at 19 Jun 2006: 08:47
“>>839 amoralist/atheist? FUCK I don't believe in anything. I could care less about religion and all its wasted time on this planet. Religion causes more wars more famines more destruction of the HUMAN SPECIES then any other and its only an IDEA.”
You sound a lot like many of the atheists I know. You don’t just fit the definition (somebody who does not believe in God or deities), but you fit the profile of one based on my experiences talking to them.
“Now I can say that there are only two religions which-if I had no choice but to believe would be buddhism or shintoism. But this is not about religion its about "morality of animalism." Brillant, just bloody brillant! (May I add athiest are just as bad as religous crazies)”
That depends on the level of athisim somebody adopts. But yes, I will fully admit and even make it a point that the “evangelical atheists” and “science thumpers” are alive and well. <sarcasm>I just love it when people try to use science and pseudoscience to affect political change.</sarcasm>
”Don't try to rebuttal my statement. I stand tall on it. The evidence is all around us. It is right under our noses.”
I agree with you, for the most part, but there are a few quibbles I have with your statement.
For one, humans do not start out as females. Indeed, we start out by having a little bit of male and female parts. Depending on our genetics, either the female stuff dies and the male stuff lives, or the male stuff dies and the female stuff lives. To say that humans start out as female and only become male because of a “Y” chromosome, is nothing more than feminist bullshit perpetuated since the 1960’s. It’s yet another example of how science has been distorted to affect political/social change.
“Using human morality on something that is a natural cycle of sexual reproduction which shouldn't even be offensive- keyword here. Is what my problem is to this debate. Sexual reproduction seems to be more offensive in western cultures and more of a taboo then in others. "The body is unpure and evil of sin--" this has been like this since that jerkoff saint augustine started to blab about it in the 1700's." This was also the era when bestiality was outlawed and considered a crime.. and era were your clothing implied alot of sexual ego.”
Well, clothing has always been associated with sexuality. It’s just that what one culture considers erotic may not be the same as the next.
And it isn’t just the sexuality that is taboo in western culture, but also it’s discussion! I think that this had lead to a terrible irony for conservative sexual moralists, because some subjects are so taboo to them, they won’t even discuss making laws against something. I think that is why there are relatively so few laws in the US against bestiality. People are afraid of even proposing a law!
”Morality-whatever you want to call it. It is a human- Keyword. HUMAN thought. There are no such thing as morales outside our barrier. No boundries or borders just the vast wild. Sexual reproduction- a taboo in western culture. Thus when taboo must be regulated thought a strict code.”
Amorality – not concerned with or amenable to moral judgments; not caring about good behavior or morals.
Yep, you are an amoralist.
”Finding shame in sexual reproduction because it requires two cells to do so. Now if we put it on another angle. What if we were still asexually reproducing? Would it be taboo and uncalled for if someone started to split in the public eye? Probably would! Even though its an inevitable celluar process.”
Hypothetical arguments carry little weight with me, but I still don’t disagree with you.
”I personally believe screwing other creatures is a lot safer and no worse then going around screwing other humans. You'll not have to worry about STD's, whiners, moaners, yellers, just nice and quiet minus the squishy sound and if you want can still wear a condom.”
In most cases, I’ll say that, yes, having sex with an animal carries less risk of inoculating yourself with a pathogenic agent. However, picking up dogs off the street does carry a lot of risk, because you don’t know if other bestialists have helped themselves to the same animal recently enough to where you could catch what ever it was they had.
But yes, in a zoophilic or beastial relationship, there are no mind games, no complaints (unless you hurt them), no extreme emotions nor hurt feelings. Only pleasant sensation mutually enjoyed. It’s on such a basic level.
Squishy sound? You’ll have to explain that one to me. I have never associated sex (with a human or an animal) to be squishy sounding. Well, there was this one horse video I saw where the mare would queef upon the first two or three major thrusts of the male’s penis into her vagina.
“Anyways. I saw a bumpersticker on an animal control van no less that said "Save lives - spay an neuter." This is a paradox. Your preventing lives because your getting rid of what gives life. What life ARE you saving?”
The reasoning here, is that by preventing pregnancy, the animal control people will have to kill fewer puppies. Nobody likes killing puppies, right? Sorry to be a devil’s advocate for the moment, but I thought it necessary to explain there logic. Now here’s the deal with our side. There is an old Jewish philosophy (that predates the Bible) that says, if you kill a man, you kill all of his descendents that he would have had, had you not killed him. The same goes for castrating somebody. When you remove a person’s nuts, you destroy the lives of all those who would have been. Indeed, your paradox is as old as civilization itself!
“On the topic of sexual stimulation. If it uses sexual reproduction it probally has an orgasm. It probally gets that rush feeling when horny. Most females act the same way when in estrus with the same effects. I've seen animals masturbate. Dogs for Gods sake LICK themselves! If thats not obvious.. well I rather not dement my intelligence anymore.”
Pleasure and reward, as well as perceived pleasure and reward, are the only reasons people do anything. Likewise, pain and punishment, as well as perceived pain and punishment, are the only reasons why people avoid certain things. Humans, because they love to elevate themselves so much, love to go on and one about how we have little to no instincts. We separate ourselves because we have so very little instinct. But do we really? I’d say that the quest for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are instincts that not only drive people, but animals as well (this is basic psychiatry). In fact, this is probably the frame work for which all instincts are based upon. This means that the only reason people and animals do anything is because it feels good to them or they think it feels good or has some perceived benefit that makes dealing with negative stimulus (if any) worth it.
In short, the only reason animals fuck is because it feels good to them. Sure, some of them may only get turned on a few times or only a year, but that’s just because they have a hormonally controlled/influenced breeding cycle affecting there sex drive. To suggest that animals do not enjoy themselves or don’t have sex for pleasure, but for reproduction only, is a preposterous notion. Let me give you a human example. Women have a monthly cycle that greatly affects there sex drive. Consequently, they want sex more when they are most likely to be fertile. Does this mean that women only have sex because they want children? Of course not, to suggest otherwise would be idiotic. However, I would imagine an intelligent non-human unfamiliar with the human experience, could easily get that impression, but since no such creature is known to exist, there is no way to prove such hyperbole.
Animals have sex because they want it and because it feels good. It really is that simple. You don’t need experience pleasuring animals to understand it, but if you do, there is no doubt in your mind that it is true. Because once an animal learns of your ability to pleasure them, they begin to solicit/demand it (even spayed bitches).
What I’ve found ironic is that spayed bitches are more interested in being fingered than neutered males are in being jerked off. What else is interesting is how spayed bitches can orgasm, but neutered males can’t (poor guys). The males, still enjoy the stimulation, though.
Raptor at 19 Jun 2006: 10:19
The funny.. (watches another missile fly by...) ..conflicts and debate aside, wouldn't it be easier to just delete this? Save everyone some grief?
Damn stuff and debates makes me want to add in my two pennies worth... and just for the hell of it... I won't.
Southpaw at 19 Jun 2006: 10:25
>>841 So you judge me by my words. By my ability to write and very crappy grammar. Which on a mental standpoint assumes my I.Q level. Which is never really true. I.Q is determined again by rules and a median.
I decided to actually read most of what you wrote and yet you come off like.. theres some sort of governing involved in miosis. A reward to sexual reproduction? The endorphin rush applies because your brain and most your whole body surge stimulate at the same time, the spinal cord has little brains in each section. They are for motor functions. Unfortunetly we have evolved so they do not need to be used. But when orgasm occurs they all light up sending the same message, which why when doing so your back suddendly feels limp. Orgasm occurs as its own loophole. Well it is pleasurable- its there so you know its there and do it more.
No I'm not athiest. I was poking fun at religion. I like too- because it is dumb. Assumption is the ultimate illusion of how someone acts. Assuming what I said sounds athiest you take the chance I could be. I dislike athiest because their just as bad as the religous guys. The extreme ones bother religion and go "Why do you believe in that its not real.. don't believe it!" And the religous ones are trying to make them believe.. its all ludacrisp. *sighs*
I thought of something when I posted my previous post. Which was: Out of all places a board devoted to furries is complaining about something like bestiality. Now I find this a bit rediculous considering some of the stuff that is valid here is worse then bestiality. Herms that are superficial-, castration, disemembered limbs, excreting bodily functions and they're whining about sex with an animal. If that isn't a double standard tie me up in a potato sack and throw me in the red sea.
at 19 Jun 2006: 20:25
what else are you waiting to have brought up - might as well end the waiting huh?
in theory contributing because if there is actually anything worthy being waited for that will further the discusion.
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 19 Jun 2006: 20:41
Because the people that say it is wrong DON'T have the balls or the wits to go [long paragraph]
Are you trying to say that having sex with animals is correlated to testicular fortitude?
that are not applied soley to ones own actions but that are used a standerd to gauge and or punish others (zoophiles/bestialists/whatnot) included, are nothing more than an individuals need to feel that they are right and they have others that think the same way thereby reinforcing their scence of right.
Hasn't it been clarified here several times that morality is determined by societal consensus? And have you missed the several times I ranted about how something being "popular" doesn't make it right or wrong, which you're blatantly implying?
Sexual reproduction- a taboo in western culture.
Then, um, how do you exist?
I personally believe screwing other creatures is a lot safer and no worse then going around screwing other humans. You'll not have to worry about STD's, whiners, moaners, yellers, just nice and quiet minus the squishy sound and if you want can still wear a condom
Look at the red text.
Assuming what I said sounds athiest you take the chance I could be.
Why, yes. They assumed you were an atheist based on their purported familiarity with tones and arguments commonly used by atheists, compared against a few dozen lines on a screen. How astute of you.
Now I find this a bit rediculous considering some of the stuff that is valid here is worse then bestiality.
Which has absolutely no relevance to the debate on the morality of bestiality. We've covered that.
in theory contributing because if there is actually anything worthy being waited for that will further the discusion.
Any actualy debate is pretty much over. Now it's largely circle-jerking among self-satisfied zoos, with a little bit of discussion and occasional flames. Muddy, if you will, with a chance of bull.
at 19 Jun 2006: 21:48
juberu has there ever been any real debate?
no I diden't miss your rantings nor your facepalming episodes.
while you may be convinced of whatever it is that you are convinced of, just what was it that you actually are convinced of again?- some others may not be and providing them insight via the route of the thoughts of albert could be usefull.
at 19 Jun 2006: 22:00
Oh darn perhaps I should have said links to authoratative studies.
Guan at 19 Jun 2006: 22:17
>>845 Dude...something tells me that by posting that link you just ensured that this thread WILL get to 1000 now. I have no comments on that other than to say that you do realize it will be quite difficult for anyone who opens that to read the red text without looking over the black stuff. Then too, it IS CYD, so hey. Mean-spirited at times, funny at others.
Oh and by the way, if/when this thread restarts, what you think it should be named? The question has probably been answered before, but I'd like to hear what other people think. Not that I plan to contribute; I have virtually no real stance on the issue. :}
at 19 Jun 2006: 23:19
My dog humped my cat today, does that make him guilty of bestiality?
Guan at 19 Jun 2006: 23:32
>>849 Only if you have pictures/videos of the incident posted online somewhere. If so, send 'em on over this way; call me disturbed, but that would be funny to watch. :}~
Southpaw at 20 Jun 2006: 05:41
Blasted. Again I forgot to add by no means did I mean to offend or attack anyone in my post(s). I'm a jersey kid so my sentences seem to sound a bit scawling when intensionally I just try to get a point across.
Also I act stupid when I post stuff. I somehow am able to do this and mesmerize people I am a bit "dumb." I take people by susprize. If you want my serious answer to this thread.
My point : It is pointless to debate this. There are people against it, people for it. Debating only throws the dice into the other group and the best war is the one never fought. To make a statement, trying to pierce the arrow through the keyhole may not work. People are people- meaning sadly they will believe what only they want too. Even if I had the most informative thread per say- people would still disorient and rebuttal the statement.
>>849 Depends. The term for that (which is a double standard) is called interspecies. Which is totally bogus because that what beasty is. It is interspecies too. So if a human is involved remember its bad. But if another animal is doing it, don't worry they're just animals- mindless, dumb animals. <--P&T BULLSHIT
Null at 20 Jun 2006: 07:23
Bestiality is defined as sexual contact between a human and an non human animal, not two animals of different species. So no, it isn't bestiality.
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 20 Jun 2006: 09:24
juberu has there ever been any real debate?
Yes. It ended somewhere in the 700s or 600s when both sides agreed that their arguments were irreconcilable.
while you may be convinced of whatever it is that you are convinced of, just what was it that you actually are convinced of again?
That bestiality is wrong because it is rape. See below for more detail, or >>712 and >>713 .
The term for that (which is a double standard) is called interspecies. Which is totally bogus because that what beasty is. It is interspecies too. So if a human is involved remember its bad. But if another animal is doing it, don't worry they're just animals- mindless, dumb animals.
That's their point. The animal allegedly cannot, and never will, understand the human concept of "consent", and cannot give it-to a human, making sex with an animal rape. The zoos in this thread claimed that acquiring the animal's consent was irrelevant precisely because it could not understand consent. That's pretty much where the actual debate ended.
at 20 Jun 2006: 16:16
No, it means that he's sexually frustrated and needs a good lay. If there aren't any bitches around, give him a healthy wank. He will appreciate the relief.
Southpaw at 20 Jun 2006: 16:48
(well besides getting the post rate up I'll keep going)
Human beings can't give consent either!-- okay now I'm crazy right? But no really think about it. Have you ever just shut up! for a long time?? INSTEAD of jibjabbering to your buddies or yourself or whatever! Fascinating isn't it? By not talking for an hour or more you begin to realize how vital language is for us and without it we'd not have all these modern creations.
The point I'm so frustratingly try to stratch unto everyones head here is. Our language has dedicated a word a meaning and an action to a word that is udderly useless in context. Because everything we say to ourselves in our whole human species.. regardless of what kind of language. ONLY implies to human beings. Therefore outside our barriers.. human language can no longer apply. We become just another animal. Consent never existed and never will.. infact our whole entire language is udderly meaningless!
Our way of thinking is flawed and it always will be- which what makes human beings human beings. It's full of errors and dumb roots but ignorance concieves misconception.
Rape,consent-- whatever other words you want to throw at this thread of what "evil" you unto to animals. Break the system. Just break the system. They just describe things we understand and imply generally to OURSELVES. I can rape a child, rape a woman because they are human.. therefore can use words and sue me or whatever. Once outside our barriers--our language doesn't imply only intent.
If an animal is on the verge of wanting sexual action it shows signs. Since human beings understand these signs through many years of watching them- we seem to have a fasication with saving them too. Which has alot to say about our stupidity. Once you figure it out.. whats to stop you? An animal will defend itself if it is uncomfortable or not in a sexual prowess..
.. But like ANY cell you can become addicted to just about anything. So this is where I'll shutup seeming some other person will just disect and try to point out flaws in my writings. AH the fantastic human language..the stupidest and most vital creation of the modern human!
Guan at 20 Jun 2006: 19:26
>>855 You know, sometimes it's really hard to tell if you actually have deep insight beyond our simple thought or if you're just...well, generally out there. Maybe you should consider upping your dosage. :P
at 20 Jun 2006: 19:28
None of us can trully consent.
*wow* novel thought and dead on the head On something that has been perculating in my mind.
okay even amoung the well educated and most adjusted beings we find them arguing on things they agree on!
Is it possible that two people ever understand eachother well enough to give real informed consent? I suggest that it is not possible!! especially within the narrow confines some people need it to be seen within.
Anonaconda at 20 Jun 2006: 19:34
I read that entire page on CYD and I can say affirmatively that the guy is a sicko. Although I have been an advocate for providing for the sexual needs of animals (as I think everybody should be open to the idea), I have never been in support of actually having sex with them.
“Loony” is a prime example of everything that is wrong with the zoo community in general. If bestialists were honest, they would admit that the primary reason they have sex with animals is for there own sexual and/or psychological gratification. It is purely about them and not the companion that they purport to love.
If anybody has actually bothered to objectively read Loony’s essay or any other “guides” on how to get dogs to perform, it becomes obvious just how unnatural sex with animals really is. Although beastialists will deny it by calling it “teaching” they actually have to train there dogs to perform, particularly when it comes to getting male dogs to fuck there masters in the ass or any other behavior that would not otherwise be natural. If sex with animals is so natural, why must they go through so many days of training? Dogs don’t normally fuck humans in the ass because the human as isn’t attractive to them.
My point is not to say that bestiality is wrong because it isn’t “natural”, because if doing something unnatural made it wrong, most every modern activity would be a sin. What makes bestiality wrong is motivation. If they truly wanted to please there animals, they wouldn’t care if they got to fuck there animals or not. What would be important to them would be providing a mates for there pets or masturbate them as a secondary alterative.
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 20 Jun 2006: 20:51
I've seen him in action, and he has a ridiculously complex set of log- and reality-avoidance mechanisms. Heck, let me link to his most infamous post, where everyone who disagrees with him and doesn't immediately roll over and play zoo is dubbed a "troll" and banned; http://tinyurl.com/em7u8 . Witness the amazing "anti-trolling"! His mystic powers of psychic animal rapport! OMG, haven't you furries ever heard of closing the stable door!?
*cough* Sorry, got carried away. He also has a habit of "defending" any zoo who is in a debate, and magically appearing *anywhere* on LJ Ashi_moto or Liejournaler even mentions him.
Anonaconda at 20 Jun 2006: 21:11
The dangers of zoophilia!
at 20 Jun 2006: 21:30
wow that guy/gal is dealing and arguing effectivly *G*
Im still curious if a human trips female or male and a male dog mounts them, who prey tell is being raped at that point ??
good question for this moral traile we tread.
Svansfall at 21 Jun 2006: 02:16
Okay, I am back, briefly, don't expect me to post a lot.
So we should judge all zoophiles/bestialists after the worst examples? How do you feel when someone compare you to the worst examples of furries?
There are always cases, in each group of people, where their actions are not acceptable. Heterosexual men can sexually abuse other people. Does that mean that we have to judge every heterosexual man according to what some heterosexual men do?
Of course sex with animals can be bad, and is bad in several cases. That does not by default make it always bad.
But obviously, it is a very effective method of stirring up feelings, by showing bad examples of the group you are attacking.
What makes bestiality wrong is motivation. If they truly wanted to please there animals, they wouldn’t care if they got to fuck there animals or not. What would be important to them would be providing a mates for there pets or masturbate them as a secondary alterative.
If you had read my earlier postings, you would have seen me saying that I have never had an animal bring me to orgasm, and that I focus on stimulating them and bringing them to orgasm.
Svansfall at 21 Jun 2006: 02:21
Oh, and Juberu,
Am I understanding you correctly that you say that it is "rape" when an animal eagerly seeks a human out and tries to get the human to stimulate her, and not giving up until the human have stimulated her, only because she doesn't understand the human definition of consent?
at 21 Jun 2006: 03:50
Yeeeeah... language is a human construct. That's sort of the point, you know. We made it, so it exists, if only for us. You try grabbing some woman on the street some time, then explain to the cops that communication doesn't matter, and you were just giving into your instincts.
These sort of things matter to a big enough majority that we can at least MAKE it matter to the others.
OddlyEnough at 21 Jun 2006: 03:50
Hmm. Well first, I did not real the previous several hundered posts. I'll just go ahead and post our opinion (which is based on a theory of ethical intuitionism by David McNaughton and Piers Rawling).
I believe that humans have many prima facie moral duties. Among these are duties benificence, respect, non-maleficence, and so on. What determines the rightness and wrongness of an action for a moral agent is based on whether or not it maximally satisfies our duties (they can be satisfied in varying degrees).
I believe that because we cannot obtain consent, we violate a certain kind of duty of respect, one which is not outweighed by the gain in our or others well being (benificence, self-betterment duties). In other words, we have a duty to obtain consent. We cannot do so with an animal (or with other agents such as severely disabled humans), so it is not moral for us to engage in such activites. If animals could give rational consent (perhaps some more intelligent ones can), then it would be acceptable. That an animal merely expresses its desires is not enough. I can express my desire to kill others who have immediately angered me. It is not rational.
There was an argument is a previous post about how persons do not ask for consent in every instance of sexual intercourse. This is not to say that consent is 'understood' without it being explicitly outlined by the parties, nor that it is not obtained at all. I believe the difference may lie in the fact that such consent was previously obtained, and unsterstood to be retained (in appropriate situations) unless revoked or suspended (AKA "Not tonight, honey. I'm tired.")
Other answers and objections leave unsatisfactory results. That an animal 'will not take no for an answer' has very little weight in my mind. The statement seems to state that the animal's desires must be satisfied or physical harm will be visited upon the person. In such a case, a duty of self-preservation could surely enter the picture. If we merely mean to say that the animal is insistent... then one can ignore insistence.
If we consider that what an animal (and willing human) desires and the satisfaction of that desire is good, then there is a sense in which the well-being of an animal matters. If there is a sense in which wellbeing of an animal does matter, then we run into a second problem. (This is based on an argument by Peter Singer.) If the well being of animal has moral worth, then it would surely be wrong to kill them or subject them to 'inhumane' (?) conditions. However, huge numbers of animals are factory farmed each day, forced to live in what could be considered despicable conditions. If there is a sense in which the wellbeing of animals matter, then surely factory farming is wrong, and cannot be justified by the satisfaction of the human palette to the extent that suitable nutrient replacements can be acquired through argiculture. As such, if the well-being of animals matters to you, you are morally obligated to become a vegitarian (or justify the factory farming of animals).
However, the above only applies to real beastiality. Fictional depictions require no consent because there are no parties. There is no prima facie duty against 'obscenity' because such a term is defined by the society in which you reside at whatever time you reside in it. There might be some duty for acting in concert with the rules of one's society, but it seems that such rules exist to improve the well being of society, so it is only to the extent that well-being is improved, which collapses into improvement of well-being duty.
Random thoughts and points after this.
So by my theory, there is sense in which the act of sexual intercourse outside of one's own specie is morally wrong.
It does not require harm or a decrease in well-being to an individual to wrong it. Namely, because wrongs come about when you violate your duties. You have duties of non-maleficence, and are comitting a wrong towards yourself when you violate those duties.
People cannot really determine the state of mind or intent of an animal, despite what they might claim to interpret from observation. This is also true of humans, but we should become radical skeptics because of it, and we do act despite our lack of certainty (which is more true for animals than for humans). This is more of a 'you should note this point' rather than an argument.
Consent cannot be determined by resistance or compliance to action. It must be informed, rational agreement. I would surely instinctually resist a necessary non-anesthetized emergency surgery to save my life, when I might otherwise rationally consent. I would also surely drink a familiar beverage offered to me in an appropriate social setting which contained a lethal poison, nor any other substance. Otherwise, one must agree that is is moral for me to kill a person with a knife which he believes to be a stage prop to be used in theatre, simply because he shows a willingness or mere lack of resistance. That is not enough.
What defines whether or not a human is of sufficient mental capabilites to given ratioal consent? I don't know. Our society in the USA says 18. That might or might not be true, so we may or may not be acting morally. It seems a large disagreement on these boards is on the definition of consent, so let me rephrase. Replace every instance of consent in my argument above with 'rational, informed consideration with the current state of affairs and all relevant options, and the choice of one such option.'
*lets out breath, inhales*
ZOMG BLOCKS OF TEXT LOLOLOL11!!i!1!one!
Seriously, even reading the first 200 posts was a pain. And then I just added to it. =P Might as well give myself a monniker if I am going to participate. And please, forgive my typos.
OddlyEnough at 21 Jun 2006: 03:55
First paragraph typos - MY opinion, not our. I also didn't REALLY read the first several hunered posts, not 'real.' Whatever. I'll be back later.
For your reading pleasure - Peter Singer
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20060322.htm - Factory Farming
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm - 'Heavy Petting'
Please note, I do not necessarily subscribe to these beliefs (I don't infact!), but I post them here for discussion and debate purposes relevant to the current topic.
Svansfall at 21 Jun 2006: 04:40
>I believe that because we cannot obtain consent, we violate a certain kind of duty of respect, one which is not outweighed by the gain in our or others well being (benificence, self-betterment duties). In other words, we have a duty to obtain consent. We cannot do so with an animal (or with other agents such as severely disabled humans), so it is not moral for us to engage in such activites.
But how can we justify using horses for horseback riding? The animal cannot consent to it. Is there an absolute "need" for horseback riding by humans that is justified enough that the horses' lack of consent does not matter?
at 21 Jun 2006: 08:33
Indeed shouldent we be hunting humans`and getting ready to burn them at the symbolical stake for eating steak without asking the cow permision first ?
hmn I seem to remember we banned juberu because of circular arguing on #zoo . so yah he is known for that
Southpaw at 21 Jun 2006: 08:35
"But how can we justify using horses for horseback riding? The animal cannot consent to it. Is there an absolute "need" for horseback riding by humans that is justified enough that the horses' lack of consent does not matter?"
( I like where your going with this Svansfall so I'm gonna add my own statement )
People took the power of horses because they are larger then us and are not large carnivores. As well as the seigmund froyd "penis envy" factor. They can pull alot of weight and generally run faster for a longer period of time then we can. We never asked for consent on horses.. all we did is to make them comfortable to our enviroment- Domesication and the whole nine yards. Man only ask for them to do what we need them to do and thats it. Pull carriages, pull plows, carts, use them as transportation and other purposes. From this some humans feel a "connection" with horses (I think this is just a penis envy thing sorry to sound froydish but its a larger animal then us.. size, musclar definition and all. Even if you never touched it in those areas. Its the "I have a large defined muscular companion." I could just be a sicko) and want to show there affection through taking extreme care of them. So the horse becomes friendlier.
In essence though- you are taming the horse. Making it so it doesn't have to over-react or go wild when human beings come unto presence. So that means?.. yeah doing sexual acts to a horse is possible because the horse is tame to humans! You can only blame oursleves for that one. There is always a double bladed sword to everything. When something is so tame it won't buck or attack you for touching it.. the brain is 1000 thoughts a second and thats how I end this statement.
OddlyEnough at 21 Jun 2006: 11:27
Let me clarify. "Because we cannot obtain consent for sexual relations..." We have a duty to obtain consent from others for sexual relations as duty of respect.
Whether or not horseback riding fails to treat the animal with respect or violates some other duty... I do not know. It is perhaps not apt to say that any action without consent fails to treat others with respect. I believe it does do so in the matter of sexual relations.
It may indeed be the case that horseback riding is not moral.
Hmm, gotta run, have to make an appointment. Later.
at 21 Jun 2006: 13:16
I still think the whole consent argument is more or less bs for this reason: the only way you know for sure when someone does NOT consent is through easily observable signals, i.e., verbal statements, resistance, violent acts, etc. You do NOT necessarily know their capacity of thought, their capabilites of intelligence, and you cannot ever know this for sure without studying the entity in question for a long time. Animals, in particular, you do not really know what they understand or do not understand. All we know is what is externally visible, i.e., that they cannot use language. Language is NOT the only form of communication. You cannot take a entities capacity for intelligence/reason whatever unless you are SURE you know that.
All parts of our society that rely on this idea of "consent" do not expect the initiating party to conduct a full-blown scientific study on whether the targeted party is able to consent or not.
There is not one judge in the US who would say that a woman who says nothing to a man trying to have sex with her yet hits the man or attempts to run away has given consent or failed to not give consent.
The initiating party is expected to pay attention to easily observable signals of the targeted party and read a "I consent" or "I do not consent" from that. I think it's dangerous to take away an entities' right expressing no-consent non-verbally because such entity lacks capacity of language.
Svansfall at 21 Jun 2006: 13:27
We have a duty to obtain consent from others for sexual relations as duty of respect.
In which way is it lack of respect to give pleasure to an animal who enjoys my company, and clearly shows that she enjoys the pleasure, by actively coming up to me and seeking the pleasure?
I think I would be showing her lack of respect by not fulfilling her request - which I have to do at times when I have to rush to work, or have other matters to attend to.
OddlyEnough at 21 Jun 2006: 16:54
We have a duty of respect, which is to say that the moraly course of action is to treat others (or perhaps only persons?) in ways that they rationally and informedly agree to and respects their autonomy as persons (this last part is debateable, it more has to do with people selling themselves into slavery than anything else, but I have included it for completeness).
That one does not pleasure an animal does not violate our duty of respect. That its desire is not fufilled does it no harm, so we do not violate a duty of non-maleficence. We might not be fully satisfying a duty of benificence in not sexually satisfying animals, but I believe that in this case, respect outweighs benificence, and so our actual duty does not include such activities.
As a side note, it seems to me that an animal has little justifiable claim to my agnecy in satisfying its sexual desires.
The ball is back in your court sir. =)
OddlyEnough at 21 Jun 2006: 16:55
Peh, typos. Moral course of action, not moraly course of action.
Anonaconda at 21 Jun 2006: 17:37
"That's their point. The animal allegedly cannot, and never will, understand the human concept of "consent", and cannot give it-to a human, making sex with an animal rape. The zoos in this thread claimed that acquiring the animal's consent was irrelevant precisely because it could not understand consent. That's pretty much where the actual debate ended."
That isn't an entirely fair conclusion. Although zoos don't argue the point, there are two differing schools of though. First was the one you aluded to. That being, human level consent is outside of an animal's sphere existence and is, thus, not a requirement. However, these zoos recongnized that animals are able to achive a primitive or rudamentary understanding of consent. Zoos claim that they know when an animal consents at this basic level through bodylanguage and carfuly getting to know there companion.
The other school of though, which you alluded to, was the idea that we can do what ever we want to animals (eat them, perform cruel experiments on them, and turn them into clothing, etc.) None of these things are considered immoral, even though you could argue that they cause immeasurable animal suffering. I'm not a fan of PeTA, but I saw there secret camera video of factory farms and slaughter houses. Holy Shit, it was a hellish nightmare to watch. The worst part was watching the live pigs being hoisted up by one leg and having there throats cut. I watched as they blead to death and squealed in absolute terror! One of them broke free of the chain that suspended his leg and fell to the blood soaked floor. Though it was quite evident he wanted to escape, his fate was sealed. All he could do was move his legs as fast as he could while lying helpless on his side. Slowly, his movement became more and more slowly as his life essence bled out. The other bad one was a cow who was killed in the same manor. As her blood pored from her neck and out her nose and mouth, her eyes became wide open and she gasped for breath as her life was slowly snuffed out.
Some zoos conclude that if treating animals in this way is not immoral, then neither is having sex with them. After all, fucking a size-comatible animal causes them significantly less trauma (if any) and likely causes them great pleasure. Because pleasure and continued existence is better than death and suffering, they conclude moral superiority over those who eat meat, but view bestiality as immoral. To them, animal slaughter and bestiality no comparison. Thus, they view there opposition as twisted hypocrites.
Basically, one side says animal can consent in there own way and that this low level consent can and should be obtained, while the other side says animal consent is unimportant because of the superiority of Man.
Anonaconda at 21 Jun 2006: 17:44
Dude, don't be so sensative. I'm not attacking you, but that idiot who was ripped apart by CYD. Trust me, I'm a sympathiser with your cause, which is why I'm so hard on zoophiles who don't put there animal's needs above there own. If your motivation is for your animal's pleasure over your own, then you are probably not in Loopy's catagory, so just chill.
One of my points was that Loopy was the BAD SIDE of zoophilia. This implies a GOOD SIDE, BTW.
at 21 Jun 2006: 18:22
Horse back riding is okay because it isn't sex. You see, sex = sin, which is why so many furries on this board are against beastiality.
at 21 Jun 2006: 18:32
In a US cort of law, if a woman fails to struggle to get away and fails to say "no" (if she has the ability to speak), is not able to press charges of rape against a man. Only when she fights him or submits under durest can she press a rape charge.
Under the law, a women who doesn't fight off a rapist, she is having consentual sex with him.
at 21 Jun 2006: 19:26
in bdsm one must often read body signals - and buddy that isnt rape.
Anonaconda at 21 Jun 2006: 22:44
Yeah, but BDSM is also suposed to have lots of negotiation before hand. It is also an exclusivly human form of sexuality. It's just too complex for animals to even understand.
Even so, your point remains. Understanding what body language communicates is vitaly important in any sexual relationship. I don't know about the rest of you, but it has been my experience that there is a lot less talking in with real sex than what happens in porn. Most all communication during sex is mostly body language and non-verbal vocalizations.
||This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.|