fchan

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...

...

>>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! 

>>682

>>684

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.

*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. 

  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"

>>694

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>689

>>697

>>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?

>>702

>>710

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?

>>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.

>>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.

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