Why is it "Wrong" to Have Sex with Animals?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Why is it "Wrong" to Have Sex with Animals? » Why is it "Wrong" to Have Sex with Animals?

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

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

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

panark
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 10/14/07 - 03:08 PM:	#111
Chato wrote: If you were right, judging by male dogs, some females would be screwing all year round. Have you noticed that they don't? No, I guess not. As I said earlier, and as you quoted me on: "She would abandon me for a male dog only because of the basic instinct to mate, but in the off season, when it is still possible to mate given she is still interested and you use lubricant and do not hurt her, she will choose love when the instinct to mate for puppies is not there. Ever watch a male dog try to tie a bitch at the dog park when shes not in heat? Almost always she will not let him." This is part of why female dogs to not mate year round. The other part lies in logistics. I have KY, the dogs at the dog park do not. Without the natural lubrication that is part of heat, a female dog would be quite hurt and damaged by sex without lubricant. This is why they do not have the instinct to mate during the off season as it is less physically possible. Even though the instinct is not there for off season sex, it is still possible without hurting her or doing anything she does not want. They may be nervous because they expect it to hurt, and it is your job to show them that it can be quite fun. (If the bitch still is unresponsive to your efforts, she may not be computable with the kind of love you want to give her.) Generally, the first act is done while in the second heat because the lubricant is there (although more is better) and because she will probably be in the mood. After the first act, she knows that you have fingers and you know (or gave a general idea) of where her hot spots are, she will be more willing to try it and trust you not to hurt her. She is following your lead because off season sex is out of her element, but that does not mean she will not enjoy it.

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 11/29/07 - 04:39 PM:	#112
Thank you, Panark, for being so bold as to discuss this. Chato - This: http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&A=1498 says nothing whatsoever about the facts you threw in, about vaginas doubling in size. Get your facts straight, because I don't believe people simply because they use numbers and scientific terms.

domicide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2006

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 19

Posted 12/01/07 - 07:23 AM:	#113
I'm sorry, I was under the opinion that it's not wrong to have sex with animals. How can it be wrong? Because they cannot give consent? So we can kill, maim, torture, and eat animals, but its wrong to have sex with them? I mean, its not what I would like to do, but I don't think it is wrong. I would call someone weird if they had sex with an animal, but I cannot come up with a legitimate argument for its wrongness.

Karakuri
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 12/04/07 - 08:24 AM:	#114
I'm new to this board, so I apologize if I'm being ignorant/obvious in any way. I find the idea of sex with an animal disturbing, but only because it isn't a part of my society and never crossed my mind. But those who are didn't choose to have that attraction. Has there ever been a successful case in which psychological counselling changed someone's sexual preferences? If not, we are condemning such a person to either 1) breaking the law/taboo while suffering any social stigmas attached, or 2) never being able to act on their sexual desires at all. In the case of zoophiles at least, this seems too harsh a punishment for being born with a preference for animals. Unless anyone can prove that this is an "illness" that can and should be cured. Edited by Karakuri on 12/04/07 - 08:34 AM

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 12/04/07 - 11:45 PM:	#115
We are animals. Sex with a human is sex with an animal... What you say, Karakuri, is a total non-issue. No body argues whether rapists are actual attracted to women or just sick. They are forcing non-consentual sex onto another being. Of course the worst part is that unless the sex is for the purpose of reproduction it is simply glorified masturbation. Homosexuality is also glorified masturbation, only it hurts no one. If someone needs to suffer so that you can have a musle and chemical response than you are a sick individual. Apathetic at best, sadistic at worst. I'm attracted to women, but I don't go out and rape them, nor do I take advantage of intoxicated or unconscious women. Someone who is not in a position to object. That is what zoophilia is, taking advantage of a sentient being who is not in a position to object. In most of these cases you are their guardian. You are suppose to protect them from harm, not administer harm for your own selfish gratification. Get a rubber vigina and stick it in a stuffed animal, don't harm things so you can get off.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 12/04/07 - 11:51 PM:	#116
domicide wrote: I'm sorry, I was under the opinion that it's not wrong to have sex with animals. How can it be wrong? Because they cannot give consent? So we can kill, maim, torture, and eat animals, but its wrong to have sex with them? I mean, its not what I would like to do, but I don't think it is wrong. I would call someone weird if they had sex with an animal, but I cannot come up with a legitimate argument for its wrongness. I don't agree that we can do any of those things to any sentient thing, and I refuse to. However you don't draw a line at all. Human beings are animals, you don't do that to them. There are only so many species of animals that you can do that to, and there are other species that are generally pets in the west that do in fact have rights, and none of the above things are allowed, including sex with them. It is my understanding that pets are the most commonly abused in this way, not "live stock". I do agree that rape isn't as bad as killing. I am however against both.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Karakuri
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 12/06/07 - 04:29 AM:	#117
Wosret wrote: We are animals. Sex with a human is sex with an animal... Obviously. But as the title of this thread suggests the word "animal" here is used to mean non-human animals. Wosret wrote: We What you say, Karakuri, is a total non-issue. No body argues whether rapists are actual attracted to women or just sick. They are forcing non-consentual sex onto another being. What I meant, is that for a normal person having sex and raping someone are two COMPLETELY different things. But if you are a zoophile, then acting on your desires automatically makes you a sicko and a rapist, regardless of your intent, or how well you know the animal, or how hard you tried to ensure that you were not forcing them into it. I was thinking of their rights to have the freedoms that normal human beings have, as well as the animals' rights to safety. Sorry if that was off-topic. Wosret wrote: Of course the worst part is that unless the sex is for the purpose of reproduction it is simply glorified masturbation. Homosexuality is also glorified masturbation, only it hurts no one. If someone needs to suffer so that you can have a musle and chemical response than you are a sick individual. Apathetic at best, sadistic at worst. How can two consenting men having sex be masturbation any more than a man and woman using contraception? Unless you're calling that masturbation too. In any case I agree that if sex with animals was made legal the suffering of animals would heavily outweigh the human suffering that can be relieved, because of the people who would knowingly abuse them. I'm not saying it should be made legal. Wosret wrote: I'm attracted to women, but I don't go out and rape them, nor do I take advantage of intoxicated or unconscious women. Someone who is not in a position to object. That is what zoophilia is, taking advantage of a sentient being who is not in a position to object. In most of these cases you are their guardian. You are suppose to protect them from harm, not administer harm for your own selfish gratification. What you would or wouldn't do to women is irrelevant because your options are completely different. You can just wait till they CAN give consent. And it's quite obvious when they don't, meaning you would have to be very sick to make the conscious decision to rape one. What panark was talking about pales in comparison with what happens regularly to women. Wosret wrote: Get a rubber vigina and stick it in a stuffed animal, don't harm things so you can get off. Well, I agree with that. Edited by Karakuri on 12/06/07 - 04:44 AM

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 12/06/07 - 04:48 AM:	#118
Karakuri wrote: Obviously. But as the title of this thread suggests the word "animal" here is used to mean non-human animals. Don't care, that simple makes the title inaccurate. I will not suffer inaccurate terms because of the OP's mistakes. Karakuri wrote: What I meant, is that for a normal person having sex and raping someone are two COMPLETELY different things. But if you are a zoophile, then acting on your desires automatically makes you a sicko and a rapist, regardless of your intent, or how well you know the animal, or how hard you tried to ensure that you were not forcing them into it. I was thinking of their rights to have the freedoms that normal human beings have, as well as the animals' rights to safety. Sorry if that was off-topic. It is enough to know that consent was not given to constitute rape under the law. You need not force yourself on anyone, if consent was never given than it constitutes rape. They need not say no. This was introduced to counter date rape, involving drugings or taking advantage of overly-intoxicated people. It doesn't matter how careful you are, the fact remains that under normal conditions species tend to only attempt to mate with members of their on species. Especially females of a species. A bet constitutes an unethical relationship for more reasons than they are another species. They consitute a unethical relationship for all the possible reasons a relationship could be unethical between humans. Unequal power distrabution, one party is in a position to tage advantage of the other, while the other is not in a position to object. One party is the other party's guradian/care-giver, and consent cannot be equired, they are not intellectually capable of responsible entering into such a relationship. All of these reasons are more than enough to make sex between two humans unethical. Them being another speices is a non-issue to me. These are the problems I have. If there were other species that were intellectual equal, or at least within a range to be intellectually responsible, independent, and could offer consent. Then I would have no problem at all with that, in fact if I found them attractive I would likely pursue such a relationship myself. Karakuri wrote: How can two consenting men having sex be masturbation any more than a man and woman using contraception? Unless you're calling that masturbation too. In any case I agree that if sex with animals was made legal the suffering of animals would heavily outweigh the human suffering can be relieved. I'm not saying it should be made legal. I never stated that it was anymore so. Because it isn't. You missed the point completely, my point was not that it is glorified masturbation and some-how therefore bad. Not at all. I was not pointing out that it serves no greater purpose than masturbation, only a sentient being must suffer for your (speaking generally) glorified-masturbation. This is not acceptable. Karakuri wrote: What you would or wouldn't do to women is irrelevant because your options are completely different. You can just wait till they CAN give consent. And it's quite obvious when they don't, meaning you would have to be very sick to make the conscious decision to rape one. You again completely miss my point. I said that I would never rape a women, and it is a horrible crime, it doesn't matter that if I got one to consent I could fullfil my sexual desires. My point was that my glorified masturbation is never worth someone else's pain. I would never, if I lived to be ten million rape a women even if I could never get laid otherwise. I'd just keep on masturbating, and would be the worlds oldest and longest subscriber to internet porn. The point isn't that it is possible for me to have sex with a woman with consent, the point is that if I could never aquire consent, that would never ever make sex without consent ok.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

panark
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 12/06/07 - 03:03 PM: Subject: How can animals consent?	#119
I think this topic has narrowed from the over all sense of "why is it wrong to have sex with animals" to "can animals consent to sex". This could be good but I want to clarify a few things about both questions from my opinion and research. The other part to why is it wrong is health issues. From my research all over the net, feel free to challenge anything and I will find a source. I have learned that sex with most mammies can be physically done as long as you can insert two fingers all the way without signs of discomfort to the animal. I found this information to be true for Dogs, most livestock, horses and dolphins. This is for making penetration. For females, pretty much anything goes as long as she is willing because the ball is in her court, or near it anyway. As far as pregnancy, the only two animals of different species that can mate to my knowledge, and produce offspring, are a female horse and a male ox to make a mule. Every other species, including humans and dogs, horses, sheep, llamas, and dolphins do not have mixing DNA. STD's are not an issue except for bacterial infections that can spread to other species. If the animal is yours and they are not having sex with other dogs, you should be fine, although a yeast infection could still be possible. These things said, the new question for the moment until someone opens it up again is "How can animals consent to sex?" There are many different ways to tell. It is very similar to if you have a girlfriend and you want to have sex with her. If she did not say anything in words, she could still tell you very clearly that she doesn't want it. She could also tell you just as clearly that she does. This is the same of animals. I will speak specifically of dogs because they are my area of expertise, but the same applies in other animals as well, but with other forms of communication sometimes. A male dog will lick you if he is interested, but him licking doesn't necessarily mean he is interested. If he is interested and presented with an oppertunity, he will mount if he feels comfortable and is not afraid you will scold him for it. A female dog will do many things such as flagging, or raising the tail and presenting her stuff; Licking; or soliciting, or rubbing her genitals against you. She will also be very excited and when you do something she likes she may shake or vibrate. If she is not into it, she may whine or protest in other ways, she may try to leave or as the very least have her tail between her legs. She may roll over and act submissive or sometimes be aggressive and bite. In any of these situations, think clearly about what you are doing and try to interpret things for yourself. You know your dog best, you are the best judge as long as you keep your sex drive out of it. Anything you do, do for her. This applies to both in season and out of season bitches as well as spayed, it is strongly advised to have your first time be while she is in heat and take it slow the first time she is not. You will need a water based lubricant such as KY or spit if she is off season or spayed. This sums up the how in my opinion, any arguments against?

Karakuri
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 12/07/07 - 06:53 AM:	#120
Wosret, I never said sex without consent was ok. Like panark said it comes down to whether or not animals CAN give consent. Everyone's just assuming they can't. If you hate inaccurate words so much, stop calling non-reproductive sex between two people(/a person and a non-human animal) masturbation. You are not necessarily having sex with someone for the sole purpose of stimulating yourself. Edited by Karakuri on 12/07/07 - 06:59 AM

Page: First 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.