Quote from walker90234

Lets imagine that in the previous example, the girl was deaf. But the boy knew how to speak. Before the boy's mother died, the boy was taught what sex was. But because he has no way of communicating with the girl (this is a hypothetical example, just imagine they cannot communicate) or teaching her; so he knows what sex is on a mental level, and she knows on an instinctive.

According to your reasoning, no matter what happened any sort of sexual contact between these two would be considered sexual molestation. That's completely illogical. Ergo, your argument is flawed.

Except he isn't saying his reasoning can also apply to two disabled humans with extremely specific circumstances. He's applying it to the actual topic we're trying to discuss.

The fact that you need to stretch his arguments to these absolutely ridiculous extremes just to respond to them is making you look desperate, and if anything it's making me side with Gzento more than you.


You can find fault in virtually any reasonable statement if you do what you're doing: We should never kill the last two members of a nearly-extinct species. "Well what if two preservationists met and fell in love while trying to protect the species, and gave birth to Hitler? It'd be better to kill them and prevent that from happening, so your argument is invalid!"

@Jeff: There are a lot of people who would see no problem with hunting, even if the animal isn't eaten, but who would have a problem with people having sex with an animal. I guess for a lot of them the problem might be more the fact that it's not "natural", but I think if anyone's arguing the animal welfare perspective they need to be against hunting too.

Quote from Jeff

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another, but the farming and processing of animals is done out of a necessity for survival. Fucking a cow doesn't help keep you alive in any way. It's more justifiable to kill an animal for food than to fuck it for fun; I think the people comparing the two are forgetting this.

I completely agree that having sex with animals are not necessary for our survival. I admit, this did slip my mind.

However, I notice that a similar argument is used against gay marriage. While gay marriage is not essential to our survival, I ask what reason makes people push for its legality? One important reason, is that love and affection strongly outweighs the disadvantages homosexual couples create, that is not allowing reproduction.

So lets use this reasoning with Zoophilia as the main subject. Humans can also express love with an animal, to the point where it involves sex. And at times,the animal may even enjoy it and initiate it themselves. That is a win win for both the animal and the person. While not necessary to our survival, it is something that is desired by certain groups of people who believe that it is their right to express their love on a physical level. To remove this from them, is to prevent them to express their love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Psychological.2C_psychiatric.2C_and_research_perspectives
The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in peer-reviewed journals. There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002);^[34] their research arrived at the following conclusions:

• Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones, and that zoosexual partners are usually dogs and/or horses (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)^[34][35]
  
• Zoophiles' emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression.^[36] Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.^[34]
  
• Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning.^[34] The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".^[34]
  

For the argument, "We eat animals, why shouldn't we fuck them too?" When you talk about it in a survival sense, it won't make much sense. But when you look at it in terms of animal rights, I do see a relationship. The fact that we control almost every single aspect of an animals life, leaves the question why can't we also have sex with them? Sex doesn't seem as bad as death, and again may even be beneficial to the animal. Relationships can be found by looking at something from a different perspective.

Quote from Envoy

However, I notice that a similar argument is used against gay marriage. While gay marriage is not essential to our survival, I ask what reason makes people push for its legality? One important reason, is that love and affection strongly outweighs the disadvantages homosexual couples create, that is not allowing reproduction.

Gay marriage is completely irrelevant to the arguments at hand and the argument you're referencing doesn't really have any pull in this thread because marriage in general isn't natural nor essential. In fact, the idea of marriage goes completely against human instinct to breed as much as possible (unless you're a mormon). I understand the rest of your argument, and as I said earlier I don't really have an opinion on this because I can see it from both angles, I just don't really see how you managed to shoehorn in gay marriage as an example of a double standard or something. I think you're referring more to the fact that a lot of people are uncomfortable with homosexuals because instinctually we see it as wrong due to

Quote from Zed

@Jeff: There are a lot of people who would see no problem with hunting, even if the animal isn't eaten, but who would have a problem with people having sex with an animal. I guess for a lot of them the problem might be more the fact that it's not "natural", but I think if anyone's arguing the animal welfare perspective they need to be against hunting too.

Errr, technically hunting for fun could be considered something similar to instinct, because it's not a human invention, there are many animals that hunt for fun like cats, but I see your point. What I was trying to get across is that it's not black and white with the morality thing when it comes to animals.

Quote from Jeff

Gay marriage is completely irrelevant to the arguments at hand and the argument you're referencing doesn't really have any pull in this thread because marriage in general isn't natural nor essential. In fact, the idea of marriage goes completely against human instinct to breed as much as possible (unless you're a mormon). I understand the rest of your argument, and as I said earlier I don't really have an opinion on this because I can see it from both angles, I just don't really see how you managed to shoehorn in gay marriage as an example of a double standard or something. I think you're referring more to the fact that a lot of people are uncomfortable with homosexuals because instinctually we see it as wrong due to

I see your point. It was probably a mistake to use gay marriage. I believe that I should have specified that I was leaning towards more gay sex (did that come out right?).

So allow me to clarify. Gay sex, serves no purpose to the survival of humanity, however, is accepted by a number of people in society as it involves expressing love between two people. Likewise, while zoophilia also serves no purpose to the survival of humanity, it too can also involve the expression of love, except between a human and an animal.

My underlying point was that things do not require to be simply for the sake of humanity's survival for it to be acceptable.

Quote from GZento

the girl can pull away from him if she really doesn't want to.

The point I was trying to make is that there are more ways of communication than speech and writing alone; as such, saying an animal cannot consent because they cannot speak is ridiculous. That's the point I was going down with most of my arguments. In trying to refute my point, however, Gzento, you basically just proved it, with this little sentence here. This shows that even you believe that your arguments concerning 'consent' are bull, as theres more than one way of communication. As such, you cannot say that animals cannot consent.

Quote from walker90234

The point I was trying to make is that there are more ways of communication than speech and writing alone; as such, saying an animal cannot consent because they cannot speak is ridiculous. That's the point I was going down with most of my arguments. In trying to refute my point, however, Gzento, you basically just proved it, with this little sentence here. This shows that even you believe that your arguments concerning 'consent' are bull, as theres more than one way of communication. As such, you cannot say that animals cannot consent.

most animals can't learn sign language besides apes and chimpanzees. But sure, you win. Good job.

Quote from walker90234

The point I was trying to make is that there are more ways of communication than speech and writing alone; as such, saying an animal cannot consent because they cannot speak is ridiculous.

Oh for fuck's sake.

I told you guys you were using "consent" in a meaningless context, did no one look this up? There are different types of consent. Gzento is arguing that animals cannot give explicit consent, and you're trying to refute it by giving examples of implied consent, and you're both missing the point in the process.


It doesn't matter whether the consent is implied or explicit. What matters is that it's INFORMED CONSENT, and I don't understand how an animal is capable of it.

For starters, humans are in a position of power with animals, and consent isn't legally upheld in those situations. A teacher is not allowed to fuck students even if the student consents to it, because it's considered an abuse of power.

People are also incapable of giving informed consent if they don't have the mental faculties to consider the circumstances and potential consequences of their decision. Children can communicate, but that doesn't mean their consent gives people free-reign to do whatever they want to them.


But most of all, consent is a legal agreement between PEOPLE. If you want to discuss this issue, consent is a non-issue. Animals are property and we don't need their consent to do things that aren't unnecessarily harmful or cruel. It's one thing to discuss where to draw the line for "unnecessarily harmful", and which side of the line zoophilia falls on, but consent doesn't have any bearing on how harmful something is to an animal.

Quote from Exilement

Oh for fuck's sake.

I told you guys you were using "consent" in a meaningless context, did no one look this up? There are different types of consent. Gzento is arguing that animals cannot give explicit consent, and you're trying to refute it by giving examples of implied consent, and you're both missing the point in the process.

Thanks for clearing that up. I've lost a lot of motivation in debating this but yeah, I guess informed consent would have been the best choice of my argument.
Anyways, I guess my argument is that you can never know for sure if you're harming the animal or doing something it doesn't like in a situation involving bestiality. The difference between buying an animal and taking proper care of it and buying one just to have sex with it is enough of difference for me.

I'd like to point out that if you're doing anything to an animal it doesn't like, it's not going to lay there in a slump and take it. Animals can show when they're not happy about something and they will if they feel they're in danger. If I literally tore my cat a new asshole it would flip the fuck out and try to get away from me.

Quote from Envoy

I see your point. It was probably a mistake to use gay marriage. I believe that I should have specified that I was leaning towards more gay sex (did that come out right?).

So allow me to clarify. Gay sex, serves no purpose to the survival of humanity, however, is accepted by a number of people in society as it involves expressing love between two people. Likewise, while zoophilia also serves no purpose to the survival of humanity, it too can also involve the expression of love, except between a human and an animal.

My underlying point was that things do not require to be simply for the sake of humanity's survival for it to be acceptable.

I'm not sure what happened to the end of my section there, I think it got eaten when I was pasting Zed's quote, but yeah that makes sense and I agree.

Quote from Jeff

I'd like to point out that if you're doing anything to an animal it doesn't like, it's not going to lay there in a slump and take it. Animals can show when they're not happy about something and they will if they feel they're in danger.

Depends on the animal. Submissiveness and/or learned helplessness is a common defense mechanism in abused animals.

But that's only if the fight or flight response doesn't work in previous attempts to escape.

in my opinion people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't get in the way of my personal life

what's the difference between raping an animal and raping a human being? both of them are being forced to do it. We eat other animals to get energy, and we don't eat other humans because the point of life is to keep the species. that's why animals don't eat others from their own species. It's okay to eat animals, it's the law of nature. But it's not a nature's law to rape them...
We can see dogs trying to literally fuck any other animal like cats, or ducks or whatever. But why? because they're domestical animals and they almost never get to have sexual intercourse with other dogs.
So in my opinion, it should be forbidden...

Take this situation on a more personal level. Some are saying that it doesn't affect you and whatnot, but what if I was open about fucking animals? Does it change your opinion of it if someone who shares a website with you talks about how often they give a dog a bone? Would you be able to sit back and listen to it?