In those scenarios a human being is being harmed.
Senate passes bill to outlaw sex with animals
- Thread starter Brian Foley
- Start date
In those scenarios a human being is being harmed.
OK. So behavior and morals' monitoring is OK in these instances. There is some behavior and morals you think the government should get involved in, but not others.
So no government?
Neither are people are are severely mentally disabled. What animal doesn't understand "i don't like what you're doing to me"? Like your dog may let you pet it, but it snaps at other people who try. Your girlfriend may let you grope her, but she might smack anyone else. Sounds the same to me.
Multidimensional love
One way to look at it is in terms of our lovable relatives, the bonobos. Some handlers say that working with bonobos in a group is like trying to coordinate and communicate with a roomful of two year-olds. Except these are two year-olds who wank like demons and hump at every opportunity.
Now here's the thing: Who among us is going to have sex with a bonobo? Anyone? Anyone?
Okay, how about a two year-old?
That you can get your dog or pig or sheep or whatever to consent to sex? That's not even like a two year-old. That's ... that's a different dimension entirely.
One way to look at it is in terms of our lovable relatives, the bonobos. Some handlers say that working with bonobos in a group is like trying to coordinate and communicate with a roomful of two year-olds. Except these are two year-olds who wank like demons and hump at every opportunity.
Now here's the thing: Who among us is going to have sex with a bonobo? Anyone? Anyone?
Okay, how about a two year-old?
That you can get your dog or pig or sheep or whatever to consent to sex? That's not even like a two year-old. That's ... that's a different dimension entirely.
So a dog can't defend itself?
My experience with male dogs is they are ready and willing to consent to some cross species action.
This is... interesting.
You do mutton is known for its really really strong taste?
so a man can kill it and eat its flesh, but he can't have sex with it. Right??
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
LOL. This is an amazing thread! 
Just out of curiosity, exactly what type of behavior is illegal? Is it sexual penetration of an animal? Or is it any act with an animal that could be construed as sexual in any way?
The problem with bestiality is that it often involves some kind of cruelty. Specifically, it often involves forcing an animal to participate in an act that at best it might not find particularly pleasurable, and at worst might cause it significant discomfort. The issue is clear when we're talking about animal welfare. But what is the justification if this law extends to sexual activity involving humans and animals where absolutely no harm is caused?
Obviously the majority of people find bestiality disgusting, as do I. But I have to question any law that seeks to govern human behavior on conservative moral grounds alone. As far as I am concerned, it's the same as outlawing homosexuality, or anal sex, or any sexual fetish that consenting adults choose to engage in.
Consenting adults is the important phrase there though isn't it? Can animals consent? Well, certainly not as intelligently as human beings can, but I'd say that there are definitely situations where they might be doing exactly what they want to be doing. I am dead against any disrespectful treatment of animals. I certainly find any attempt to force an animal to participate in a sexual act, even if it does not physically harm the animal, a deplorable act. But I'm just not sure that I can construct a rational legitimate argument against some forms of sexual interaction. Not one that isn't based on conservative religious views or the fact that it's just plainly and simply disgusting and unnatural.
What if, for example, a dog starts humping your leg, and you let it? What if, for example, a woman (or a man) gets down on hands and knees and lets a dog have sex with them? I apologize if I am offending anyone here with these examples, but I didn't feel that I could avoid providing a couple for the purposes of properly exploring this subject. Aside from the fact that the majority of people would find such an act deplorable, and aside from all of the possible health related concerns, has any wrong actually been done? If so, I'd like to hear what it is. I don't engage in sexual activity with animals myself, nor do I have any desire to, but I find it difficult to rationalize the condemnation of anyone who does as long as there is no harm being done.
Another situation that comes to mind, although it is typically not sexualized by the people involved, is the breeding of horses. Part of this process sometimes involves collecting semen from horses for study. Typically this involves the use of an artificial horse Vagina that the stallion makes use of to, well, do the deed. No-one typically condemns any of this of course because the horse isn't harmed (indeed, he obviously has a bit of fun) and no-one else involved is typically deriving any sexual pleasure from it. I am certain however, that if someone was, that it would go from acceptable to deplorable in a heartbeat.
The point I am driving at, as I have said already, is that I think these laws are created with the intention of outlawing behavior that society in general is simply uncomfortable with. The justification seems to be all about animal welfare, but aren't there laws already in place to protect animals from cruelty in general? Surely such laws would already apply to situations where the cruelty was sexual in nature?
The problem with bestiality is that it often involves some kind of cruelty. Specifically, it often involves forcing an animal to participate in an act that at best it might not find particularly pleasurable, and at worst might cause it significant discomfort. The issue is clear when we're talking about animal welfare. But what is the justification if this law extends to sexual activity involving humans and animals where absolutely no harm is caused?
Obviously the majority of people find bestiality disgusting, as do I. But I have to question any law that seeks to govern human behavior on conservative moral grounds alone. As far as I am concerned, it's the same as outlawing homosexuality, or anal sex, or any sexual fetish that consenting adults choose to engage in.
Consenting adults is the important phrase there though isn't it? Can animals consent? Well, certainly not as intelligently as human beings can, but I'd say that there are definitely situations where they might be doing exactly what they want to be doing. I am dead against any disrespectful treatment of animals. I certainly find any attempt to force an animal to participate in a sexual act, even if it does not physically harm the animal, a deplorable act. But I'm just not sure that I can construct a rational legitimate argument against some forms of sexual interaction. Not one that isn't based on conservative religious views or the fact that it's just plainly and simply disgusting and unnatural.
What if, for example, a dog starts humping your leg, and you let it? What if, for example, a woman (or a man) gets down on hands and knees and lets a dog have sex with them? I apologize if I am offending anyone here with these examples, but I didn't feel that I could avoid providing a couple for the purposes of properly exploring this subject. Aside from the fact that the majority of people would find such an act deplorable, and aside from all of the possible health related concerns, has any wrong actually been done? If so, I'd like to hear what it is. I don't engage in sexual activity with animals myself, nor do I have any desire to, but I find it difficult to rationalize the condemnation of anyone who does as long as there is no harm being done.
Another situation that comes to mind, although it is typically not sexualized by the people involved, is the breeding of horses. Part of this process sometimes involves collecting semen from horses for study. Typically this involves the use of an artificial horse Vagina that the stallion makes use of to, well, do the deed. No-one typically condemns any of this of course because the horse isn't harmed (indeed, he obviously has a bit of fun) and no-one else involved is typically deriving any sexual pleasure from it. I am certain however, that if someone was, that it would go from acceptable to deplorable in a heartbeat.
The point I am driving at, as I have said already, is that I think these laws are created with the intention of outlawing behavior that society in general is simply uncomfortable with. The justification seems to be all about animal welfare, but aren't there laws already in place to protect animals from cruelty in general? Surely such laws would already apply to situations where the cruelty was sexual in nature?
Surely sticking your dick in an animal much smaller than yourself is classed as animal cruelty (which is illegal already)? If it can't be proved to cause the animal pain and/or distress, why shouldn't be allowed?
Where else in the law does 'animal's consent' ever come in to play?
Where else in the law does 'animal's consent' ever come in to play?
They certainly don't consent to being slaughtered and eaten. That's why it's obvious to me that these laws are primarily about outlawing behaviour that most people are simply uncomfortable with. Beastliality makes me feel uncomfortable too, but not as much as a pressurized rod to the forehead so people can sit down to enjoy a steak. In some countries they still just slit throats and wait for animals to bleed out.
Yes Max, that is true, and we call those people bigots.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I saw the title of this post and was thinking the exact same thing. Yeh, great, no more (insert animal here) f*cking. Wonderful! But is it really an issue in today's world?
While people are watching their taxes skyrocket and their children getting killed overseas, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say no one is really freaking out about Seabiscuit getting s**ked off, nor do they really care.