Philosophy Forums


Why is it "Wrong" to Have Sex with Animals?

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Why is it "Wrong" to Have Sex with Animals?
OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52
Posted 09/13/07 - 10:21 AM:
quote post
#91
loveofsophia wrote:

Love is a complicated word. On one side we have appreciation and on the other we have a want for sexual expression underlying the appreciation. In this respect zoophiles have been claimed to be capable of expressing both love outlooks toward an animal.

The concern is, what about the situations where a desire for sexual expression is present but not one of appreciation. What recourse does the dog have? What about the zoophiles that claim love but are really just taking advantage of their animal. How does the dog make known the fact they are just being taken advantage of?
Does sex make the dog happy? If so, why does it matter? Either way, rape is a subcategory of sex, NOT the other way around. Rape is the exception to sex, and you can't use the occurence of rape, however common, to conclude that all sex is bad. SEX > RAPE. RAPE > SEX.

loveofsophia wrote:
The concern is, what about the situations where one forces themselves on their dog. What recourse and protection can a dog realistically get? You have stated te animal will not allow the sex. But what happens when, without all that much trouble, a human forces themselves on a dog and does so without others becoming aware? The dog can't go and complain to the authorities, now can it.
...Then that's bad. Is this supposed to be relevant in any way whatsoever to nice, caring sex?

loveofsophia wrote:
So, despite the fact you are only focusing on the potential for a loving relationship between a non-human animal and a human, this isn't really possible to be affirmed by society simply because abuse of the animal within sexual expression is too easily realized and kept hidden.
...What? By the zoophile? How can you hide the behavior of a dog? That doesn't sound easy.

loveofsophia wrote:
You might say, well this is just not fair to the individuals it doesn't apply to, but just for the same reason a mature 13 year old and 18 year old are not allowed, despite any genuineness to their love and desire for sexual expression, to engage in such activity, likewise the case can be argued against bestiality.
No, because the situation is too different. STD's pass between humans. Babies happen. Society is set up so that kids can't have kids. Their lives would suck-both those of the babies and kids who had them.

loveofsophia wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with a loving and affectionate relationship between an animal and a human that results in sex. I, in some ways, doubt the cognitive stability of those people but that is mostly based upon the suspicion that their brain must have some odd wiring going on to actually find an animal sexually attractive (it makes you wonder what else might be abnormally wired). Homosexuality is less suspicious because it seems just like the other side of the coin of human sexual desire; one direction is toward the female the other toward the male.
OK. That's all I'm arguing. As for my "cognitive stability", I was the Valevictorian only last year, and continue to be near/at the head of my classes. My intelligence is not reasonably in question, and as for my "stability": I haven't gone crazy yet, and don't plan on such happening.

loveofsophia wrote:
Bestiality is confusing because it makes me suspicious that it is just using an animal entirely. Why, because my understanding of sexuality entails that it be directed toward a particular type of body. How can a human be sexually attracted to dogs, pigs and horses? If a zoophile is attracted to the body of a dog, are they also capable of being sexually attracted to a horse? If they are, it makes me suspicious that the psychological mindset is not really appreciation or even sexual attraction. I am suspicious that this is all only the excuse they put forward in order to justify to others, or maybe even themselves, their living fuck toys.
Good for you. I respect animals, and do not use them as living fuck toys. That is what zoophilia means. Your suspicions of me being a demented, ruthless pervert are not at all true, and therefore is a sterotype, which doesn't make an argument.
OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52
Posted 09/13/07 - 02:16 PM:
quote post
#92
Reformed Nihilist wrote:


I am having a really difficullt time with analogies with you. Analogies don't have to be exactly like what they are in reference to, to be good analogies. They have to be like the subject of discussion in the particularly relevent way. The analogy was presented to show that acting in a manner that is harmfull as a rule (which you have accepted that beastiality is, or at least haven't refuted it) is a dangerous sort of behaviour because of the danger of confirmation bias. The child molestor analogy diplays this point, does it not? It doesn't matter if the harm is to the victim or society for the analogy to work.
But there has to be damage. What damage is this? Stop meandering and answer this question:

What damage does bestiality do?

Reformed Nihilist wrote:
What don't you understand? Society runs on the rules that include a prohibition against sexual behaviour where power dynamics are substanially different (rape, statatory rape, psychologically coercive sex, drug induced consent, etc.). Making broad categorical exceptions to this rules without some large tangible advantage isn't effecient.
OpokepianistO wrote:
What protection? You haven't stated what that would be. Explain why the protection is actually protection rather than prejudice.
Still haven't stated what protection it does. The advantage is that people who prefer sex with animals get to live happily. That's a bonus, is it not? I think that restriction of freedom of a group of people is much worse than "protecting society" from a harm that is not there.
OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52
Posted 09/13/07 - 02:22 PM:
quote post
#93
Chato wrote:
The OP insists on debating this from the point of view of the "ideal" zoosexual.

Well, if we are talking about exceptions, we can talk ourselves into anything.

What is the zoosexual norm? Well on those sites where they defend themelves, they routinely have sex with dogs at all times of the year - Which is to say, as I've proved in a previous post, cannot be described as anything but abuse.

With this kind of logic I can defend pedophilia, I can defend murder, I can defend just about anything else.

If you debate the question, logic forces us to debate the norm, not some mythical ideal which MIGHT me manifested once in a blue moon.

I've asked him about this before, and he simply ignores the question.

Dave
No. You are using a subcategory of sex to define sex. You can't do that. Just because rape happens more often than regular, consentual sex, does NOT mean that it is logical to condemn all sex. It is only logical, practical, or useful to condemn rape. I didn't dodge the question, I didn't think that you were asking such a ridiculous question in the first place. Think about it like this: Why don't you get rid of every single city on the map just because most cities have higher crime rates than other places? (I don't know if that's a fact, it's a hypothetical situation-based analogy) The world would be a more peaceful place, would it not? Oh, but wait, many lives would be lost. That's obviously not as important as getting rid of the crime rates... disapproval

Oh, and you still haven't cited a SINGLE source to back your claim that sex hurts dogs out of heat. Please do.


Edited by OpokepianistO on 09/13/07 - 02:31 PM
OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52
Posted 09/13/07 - 04:06 PM:
quote post
#94
TMB wrote:


You have moved from a term of love to one of pleasure, so does this mean that if something gives us pleasure it is good and right and therefore can be done. If Hitler was a sadist and got pleasure from the murder and torture of Jews, then it must be OK because pleasure is enough to justify behavior. You are not offering anythinig you can validate with this.

You are suggesting that the desire of animals (including humans) is good, just because animals desire it. Rape also involves sexual desire, so by your menas this is also good?
No, no; nearly, but no. Rape causes more displeasure than pleasure, so it is bad--the opposite of good. Hitler killing Jews caused much more pain and displeasure than pleasure, and therefore was bad.

TMB wrote:
How do you imagine making a taboo of bestiality is MORE arbitrary than love is. This is a forum needing something more than your gut feel. If you think love is less arbritrary than bestiality you will need some support to show this is so. You have offered that Love is desirable by most of societys persons. Let us suppose this is a valid way to suppport something, and see where bestiality stands. Bestiality is undesirable by most of societys persons, so it looks like by your own standard of support you have just undermined your own position. You also need to justify why we should consider what the majority believes to be correct. The idea of a flat earth was also supported by most of societys persons, and this appears to have come unstuck, although this is also now held by the majority of the wordls persons.
If the taboo was removed, both zoophiles and non-zoophiles would be happy. The world would be a happier place, with more love. I'm trying to get rid of the taboo, so more people are happy.

TMB wrote:
You have suggested that bestaility is not wrong, and also are not saying that it might also not be right. Does this mean you are offering it as a morally neutral position, or is theresome other moral value that sits between wrong and right, and if so what criteria does this have so I might recognise it when it occurs?
No, I am saying that it is sometimes right--at least as right as sex. I do not think that animal rape is good, and as that is a form of bestiality, bestiality is not always right.



TMB wrote:
OK, if this is your theseis statement, then please explain to me unambiguously, with self evident value terms just why abuse is a bad thing.
If pleasure is good, then displeasure is bad. Abuse is disbalanced in favor of displeasure, and therefore something that is bad, under the terms that I laid out.


I apologize for not getting to the rest of your post, but I've been busy today... that's all I can say for now. Thank you for discussing with me, though.
TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007

Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 330
Posted 09/14/07 - 03:58 AM:
quote post
#95
Opokepi, you say,

No, no; nearly, but no. Rape causes more displeasure than pleasure, so it is bad--the opposite of good. Hitler killing Jews caused much more pain and displeasure than pleasure, and therefore was bad.


I understand your position to be the relative value of pleasure over displeasure, however this does not change my comment. Pleasure and its converse are still your measures of value, and on this basis you cannnot justify them without reference to another measure of value. At each point you have no way of validating these vale measures to be obkective and absolute. In addition, it can also be used to disprove your support of bestiality, all we need to find is that bestiality brings more displeasure to those opposing than pleasure to those supporting. A simple poll on this forum would probably show that the anti bestiality lobby outweigh the pro lobby, and since in civil society (at the moment) the majority would find displeasure in supporting bestiality. Even if you argued that each person supporting should be worth multiple anti, you would need to argue why, and by how much.

Once again, let me point out that I am not arguing against your position of bestiality, just the attempt you are making to use logic to justify it.

If the taboo was removed, both zoophiles and non-zoophiles would be happy. The world would be a happier place, with more love. I'm trying to get rid of the taboo, so more people are happy.


Now you are arguing that non zoophiles would also be happier if the taboo were removed. If this board is any barometer to go by, I disagree with your position. Surely taboos only exist based upon what people think about things? I would imagine that if non zoo-philes would be happier without the taboo, the taboo would not exist. Can you support this position where you think all people would be happier if the taboo were removed?


No, I am saying that it is sometimes right--at least as right as sex. I do not think that animal rape is good, and as that is a form of bestiality, bestiality is not always right.


So you say that bestiality is right as long as consent exists (in whatever way animals give their consent to anything that humans do that influences their lives). And I assume that you argue that it is right because it brings pleasure to the zoophiles and animals alike. Then we get back to the balance of pleasure and displeasure, and your position is that non zoo-philes would be happier without the taboo as well. You need to support this position.

If pleasure is good, then displeasure is bad. Abuse is disbalanced in favor of displeasure, and therefore something that is bad, under the terms that I laid out.


Let me try again. How is displeasure bad? Because you say it is? Because the majority of people say so? Because it is written in some books? The argument remains the same. If you are stating that pleasure is good and displeasure is bad, then you need to define this in unambiguous, selfevident value terms. I do not think this is possible because it assume absolute and objective standards exist for these. It returns you to the position that you want zoophilia to be socially acceptable because it is never pleasant to be demonsied by others. You are attempting to do this with flawed logic. This might work to some dgree, but I suspect that most people are not interested in the logic or reasons why they dislike bestiality. As with homosexuality in the modern west, its all about lobbying, perceptions and power.

Our desire to consider ourselves rational beings is normal, even though plenty of evidence exists to the contrary (still not being rational we do not take this into account). If we get social approval for our behavior as well as removal of penalties this makes us feel that we belong to the group, and they value who and what we are. In the case of bestiality, it is the opposite. Zoophiles are demonised, perhaps as much, although in a different way to paedophiles, however I believe there is growing pressure from them to recognise the authenticity of their sexual choice. As society becomes more tolerant of this category of behavior, we have seen the pressure to remove the homosexual taboo in the past 30 years or so, legislation is changing, racial tolerance, mental illness, age discrimination, etc. It remains to be seen if this happens with others. Necrophilia is another one at this extreme end of disapproval, and here the argument is that dead people do not have values to violate as we might with animals and children. Incest is another strong taboo, yet if precautions are taken against pregnancy, what logical argument can be offered against this apart from social and cultural norms? Do you think all these tendencies should be accepted in the same way as you propose for bestiality?
TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007

Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 330
Posted 09/14/07 - 04:30 AM:
quote post
#96
Hi Chato,


All your remarks about animals are true, but only as far as they go. Society, by altering the rules of the term "abuse," has redefined it in terms of those we are legally allowed to keep as pets. So in effect, society has decided that legal pets, have SOME of the protections we afford to humans.


Yes I understand this perspective, however this was not my point. The issue is one of control over anmials in the relationship. Even the protection we afford them, is defined by us, whatever rights they get it is by virtue of what we bestow. I accept that this gives them better lives on this basis, but they are still totally at our beck and call. Also do not forget that the benevolent view of animals is mostly western, and Hindu. In many other countries dogs, cats etc live by their wits and get very little from their human masters, they are beasts of burden, dogs are still eaten in China. The use of domestic animals as food, cows, sheep, the conditions under which they are tramsported, the housing and feeding of chickens, beef etc do not give me the impression that these 'rights' have much to do with protecting the rights of animals as with making humans feel virtuous.

[/quote]Now, if you look on this matter, to paraphrase a biologist, "A dog is a machine to produce another dog," then you would be completely correct. I for one DON'T think the above. These laws protecting pets have a basic assumption behind them. Those creatures that enter our homes, have an implied existence out side of food, experimentation, whatever. We in eeffect both grant them these rights, and by implication, cannot withdraw them. [/quote]

Trust me on this, if we bestow rights, we can take them away. When bird flu hit SE Asia, chickens got killed in big numbers. We decided that we would not tuck even the sick chickens into beds with with a wooly toy, they killed any chicken they could lay their hands on to control the effect on humans. Even the killing of the chickens was measured in human value terms of food etc. Aniamsl in our homes get dumped in droves over holidays. The animal shelters are kept busy picking up the discards from humans. If the rights we give them had any any teeth, this could not happen. We offer some value to them in some environments, but much of it is lip service.

Whatever else you want to say, this is the legal status at the moment, and I might add this legal status has been steadily growing. I forget where (Spain?) but some nations have actually granted semi-human status to some of the Great Apes.


There is an argument promoted by Peter Singer suggesting that greae apes should have more rights than extremely disabled humans, however I am not ware that any legislation exists to bring them up to our level. Animals get a measure of protection through WWF, with their lists of endangered and protected species, however, I am not sure that drugging, tagging etc of wild animals offers them a better life than they would have gotten in a human free wilderness. Once again, humans have imposed themselves upon every other living thing on the planet. In the sea, the air, the land, we have made many species extinct, poisoned many others, even though the use of animals in experiments, more humane methods are used to kill food animals, I do not think we have much to be proud of in our treatment of animals.

So the question of ethics also must take into account the changing legal status which is a product of our changing views of animals. At least with female dogs, having sex except for a short period of the year, is ALWAYS abuse. Yet the normal practice of Zoosexuals IS to have sex all the year round. Now the OP of course states that he is a virgin. That doesn't free him from defending abuse, since he is NOT defending himself, rather he is defending Zoosexuals.


I do seem to have strayed off the original topic. Are you suggesting that in the appropriate circumstances, sex with female animals (ie. when in season) is a different ethical practice to doing it when they are not in season? Since I assume the fertility does not seem to be the issue here, I assume it is the rececptivity you are alluding to. If so, are you arguing that as long as the animal in question (a bitch in this case) is receptive it is OK? How would it work for a male dog and a woman, where they are receptive all the year, as are boars, stallions, bulls etc, and if they are given the opportunity, appear to perform quite capably.
Chato
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Location: New York CIty

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 502
Posted 09/14/07 - 10:37 AM:
quote post
#97
TMB wrote:
Hi Chato,


Yes I understand this perspective, however this was not my point. The issue is one of control over anmials in the relationship. Even the protection we afford them, is defined by us, whatever rights they get it is by virtue of what we bestow. I accept that this gives them better lives on this basis, but they are still totally at our beck and call. Also do not forget that the benevolent view of animals is mostly western, and Hindu. In many other countries dogs, cats etc live by their wits and get very little from their human masters, they are beasts of burden, dogs are still eaten in China. The use of domestic animals as food, cows, sheep, the conditions under which they are tramsported, the housing and feeding of chickens, beef etc do not give me the impression that these 'rights' have much to do with protecting the rights of animals as with making humans feel virtuous.


All true. Nonetheless, while a right that is granted can be taken away, but once this grant becomes a law, they cannot arbitrarily take them away. So, you and I might decide one morning to eat the dog, yet such an act would get us at best a stiff fine, at worse some jail time. I never stated (with one exception) that anyone is proposing granting rights comparable to a human minority in the animal kingdom.

[/quote=Chato]Now, if you look on this matter, to paraphrase a biologist, "A dog is a machine to produce another dog," then you would be completely correct. I for one DON'T think the above. These laws protecting pets have a basic assumption behind them. Those creatures that enter our homes, have an implied existence out side of food, experimentation, whatever. We in eeffect both grant them these rights, and by implication, cannot withdraw them. [/quote]

TMB wrote:

Trust me on this, if we bestow rights, we can take them away. When bird flu hit SE Asia, chickens got killed in big numbers. We decided that we would not tuck even the sick chickens into beds with with a wooly toy, they killed any chicken they could lay their hands on to control the effect on humans. Even the killing of the chickens was measured in human value terms of food etc. Aniamsl in our homes get dumped in droves over holidays. The animal shelters are kept busy picking up the discards from humans. If the rights we give them had any any teeth, this could not happen. We offer some value to them in some environments, but much of it is lip service.


I placed a seperation between "pets" and other creatures. Even these other creatures have some rights embedded in law. For example, humane executions. Yes, yes, not much of a right...mad

Nor did I ever claim that this change in "Western" attitudes was world wide.

TMB wrote:

There is an argument promoted by Peter Singer suggesting that greae apes should have more rights than extremely disabled humans, however I am not ware that any legislation exists to bring them up to our level. Animals get a measure of protection through WWF, with their lists of endangered and protected species, however, I am not sure that drugging, tagging etc of wild animals offers them a better life than they would have gotten in a human free wilderness. Once again, humans have imposed themselves upon every other living thing on the planet. In the sea, the air, the land, we have made many species extinct, poisoned many others, even though the use of animals in experiments, more humane methods are used to kill food animals, I do not think we have much to be proud of in our treatment of animals.


Searching the net, I found my links.

This law was proposed in the Spainish Parliament in 2006, and tabled even though it had support in the governing Party.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...ews/2006/06/10/wapes10.xml

You can find many other links about this story.

Nor is the issue conveniently dead, as the Balearic Islanders have succeded in forcing the issue.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/balearicapes200703




TMB wrote:

I do seem to have strayed off the original topic. Are you suggesting that in the appropriate circumstances, sex with female animals (ie. when in season) is a different ethical practice to doing it when they are not in season? Since I assume the fertility does not seem to be the issue here, I assume it is the rececptivity you are alluding to. If so, are you arguing that as long as the animal in question (a bitch in this case) is receptive it is OK? How would it work for a male dog and a woman, where they are receptive all the year, as are boars, stallions, bulls etc, and if they are given the opportunity, appear to perform quite capably.



Well, with my first post on this question, I asked, What is the degree of the crime?

In the case you first mention, sex with a bitch not in season would be VERY painful. This automatically makes it abuse.

Now you come down to the real hole in my statements. A bitch in heat could concievably want sex with a human. A male dog could want sex with a human. I could rent my male dog out to some beatiality sites and make good money, because he certainly would want sex with a human.

I still think beastiality should be a defacto crime, because the above are rare exceptions, and it would be impossible to police the situation if we legalise an "out."

Certainly food for thought. I've tried to discuss this with Chato, my dog, and he, I am forced to admit, would probably agree with the OP on the legality of this. On the other hand, he IS a dog, and could not concievably understand the issues. I am legally responsible for him, for some arbitrary reason...grin

Dave

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times."
Chato
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Location: New York CIty

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 502
Posted 09/24/07 - 06:49 AM:
quote post
#98
Crito wrote:
I will admit I have not read all of the above post so I apologise if this has already been mentioned.

but

surely we have all seen instances of alls mounting or trying to have sex with humans (eg the dog) so surely that animal has to be sexually attracted to that human therefore why can it not work both ways round

why is it that it is seen as amusing when a dog decides to try and copulate with a human yet when it is the other way around it is seen as a vial act.



Well, just for informational purposes then. Rarely is a dog thinking of sex when it mounts your leg...

Certainly NOT for females. They do it because it feels good, but they take it no further.

A certain percentage of male dogs, do wish to, or are certainly prepared to have sex with a human. In the case of males, they can have sex all the time. Females can only have sex during estrus or "heat," or being in season. Except for those few times a year, sex would be extremely painful.

I believe I sum up the reasons why I oppose legalising this in my last post. Admittedly, I cannot make a blanket statement about ALL dogs, all the time. Anthropomorphising about animals, even dogs, is always risky at best.


Dave

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times."
Mr. Mooncalf
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2007
Location: Texas

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 60
Posted 09/25/07 - 06:30 AM:
quote post
#99
I have not read all of this thread so pardon me if I am repeating something that may have already been said. I think love can exist between two beings that understand one another. There are degrees of understanding such as when two people have sex for money but the understanding still exists on both parties behalves that there is an exchange going on. As artificial as that situation might be there is a mutual acceptance that occurs. An animal has no understanding of what love means to a human and whatever love might mean to a dog is beyond our understanding entirely no matter how much research is done. This is a good example of the limits of our reason as people, I think we are limited to understanding ourselves and our situations. Love between an animal and a human being consequently seems impossible and as a person who grew up among domesticated cats and dogs I believe any relationship between the two is difficult at best. The crux of the argument is understanding. I understood my dog wanted food and I fed him. My dog understood his obligations to his pack (growing up I had a wolf-hybrid) and was a very dedicated and honest broker in the relationship. The relationship ended in mutual agreements and we were as close as two beings from different species could be. However, I could never expect my dog to have understood the finer points of poetry, literature, science or philosophy for that matter. The relationship could only go so far. That is the point that makes bestiality incongruous. Sex is an expression of understanding and an animal cannot understand your motives and we cannot understand an animal's motives especially in regard to sexuality. Consequently, any bestiality is using an animal for reasons that don't seem justified by our natural world. While I am a vegetarian, I believe eating meat is justified by the natural world, i.e. animals eating other animals. However, to equate sexuality only with survival is to misunderstand sexuality. Does it not transcend simple survival means but rather provides us with a sublimation of ourselves (as does art & philosophy)? Even the cheapest sex between humans reaches beyond bestiality because there is no shared experience between the two.
Either OpokepianistO is trying to undermine the idea of ethics or is trying to justify a potential sexually oriented relationship with the animal. I'm not sure.

After such knowledge, what forgiveness? T.S. Eliot
You've had a cream of a nightmare dream and you've got the hoo-ha's coming to you. T.S. Eliot
panark
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7
Posted 10/10/07 - 04:05 PM:
quote post
#100
First off, I have not read the entire thread, I read the first page and saw 4 more and wanted to add thoughts.

I am a fan of bestiality and pet love myself and I would like to share why. For me it is a spiritual thing. It is simple and pure. It is purely satisfaction for both parties. There is no lieing about intentions, there is no games about who calls who, there is are no mixed motives, no one is using anyone. It is not something that only the human can start, it is mutual and while things aren't spoken, it can be the most connected sexual experience possible.

Mooncalf: There is understanding involved. It is not communicated in English, but it is the feeling. Have you ever watched dogs mate? The males will be careful if signs are not obvious because if the female is not ready, she will bite. She will also no produce lubricant that is needed. The process is slow and loving and connected. As with human sex, there is lots of foreplay, and the foreplay usually goes goth ways. You touch her, she licks you. And simple things like not holding the dog will make sure that if she wants to just walk away, she will. Body language reading is important too. Watch for the stance. When she is ready, she will take a solid stance with her legs spread. If she is not ready, and you try to enter, she will step forward.

It is very clearly a consensual act when done right.

I believe this answers the why and we can stop having random questionings of motives. This leaves another argument that I will try to dispel. That is that the motives of the animal are influenced by the person. In a hypothetical situation, the animal may do it because they do not want to say no with body language. This is unlikely because, as least with my dog, If I say "sit" that is not going to provoke a response nearly as well as "sit" while holding a treat. I have never given my dog a treat for anything sexual. It is not a trick and I will not train a dog to do that. But in this situation, IF the human does not detect this, which they should, is it any different than some cases of human sex? Prostitution, to the extreme, is saying "have sex with me and get some money." Dating is similar on a smaller scale (which is why I insist on going dutch).

If the reward is not a treat, maybe the dog does because they don't want to say no (or make the no apparent without words)? The same could be true of human relationships and sex. I don't know about you but I have had sex with my girlfriend on many occasions when I didn't feel like it. I didn't want the conflict I knew would happen. True that a dog would do that too if there was conflict or scolding when sex did not happen, but this is the same for humans and dogs. Just with many things about this situation, human-human sex is very similar to human-dog sex. They can both be rape, they can both be unsolicited, they can both be hurtful or destructive, but they can also be loving, caring, connected and wonderful.

I have just started to recently embrace this part of myself. Most of that was due to zooskool (dot) com. If anyone here is interested in other arguments for bestiality, this is a wonderful site to help you stop feeling dirty and alone.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.