your dog because she's horny?"

First, he's talking about cows, not dogs.  All he ever talks about are his cows.  Secondly, yes, hid did say that he relives his cows' sexual tenssion.

>>712

"While I'm probably missing the subtleties, I think both sides can agree that there's not an inch to be given here. unless I'm missing something important. Anyone?"

No, you aren't mising anything besides the subtleties; neither side is willing to budge an inch.  I would like to refine your summation about the zoo argument.  The pro-zoos belive that informed consent is outside an animal's sphere of relivance because it does not exist in animal to animal relationships.  Informed consent is important to humans because it is an intergal part of human sexuality. This, informed consent is nessesary for the animal to have sex with the human, rather than the other way around.  In order for a human legitimatly have sex with an animal, consent must be obtained in what ever manor is spesific to the particular species, gender, and even individual.  This is why the more responsible zoos say how important it is to know your animal and build as much trust as possible first before anything sexual is even thought about.  Some animals actualy do say "no" in there own way and when they say "no" there wishes must be respected. 

I'll admit it, I've read essays and articles on how to have sex with animals, and some will honestly state that the zoo should be prepared for rejection, as this often happens.  Some less scropulous articles ofer methods that are absolutly coercive and wrong.  For example, smearing penut butter on your genitals so a dog will lick them.  A dog may lick and sniff at a person's genitalia a little bit, but they don't do it for very long or that often.  In order to sustain the licking, the zoo must trick the dog into it.  Now that is not right.  I also disagree with reward systems or training methods to get animals to do what you want.  If anybody needs special techniques in order to get there animals to perform the sexual relationsip is one-sided and wrong.  Sex should be it's own reward. 

Zoos should ask themselves this quesiton:  "Does the animal have sex with me because I give him/her a reward or because they like the sex?  To me, this is the purity test for whether or not the sexual relationship is consentual.

716Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 18:19

>>715  *bows*
  That last question that zoos should ask themselves. awsome and totally agreed.
  On a semi intersting thought, by the same argument the anti zoos are using then if a male dog mounts a human, Is the dog (insert any animal capable of mounting) raping the human as the dog cannot possibly understand that the human has said yes.

  This seems to be an inherant implication of the informed consent argument. if no comunication is able to happen at least on the level of conveying consent then it cant go either way,
and then the active party becomes the raper and the pasive party the rapee. (there is a reason i drag this out and double explain things)
 
  To adress the question of harm to humans. that is going to depend on a lot of things - partly does the human use the relationship with an animal to replace the relationship they desire with a human, or do they simply prefer the animals.
  Is said relationship likely to cause them harm in their peer group if such knowledge becomes commenly known.
  Does their locality have some type of blue laws regarding such interactions. and thereby they face some form of legal repercusions.
  That is just touching the tip of the iceberg in regards to possible harm towards humans
of course there is possible physical harm- witness the poor sap in washington - witness myself getting kicked in the head by a horse (utterly non zoo related) paniced horse that was tangled in a lead rope.

717Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 18:22

>>715 dont worry im non humilatable by cracks against my spelling and grammer. I'm used to them *chuckle*
severe head trama is fun boys and girls :p
peace out people

718Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 18:59

>>716

"On a semi intersting thought, by the same argument the anti zoos are using then if a male dog mounts a human, Is the dog (insert any animal capable of mounting) raping the human as the dog cannot possibly understand that the human has said yes."

Oh, but you see, that wouldn't be rape.  Why?  Because animals do not have a sense of morality.  Thus, morality does not apply to them.  It only applies to humans.  But why, then, must we insist upon informed consent when that isn't appart of there world either.  This is a contradiction in the anti-zoo argument and I'm glad you pointed it out.  Very good, sir.  Bravo! 

Oh, but I'm sure this will be explained away by the anti-zoos by saying that I'm not making sense or that I'm "contradicting" myself when I'm not or that there is a "flaw" in my logic (which they won't point out directly).  They are so focused on there own agument that they never take the time to understand ours.  That is why it is so "obvious" that we are wrong.

The one great harm I see zoos most prone to feeling is the loss of there animal lover.  Over the human life-time, a man could watch three horses be born and die, or about 7 to 14 dogs, depending on there highly veriable life span.  That's a lot of greif for one person to lose all of those lovers.

This is actualy the main reason why I think having sex with an animals is a bad idea for people.  Masterbating them to releave there sexual tension is another mater entirely.  In that case, the human does not have to deal with the increased bonding that orgasm brings.  Only the animal is subject to orgasmic bonding.

719Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 19:29

  Intersting point to bring up, the loss of a loved one.
each zoo has to deal with that on their own for the most part,
although with the internet at least now we know others to help share the burden of the pain. I have had many dogs, some have just been dogs they are there and dont connect at some level.
they get the same awsome treatment all of them that I've had do.
  the loss is less with those that do not connect tho. its like loosing a friend to old age or accident or ilness it sucks badly.
 To loose one of the ones that ive formed a trully deep attachment to and vice versa hurts more than anything else aside from loosing a human partner, which is on par on the scale of
trama inducing things that can happen, Yes I have lost a human lover roughly 20 years ago to a car accident.
the loss of the human was eisier as I had freinds and people who gave me certain amounts of comfort and understanding.
however with loss of an animal (principly dogs in my case)
there was no support group in any manner as the normal thing id hear is "get over it, It was just a dog"
 After coming out to my freinds and close people I gained enough
people who were either zoo or zoo freindly that at least I was no longer alone (this was actually before the internet was a big thing) out of probably 100 people that i knew relativly closely
I lost two freinds for that and discoverd that roughly 49 were or had some of contact with animals in that way and the remainder were quite understanding.
  I suspect that was becuase like minds attracted - although its also possible the level of zoo or past zoo is much higher than most think.
currently im in a nice stable relationship with a calm sane gf who understands. (i am intentionally leaving out details as somethings are indeed private)
 I've never ponderd if a animal bonds further through the act of pleasure and orgasm although id highly suspect they may or do.
it is something indeed worthy of pondering late at night watching the stars or such.

(btw no im not hovering around waiting for new posts I'm renovating my shop to get it in shape as a wood working and metal working shop I just have been checking for new posts each time I come inside this is starting to get interesting finally)

720Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 23:27

It's such an odd thing.  Wow.  How much discussion can come here.

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.
Manage