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
at 24 Jun 2006: 20:08

Before I say this, and it's going to be contridicting itself alot, but this is human nature, you all contridict each other plenty amongst yourselves. I've merely indulged in this contridiction in order to broaden my perspective, so no calling me crazy!!!

Now then, beastality is sex with animals. Humans... no, Homo-sapians, are animals too. So, is it better to say it's sex with another species. Now, Humans are anything that has humanity, and humanity is kindness and compasion. So, the crazed serial killer near your block doesn't apply for that position. Humanity is a egotistical view becuase homo-sapians instantly consider themselves human without the consideration of wether or not they are deserving of the title. Yet, it is also not possible to think only of others. So no one is truely human, but no one, side from the serial killer, is truely inhuman. So, is beastality immoral?

Well, since the furrs aren't the same species as us, no matter how homo-sapian like they are, it's beastality. How ever, it's clear they, for the most part, have humanity. This means they are human as well. So, those of you who think of them as being people, do you think beastality is wrong in this sence? If you had the chance, would you date such a creature despite the fact of what is implied? And if not, isn't it descrimination?

If someone out there hasn't contridicted themselves yet, they have got to be shallow... and if you have, hey, your only 'human.' LOL, sorry, couldn't resist the cheesy joke.

at 24 Jun 2006: 21:39

>>921 "Humans are anything that has humanity"

You're just making things up. I can tell.

Sex with an anthropomorphic animal would be xenophilia.

You fail at jokes.

at 24 Jun 2006: 23:18


Wha? Why are you saying "Humans are animals" as if it's some sort of revelation? Of course all humans are animals, but not all animals are humans. Does that actually need to be explained here?

at 25 Jun 2006: 02:56

yes, yes it does for some of the "people" involved that seem to have lost sight of that fact.

at 25 Jun 2006: 05:33


But humans being animals doesn't change anything, because we're still humans. When discussing matters revolving around humans, other animals are excluded, because even though humans are animals, those animals aren't humans. This is so basic that small children get it.

No, I think the people who point out that humans are animals are like the people who say "How can you be sure morality exists". They're trying to be profound, but all they're doing is throwing nonsense into the mix, which makes an already freakishly huge topic even more juvinile.

I mean, humans are an organism too. Does that mean we're like plants? Yeah... but not really.

Svansfall at 25 Jun 2006: 08:42


Okay, then I'm sticking to the computer analogy. As far as I can tell, by using a computer, you're saying that it's okay for animals and habitat to be obliterated so that you can have the luxury of a computer, with which to argue on the internet, and other important things like that. My reasoning for you advocating all those animals being killed: you have a computer, and you haven't gotten rid of it.

Hello GrapeTang,

I think your computer analogy is far-fetched, compared to the issue of how we can morally treat animals in sexual compared to non-sexual relations.   But since you bring up the computer analogy, let me reply to your statements, even though it is offtopic how my personal life looks.  The computer I am using was bought second-hand in 1997.  The previous owner bought it in 1994 and would have thrown it away if he hadn't sold it.  Your reasoning for me advocating "all those animals being killed" is because I haven't gotten rid of the computer.  So, in which way would I save animals' lives by throwing away a computer that works?  On the contrary, I can possible save animals from unnecessary mistreatment by using the computer for getting in touch with young and irresponsible zoophiles, and influence them to treat animals with respect.

Don't worry though. I'm with you on that one... but I will point out the irony that you're so gung-ho about, oh, not eating meat because it's unnecessary (we can do without it, and it causes undo harm tot he animals etc), yet you have a computer, and likely, all the other modern conviniences that come at a price of mass animal death, among other things.

Yes, I have modern conveniences such as electricity and running water.  I use a wood-splitting machine instead of an axe, I use a chainsaw instead of an old-fashioned saw when working in the forest, but I do use an old-fashioned saw when I can.  I don't have a mobile phone, I don't have a TV, my radio and amplifier is from the 1970's but I do have a CD-player that I did not buy second hand, I bought it about 10 years ago.

Seriously, are you expecting me to be some kind of Buddhist monk who sweeps the ground clear from insects not to step on them?   So, of course you can argue that because I have electricity in my house that I am killing animals, but at least I am responsible for far less deaths of animals than someone who is a meat-eater.  I left the meat-eating issue behind in this discussion anyway, someone else picked it up.  The issue I brought up now had to do with wheter it is moral or immoral to go horseback riding, since we cannot have the horse's consent before we get up on his/her back.

Of course, by this reasoning, finger fucking your cows is a relatively minor point, no where near the scale of suffering and depravity towards animals that results just by being a modern human... but you aren't saying bestiality is a lesser evil, you're saying it's good, and I don't buy that.

In which way is it evil to give sexual stimulation to someone who enjoys it?  And how do you feel about horseback riding?

at 25 Jun 2006: 11:54

By attempting to apply the lessor evil argument, the flipside is implied, and that is that zoophilia is a greater evil.
while we do not get the kind of consent that some people think is nessisary, we most decidely do not rush blindly foreward disregarding behaviour and apparnt wants of the animals in our charge. those who continue to have an issue with that are finding fault to be finding fault.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 Jun 2006: 14:45

So why is everyone ignoring the point I made in >>907?


at 25 Jun 2006: 15:45

I cant speak for the others, but I did not see any point made in 907 so did not feel the need to respond.

at 25 Jun 2006: 18:40

We could say that removing zoophilia is one less wrong in the world.

It's an empty argument that removing some bad thing is irrelevant because there are worse things. That's like saying I can punch each and every one of you in the face, because there are worse things in the world that happen all the time and mine is just a little punch, so nobody should care about it.

at 25 Jun 2006: 19:56

that is also implying the majority of us think zoo is wrong.

at 25 Jun 2006: 20:27

Well, what's wrong with the majority thinking so? Aren't we in a democratic society?

at 25 Jun 2006: 20:38

The idea of a democratic society isn't about forcing the public opinion to be something, rather, it's about forming the laws of the society on the views of the people in the society.

The laws are based on the current values of what is right and what is wrong. If you try to induce a law that is against that belief, people simply ignore it or protest against it.

The wrong of tolerance-ism is that it takes away that part of reasoning behind laws and the society. People no longer feel that the law represents their thoughts and opinions, and they get alienated from the process.

There's nothing inherently wrong about the majority of population thinking the way they think. It's a process where the society and it's values evolve. If people now think that zoophiles are in the wrong, it's their prerogative.

We might have a logic that says otherwise, but since nothing is exclusively proven yet, we just have to wait for the public opinion to change into a more liberal mode.

at 25 Jun 2006: 20:53

>>932 The majority often gets it's way, but that doesn't make them right or even mean the majority is making an informed decision.

at 25 Jun 2006: 20:54

i said that a touch broadly - my bad,,
What is being used as the basis to calim taht within the fandomn the "majority" are squicked by zoo?

at 25 Jun 2006: 20:55

>>930 >>931

Prove to me that anything is wrong (keeping in mind that "wrong" is not the same as "having a negative outcome"),

at 25 Jun 2006: 23:03


Yet it's their prerogative to be wrong, because it's their choise. If a minority goes to tell a majority what to think and how to act, it's not a democracy anymore.

If you feel that people are misguided, do tell them so, but bear in mind that you also might be the one who is wrong.

at 25 Jun 2006: 23:43

what the fuck?! this is close to 1000 replies!! will you all just fuck the shut up already? no one is going to change anyone mind about anything no matter how long your responses are or how much you complain.

its summer time. go outside. meet new people. get a tan. have sex with some animals, or not, whichever you preffer.

at 25 Jun 2006: 23:54


Right back at ya!

at 26 Jun 2006: 01:08

some minds have been changed.

at 26 Jun 2006: 02:30

>>938 *laughs* Take a remedial English class. Learn to spell and capitalize the first letter of each sentence...

This subject has obviously been important enough to keep it around for almost 1,000 replies. Besides, you just contributed, so you're now partially to blame for this thread's success. Sucker! ;)

at 26 Jun 2006: 08:26


"And this is something *I* want explained. After all, there's still a human in the relationship. Replace "animal" with "A" and "human" with "B", and the entire argument starts to look silly. If the animal can't understand "human-level" consent, why are we dropping down to their level? Because they don't understand it? So if a guy kills his wifes lover in an elaborate deathtrap, and doesn't understand he was wrong, we should let him off, right? We should go by his "murderer-level" definition of "murder", right?"

Your analogy is false.  If a human truly cannot understand that what they did was wrong, and this can be proven, then he/she is not liable for the crime they comit.  This defense is typicaly used in cases that involve a young child or mentaly handycaped person who is the perpetrator.  It is also used in conjunction with an insanity plea.  It would be immoral to punish those who have no idea what it is that they are doing.

Any human compitent enough to stand trial is fully capable understanding any crime that they may have comitted.

You simply cannot compare apples to apples, can you?  It's always apples to oranges.

"Zoos argue that since the animal cannot understand consent, it isn't relevant, what they are doing is not rape. Pedophiles commonly use the exact same logic. Both groups are considered to be "taking advantage" of something/someone."

If we can't mention the meat issue (because you guys keep on saying that it is unrelated), then you guys cannot talked about pedophiles anymore, either.  To use your arguments against bringing up the meat issue, this topic is about the moralityh of beastiality, not peadophilia.  Go talk about peadophilia some place else.

at 26 Jun 2006: 12:15

I had a dream about "F"ing a dog and woke up aroused. Does that make me a beastphile or a zoophile or whatever it is?

Svansfall at 26 Jun 2006: 13:11


And what is wrong with giving pleasure to someone who enjoys it, and actively comes back for more at later times?  Details have been given by me numerous times above - I have explained how they show, by usage of body language and actions, that they want it, and that they are actively seeking it out.

In case your answer to this question is that the animal cannot show consent, I ask you to explain why it is right to go ride on the back of a horse who shows he/she enjoys it?

Oh, and I really would like to see Juberu answer the above mentioned question also.

Svansfall at 26 Jun 2006: 13:24


Nope.  Becoming aroused by something in a dream does not make you have a certain sexual orientation.  But you can still have the sexual orientation surpressed inside you without being aware of it.  But a dream won't give you a clue to either one way or the other.

Just fantasizing about something from time to time does not do it either.  Out of the 12 RL friends and acquaintances that I came out to as being a zoophile many years ago, 3 of them admitted to having fantasized about sex with animals - neither of those people are zoophiles.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 26 Jun 2006: 16:24

Let's see if I can break it down;

Humans can meet animal standards of consent. Animals cannot meet human standards of consent. Why is the human half dropped entirely?

So I made a poor analogy. What about the actual point I was making?

f we can't mention the meat issue (because you guys keep on saying that it is unrelated), then you guys cannot talked about pedophiles anymore, either.

Oh, this is going to be good. I can tell.

To use your arguments against bringing up the meat issue, this topic is about the moralityh of beastiality, not peadophilia.  Go talk about peadophilia some place else.

I was substituting pedophilia for zoo to show how the *logic* in the argument was flawed. The whole meat "argument" thing is basically saying that if Zoo was wrong, then eating meat was also wrong. While this may be true, it had absolutely no relevance to whether bestiality was right or wrong. It's a red herring. I substituted, you associated. Two different things, here.

at 26 Jun 2006: 18:23

>>945 Bestiality is not a sexual orientation.

at 26 Jun 2006: 20:20

*>I think the people who point out that humans are animals are *>like the people who say "How can you be sure morality exists
and thge people who Think that that sort of resoning is simply trying to split hairs or the equivalncy are intentionally overcomplicating things. at least I hope they are aware of how convoluted they chose to make their won lives.

at 26 Jun 2006: 23:09

Regardless, it's a sexual attraction.  At least, unless you want to deny that preferring redheads to blondes is attraction.

at 26 Jun 2006: 23:09

Woo, Post 950!

at 26 Jun 2006: 23:48

>>947 there are an amazingly vast collection of "profesionals" who would very strongly disagree with you.
it's helpfull to look up info before making statements.

at 27 Jun 2006: 04:18

>>951 There are also many MORE professional psychologists who would agree with me... But since you brought it up, why are your "profes(s)ionals" in quotes? Are they pseudo-professionals? What are they professionals at?

Svansfall at 27 Jun 2006: 04:22

Hello Juberu.

>Humans can meet animal standards of consent. Animals cannot meet human standards of consent. Why is the human half dropped entirely?

I cannot tell you why other people drop the issue of the human half.

The reason why I drop the issue of the human half is that I feel the human is responsible for his/her own wellbeing.  If the human participating in an act comes to harm in any way, it is his/her own fault.  You cannot blame the animal.  I feel that we as humans are responsible for the wellbeing of animals, it is our duty to make sure that the animals are not harmed in any way by our actions.

This is why I mean that when doing anything with an animal, be it non-sexual or sexual, that the human must always pay greatest attention to how the animal reacts to something.  As a rider of a horse, you must be sure you do not lead the horse through any dangerous passages, as well as taking great notice of if the horse gets stressed or uncomfortable by any situation you might lead the horse to.  If you as a rider fail to be responsible for the horse's wellbeing while riding, I feel it is wrong for you to ride.  Read the horse's body language, learn to understand their actions and reasons for why they act a certain way, and then you can be a responsible rider.

The same applies when having sexual interraction with an animal.  Sex is not a stigma to the animal, and what they enjoy and don't enjoy varies greatly from one individual to another.  An animal can be extremely bothered by being touched in a certain place, just like an animal can be extremely bothered by having a rider on their back.  Always respect the likes or dislikes of the animal - wheter it is a sexual or non-sexual situation.

We as humans have the duty to respect the animal, to be responsible, and to see that they are not stressed or harmed by anything.  This is why we have to respect the animal's level of "consent", because they clearly show "Yes" or "No".  But they cannot speak it with words, and therefor not meet the human's definition of "consent."

When the animal expresses that they are calm, happy or eager for something, when they by useage of actions and body language say "Yes."  Feel free to go horseback riding when the horse enjoys it, and also feel free to do any sexaul act, when the animal enjoys it.

When the animal expresses that they are stressed, worried, and uncomfortable with something, or when they outright kick you, bite you, or run away.  When they by usage of actions and body language say "No."   Don't go horseback riding, don't do any sexual act that the animal does not enjoy.  Instead... do something that you know they like, calm them down, make them happy, make sure they feel good.   And ALWAYS stay away from anything that the animal does not actively enjoy.  (With the exception of giving medication and health-treatment that needs to be done for their own wellbeing.)

If you need the animal to be able to give the human definition of "consent" in order to do anything with an animal, you could not even walk the dog, even though the dog comes up to you with their lead in their mouth, and go to the door and scratch it.

Hello Nameless person,

The act of bestiality is not a sexual orientation, it is an act.  Zoophilia is however a sexual orientation, and that is what I wrote in post 945.  The word Bestiality was not even mentioned in my post.  A majority of the modern scientists, researches, sexologists and psychologists who have studied this, reached the conclusion that zoophilia is a sexual orientation.  Links have been provided previously in this discussion.

A bisexual person, or a heterosexual curious person, can participate in homosexual acts without being homosexual.  In the same sense, people can participate in acts of bestiality without being a zoophile.

Zoophilia is a sexual orientation, but not everyone who are involved with acts of bestiality are zoophiles.  Nor are every zoophile involved with acts of bestiality - but the ones who are "only" zoophiles tends to most often be involved with acts of bestiality.

If you have a broader and wider sexual orientation, you can choose more easily wheter to acknowledge all the range or just focus on a small part.  A bisexual person can basically choose wheter they wish to be heterosexual or homosexual, and ignore the other part.  Someone who are able to be sexually attracted to humans as well as animals, can choose to ignore one of the parts.

So, there are zoophiles who never have sex with animals, and there are people who have sex with animals who are not zoophiles.

Svansfall at 27 Jun 2006: 04:50

Please provide the names of the profressional psycholgists who claim that zoophilia is not a sexual orientation.  Give me the year their studies was completed and the information on how their studies were made.  Also provide the links to websites where I can order their studies, or where excerpts from their studies have been posted.

at 27 Jun 2006: 04:55

You first.

Svansfall at 27 Jun 2006: 05:05

So because you cannot be bothered with reading this entire thread you ask me to repeat myself and make the thread even longer?  Just as I stated in post 953: Links have been provided previously in this discussion.  Now go find them!   Take a look at post >>710 for instance.

Here is one review about a few studies (it's been posted before in this discussion as well, it's an excerpt from Hani Miletski's study):  "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 would 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."

The chapters on the sexual orientation bit is too long type out here, so I advice you to buy the study.  It is a worthwhile read.

at 27 Jun 2006: 05:15

How do the homosexuals among you like being compared to animal-fuckers?  I'm not homosexual, but I've had friends who are and they're pretty level-headed people.

Svansfall at 27 Jun 2006: 05:23

How do the heterosexuals among you like being compared to zoophiles?  The comparison is nothing else than zoophilia being a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality is.  Heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation.  The comparison ends at that point.

I have several close friends who are homosexual in real life, we get along well together, just like we get along with heterosexual people.  Why would it be different?

Svansfall at 27 Jun 2006: 05:28

Here are some academic studies:

# Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals, ISBN 3832200207
# Profesors Colin J. Williams and Martin S. Weinberg: Zoophilia in Men: a study of sexual interest in animals. - in: Archives of sexual behavior, Vol. 32, No.6, December 2003, pp. 523-535
# Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Bestiality - Zoophilia: An exploratory study, Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. - San Francisco, CA, October 1999
# Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, 2002, available at Hani Miletski's Homepage

And here are where you can get hold of them:



at 27 Jun 2006: 05:33

Fair enough.  It's just that some of those "studies" you cited made a point of comparing them to homosexuals.

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.