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?

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

ILM
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 01/11/08 - 09:00 PM:	#131
My sentiments exactly "Ratfather"... that is what Dr. Miletski was making a point of when she basically said the same thing in the documentary. It is interesting that humans do not have need for consent to do those things with animals but to have sex, they require it... even demand it, and then say it is immoral, indecent, sick, demented, depraved, and even deviant. Humans have a "Double-standard" and a "Reversed Idealization" when it comes to such subjects. Look at the way society brutally rejected homosexuals in the 60's and 70's... yet just two millennia earlier, the Greeks where flaunting it openly with pride. Today we can still see and hear prejudices and bigotry when dealing with interracialism, homosexuality, interspecies relations, and many other aspects of an otherwise (ahem) "normal society". The Romans used bestiality as a form of "Circus" event and even as a form of punishment (e.g., large animal with a small human in order to cause injury or even death to the human, usually while the human was tied up or in other ways, forced). It can even be seen in great works of art and in stone carvings of temples, shrines, altars, and buildings. It is referenced in television, movies, art, and music. It has been around for longer than anyone can even estimate so there must be much more to it than simply saying it is a sickness, perversity, or disorder because there aren't just a few... there are thousands... which has lead to the re-evaluation of the subject by many psychologists who are now coming to the idea that it very well may be an actual natural sexual orientation. The definitive definition of zoophilia has nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality, rather it is the unsurpassed, uninhibited, emotional love and attraction to non-human animal species. This can be in many forms and yes, often leads to a crossing of "Human-Placed" boundaries. There is a great deal of controversy over the terms "bestiality" and "zoophilia" and usually, most humans tend to link them or combine them to mean the same thing, thanks to certain early psychologists who only assumed that it was a disorder due to the manner in which the data was gathered and from whom. To date, much of the earlier research has been disproved and disregarded and new research is shedding more of a light of truth. Ah but alas, the need for "In Control" always rears its ugly head and tries to dictate to others what is right and wrong, even when the dictation itself could be flawed and totally incorrect. Edited by ILM on 01/11/08 - 10:15 PM

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/24/08 - 08:07 PM:	#132
oracle13 wrote: Firstly, I'd like to just say that the act of a man having sex with a dog, or any cross-species combination, disgusts me. This is not meant to be offensive. Many people are disgusted by homosexuals, but its not 'wrong' in our society. I'm quite aware that my disgust does not make it 'wrong.' OK. oracle13 wrote: Secondly, I'd also like to acknowledge that it is very difficult to say whether or not dogs, or any other animal, can give consent in a form that is ethically acceptable. I have read and understood all of panarks assertions, as well as those of the topic originator. I find that, yes, in a very superficial sense, animals can 'consent,' ie: they want to have sex with you. What other consent is needed? Parental permission? A parade? oracle13 wrote: My problem is this: how has society gotten to a point where humans can, almost freely, have sex with their pets. The answer to this question is domestication. Over the centuries dog breeders have tried to engender traits in their pets such as affection, respect for authority, lack of aggression, etc. This has led to what we call the 'unconditional love' our pet has for us. To use the word love is entirely misleading. What we should be questioning here, is whether we have the 'right' to domesticate animals. So, love doesn't matter in this situation, but the situation surrounding it does. OK, I'm totally lost, but go on. oracle13 wrote: Yes, in some senses, domestication of animals gives them constant food and constant shelter, and constant affection (one would hope). It also removes any kind of 'choice' that the pet has in how their lives will play out. Can animals like dogs choose? If yes, then our domestication is unethical because it blocks their ability to choose what may, for them, be a more enjoyable and fulfilling life. If not, then how can they 'choose' to consent? Does consent have to be a 'choice,' or can it be instinctive? No, I would argue that it can't, and shouldn't, be based on instinct. Imagine a woman locked up in a room all her life. She is given constant food and is fully healthy. She suffers from a learning difficulty and can't speak any form of intelligible language, other than to ask for more food or water. One day, her captor comes into the room, and gets naked. The woman becomes very aroused, and they begin to have sex. What's wrong with instinct? That's my first question. Second up: What makes a life running around in a pint-sized stretch of natural habitat (whatever's left after the shopping centers come marching in), having to fend for theirselves in the snow and in lightning storms, risking their lives everyday, and not having anybody to care for them better and more fulfilling life than having food and water given to you at no cost, being given the opportunity to mate whenever they want, and having a climate-controlled roof over your head? oracle13 wrote: This thought experiment is useful, I think, for several reasons. Firstly, our initial response is that the sex between the woman and her captor is not wrong, because it gives her pleasure that has been so horrendously denied all her life. Our first instinct is to condemn the act of captivity. But surely, anything result of such a captivity must necessarily be completely, and utterly, wrong, if the captivity itself is wrong. The only right action can be to let this woman free. But if she can't 'choose,' or doesn't have the intellectual capacity to make for herself a great life, is it wrong to let her 'choose' what to do? So, dogs are never allowed outside of little rooms? You've hyperbolized the argument by abstracting the woman from her would-be habitat, which would, in fact, be remotely more fulfilling than the one she is in. Again, refer to question two. Third question: If we were to determine that animal testing was wrong, should we throw out every single bit of information that was gathered through animal testing? I mean, the information itself is wrong because it came from something bad, right? My main problem is with the issue of consent. Is the consentual sex between a female hostage and her male abductor ethically right? I'm not so sure. Don't confuse the sex with the captivity. You are not arguing that zoosexuality is wrong, but having pets. I mean, if you want to stop everybody from having pets... that's a whole 'nother argument.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 03/25/08 - 07:04 PM:	#133
We aren't allowed to have sex with animals without thier consent but we can nueter them, slaughter them and force them into cages without thier consent? It's clear humans do not feel the need to protect animals with human rights when the product is fat juicey steak, but when it comes to sex, because it's 'icky' and 'gross', all of a sudden animals have rights? Ultimately, anti-zoophiliacs are subjectively judgeing people with no basis or reasoning, because most logic points in favor of it. Sex with animals is likely illegal for the same reason anal sex used to be illegal, for the same reason homosex used to be illegal, for the same reason interracial sex used to be illegal, because it's 'icky'.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/25/08 - 07:11 PM:	#134
Inkstain wrote: Put simply, sex with animals is usually wrong simply because an animal can't tell you to stop. Are you a veggetarian? No, actually, are you a Vegan? An animal CAN tell you to stop, the animal itself can stop. Unless you have the animal physically tied down and restrained, if the animal doesn't want to have sex with you, it's not going to. In this aspect however, sex with animals can be okay, as long as the animal is doing you, not you doing the animal, because then it is the animal's choice, and the animal is able to stop (This kind of eliminates the chance of doing a female animal). So if the animal is doing you, it's not really wrong, it's just messed up. Same as above, as far as female animals go, she can simply move, bark at you, she might even bite you if she really doesn't want to have sex with you.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Page: First 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.