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?

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/22/07 - 09:02 AM: Subject: Why is it "Wrong" to Have Sex with Animals?	#1
Read this OP before replying! I would like to input my views on a very touchy subject which doesn't get very much light, and would likely be met with hot opposition with not necessarily well-thought out reasons. It is necessary that the reader of this essay does not simply disregard the entire argument as a sick protest to raise uproar and make a disgusting practice legal; rather, it’s a plea to help raise awareness for a not-so-common subject which is ignored and mistreated. The subject is bestiality/zoosexuality, and it is regarded by even the ASPCA as 'animal abuse' (it's not a universal view, however, as PETA disagrees). I would like to state otherwise. Here, I use the ASPCA as an example of the prejudice towards the notably small number of zoophiles via their own mission statements. The relevant section is found at this page: http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_bestiality They say "The ASPCA believes that any sexual contact between humans and animals for the sexual gratification of any person is animal exploitation, regardless of the human perpetrators’ beliefs or intentions." This, if the public's opinions were actually tested, would likely be the most advanced response against said actions. Note, though, how little sense this really makes: exploit is defined as "to make use of ` meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage or profit" according to the most relevant definition 'b' of Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Exploitation= "the act of using `..." This argument implies meanness and injustice and proceeds to say 'regardless of the intentions’! Of course, that's merely an example; I'm not trying to impose views on the ASPCA's credibility. What matters is that people often look at bestiality as a means of mere sexual gratification, rather than an act of love. Actually, it can be either. Regardless of whether animals can return love, the majority of views is that humans can care about an animal. When the care is extremely deep, as in the case of zoosexuals, the two beings (human and non-human) may perform the act of "bestiality", or cross-species sex. Reactions range from nonchalance, to outrage, to violence (as in the case of Philip Buble of Maine, victim of hate-crime by his own father). The latter two are based on the implication that animals can't consent, which automatically makes the act rape, and morally bad. So, how sensible are these implications? First of all, the act itself is quite simple: one or both participants feel orgasm, which is a good feeling, and; both participants strengthen their bonds. Abuse is an implication made to cover up feelings of disgust, not reasonable objection. It happens, but is not necessarily the case. When the animal makes the approach, it is obvious that the animal wants to go through. When the human makes the approach, they can easily determine whether he or she wants to have sex. Uncomfortable sounds or attempts of escape obviously denote unwillingness. Blindness to such actions as well as restraining the animal in question are obviously abuse, but if the animal shows no such signals and instead shows enthusiasm and willingness, abuse seems ridiculous to impose. Now I will address the possible aspects of risk or danger. If the human animal and non-human animal are physically incompatible, injury may arise. While STI's are species specific, and AIDS is thought to have arisen from blood contact between primates and humans, zoonoses can possibly arise from unprotected sex. Finally, there’s the question that animals may be psychologically/emotionally damaged. It should be noted that there’s virtually no scientific evidence on the matter. Therefore, the following reasoning can only be derived from other aspects of animal behavior and logic, but not hard facts and citable sources: The first two factors are capable of being prevented by the slightest intelligence (research on the subject wouldn’t hurt, either) and proper hygiene practices, respectively. The third aspect, however, is more disputable. It seems sensible to say that most evidence supports the argument that animals that could be partners of a human in bestiality enjoy intercourse. So, it’s logical to say that the sexual aspect itself wouldn’t be a psychological sword. It’s more arguable that only if the encounter was beyond simple sexual intercourse, and reached rape—which is to say that the animal is not allowed to escape or insufficient effort is made by the human to ensure that the act is mutual before proceeding—it is a likely possibility that the creature would be emotionally scarred, just as with human rape victims, if not to such an extent. As for the consent issue on a whole, it is ludicrous to impose human morals upon other species, as they most likely do not care in the least. Is it necessary to require that other animals give verbal consent to a human for them to be able to mate? What becomes the purpose of consent when no children can arise from an instance of bestiality, from which no STD’s can spread, and from which no diseases invisibly sprout up? It’s unreasonable to hold the same standards with animals and with humans, because the situation is different in too many ways. Please, take a minute and think this argument over thoroughly and carefully, so as not to dismiss it without finding its merit. Keep an open mind with this commonly pushed aside topic, and look at the facts of it. Release any preconceived opinions and take a step towards a peaceful, diverse, and accepting planet. ~Reasons why it's ethically wrong are encouraged, as long as posters of such wait for a reply... ~Additions to the argument are also encouraged, as long as they're explained.

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 08/22/07 - 11:34 AM:	#2
I don't think it can be determined as either right or wrong at this point in time, regarding the premature conclusiveness of the ASPCA, as well as opponents of the ethical dilema. So I won't comment on the ethical implications. (Although I'm leaning towards "not so great of an idea.") There is no way of knowing from indisputable evidence whether or not an animal is giving consent for a sexual realtionship. Perhaps the animal is just showing "consent" because it wants the treat afterwards, or any number of outrageous reasons, that would have no merit whatsoever in my mind. (or the mind of anyone rational, I think.) Regardless of rightness or wrongness, I think it is absolutely-fuckin-dispicable. A dog, for example, (generally speaking) is an ultra-submisive creature, that seems to show (debatably) an exceptionally high degree of admiration for it's owner, or feeder. Given the dog can show consent with indisputable evidence (which it can't), it does not have the plethora of choices between sexual partners that an *adult* human might have. This forms a frieghtening affinity with pedophelia in my opinion. Ruff-Ruff cypress
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 08/22/07 - 04:19 PM:	#3
Um, do you have a dog? I'm quite sure my dog is not submissive. She wants to bark? She barks. She wants to dig her head into the trash can? She's gonna. That point, I would say, is not realistic or even true. Being submissive does not mean that they're going to show enthusiasm towards sex, either, and as sex is mutual (unlike masturbating) act, Do you know what despicable means? It means "meriting hatred", which means you think it is wrong to some extent, so you just contradicted yourself, or are hoping we assume you're using right and wrong in the ethical sense, then proceeding to the subject of the act's morality. Criticization is not my aim, here, though... just thought I'd help you with your discussion skills (which I mean in all seriousness and kind-heartedness). If they feel admiration, why not let them express such? I'm actually asking for a reason why it would be a negative thing, not just asking a rhetorical qeustion. Paedophilia leads to unfortunate and negative outcomes, generally speaking, so it's not a thing that should be encouraged. It actually proves to be physically and emotionally harmful, which I have not heard documented in results of bestiality.

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 08/22/07 - 05:15 PM:	#4
OpokepianistO wrote: Um, do you have a dog? I'm quite sure my dog is not submissive. She wants to bark? She barks. She wants to dig her head into the trash can? She's gonna. That point, I would say, is not realistic or even true. Being submissive does not mean that they're going to show enthusiasm towards sex, either, and as sex is mutual (unlike masturbating) act, It seems as though your logistic faculties are being swathed in your unusually potent emotions. Certainty is a disposition, and not a logical proposition of truth. And your evidence is pitiful. Psychoanalize your dog for me. That's the best you can do, and it's dogmatic bullshit. OpokepianistO wrote: Do you know what despicable means? It means "meriting hatred", which means you think it is wrong to some extent, so you just contradicted yourself, or are hoping we assume you're using right and wrong in the ethical sense, then proceeding to the subject of the act's morality. Criticization is not my aim, here, though... just thought I'd help you with your discussion skills (which I mean in all seriousness and kind-heartedness). Dude, check the language threads, you may learn a thing or two about it. Here's an excerpt: Language, specifically in printed form, seems to be sufficient in serving it's function; which is to communicate concepts. Absolute precision in communication (e.g. words) is an impossibility because of the variations inclusive in word interpretation. With a sufficient elucidation upon concepts, the essential constituents of those concepts will possibly be understood. Regarding epistemological error, (e.g. incapable of complete knowledge) there appears to me, to be a process of information entropy beginning at the very roots of epistemology. The process of navigating the real, through a faith in the a-priori correspondence, is, in my opinion, the essential root of subjectivity (e.g. conceptual variation): If, indeed, epistemology informs psychology. The essentials derived from empirical evidence, or pure reasoning, are tossed back into print, creating another epistemic scenario. The "replication", or "conversations" of epistemic scenarios create a type of essentialist information entropy, I think, because of the previously mentioned epistemological error. From your's truly. (with just "dispicable" communication skills.) OpokepianistO wrote: If they feel admiration, why not let them express such? I'm actually asking for a reason why it would be a negative thing, not just asking a rhetorical qeustion. Paedophilia leads to unfortunate and negative outcomes, generally speaking, so it's not a thing that should be encouraged. It actually proves to be physically and emotionally harmful, which I have not heard documented in results of bestiality. Dude, look, go fuck your dog for all I care. You win. Extrapolate your ideology and incarnate it in everyone. Then everyone on the whole planet will be sexually satisfied by their pet. The thing is, *you think it's Right* because of insufficient evidence.** Therefore you might be doing something harmful, which is something I despise.
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

Chato
Professor

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

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 502

Posted 08/25/07 - 09:07 AM: Subject: Not with my dog... :D	#5
Why would a dog (cow, pig, etc) want to have sex with a human? Let's take dogs. They can only have sex twice a year. At any other time, having sex would be physically painful. Same for other creatures... So this entire discussion boils down to a more enjoyable way to masturbate. Well, masturbation is fun. I hope that people enjoy their masturbation. I do. On the other hand I don't spend long hours rationalising my pleasure at the expense of my dog. The entire question of "consent" is simply lifting your masturbation to a "philisophical" level where one can justify the desire, with intellectual overtones. The real and only question here is should such activity with animals be considered a crime? It's almost always abuse of a sort, but does it rise to the level of a crime? You mess with my dog, and it's a crime. You mess with anyone elses but YOUR dog and it's certainly a crime. And since dogs, as I point out, cannot even have sex without pain, except for a short time during the year, then it would seem to be abuse even on a theoretical level. Should someone be thrown into jail for life? I don't think so. But you try to screw my dog, and your life will be endangered, and I could probably beat the penalty... Dave
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times."

blue_eagle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 08/25/07 - 11:39 AM:	#6
If I were in a position where someone tried to force me, point a gun at me and say: **** it or die, I would choose DIE! How could anyone conceive such an insane thing!!! I heard HIV may have started in Africa when people had sex with monkeys. How can someone have a pet and then have sex with it??? How can someone have a pet to have sex with it??? It is outright shameful, disgusting, you name it, pet or no pet. Get yourself a nice plastic woman or dildo if sick clips are not enough.

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 08/31/07 - 05:31 AM:	#7
It's been a while since you posted. Maybe you care to retry, as you obviously failed? CypressMoon wrote: It seems as though your logistic faculties are being swathed in your unusually potent emotions. Certainty is a disposition, and not a logical proposition of truth. And your evidence is pitiful. Psychoanalize your dog for me. That's the best you can do, and it's dogmatic bullshit. Dude, check the language threads, you may learn a thing or two about it. Here's an excerpt: Language, specifically in printed form, seems to be sufficient in serving it's function; which is to communicate concepts. Absolute precision in communication (e.g. words) is an impossibility because of the variations inclusive in word interpretation. With a sufficient elucidation upon concepts, the essential constituents of those concepts will possibly be understood. Regarding epistemological error, (e.g. incapable of complete knowledge) there appears to me, to be a process of information entropy beginning at the very roots of epistemology. The process of navigating the real, through a faith in the a-priori correspondence, is, in my opinion, the essential root of subjectivity (e.g. conceptual variation): If, indeed, epistemology informs psychology. The essentials derived from empirical evidence, or pure reasoning, are tossed back into print, creating another epistemic scenario. The "replication", or "conversations" of epistemic scenarios create a type of essentialist information entropy, I think, because of the previously mentioned epistemological error. From your's truly. (with just "dispicable" communication skills.) Dude, look, go fuck your dog for all I care. You win. Extrapolate your ideology and incarnate it in everyone. Then everyone on the whole planet will be sexually satisfied by their pet. The thing is, *you think it's Right* because of insufficient evidence.** Therefore you might be doing something harmful, which is something I despise. You can't prove that a human consents to sex, either, so your argument is totally moot. You're arbitrarily drawing a line between degrees of certainty, saying that bestiality is despicable (the act itself is worthy of hatred), whereas sex between humans is just dandy. Please tell me where this line in the grey is drawn, and why you draw it there. You are also arbitrarily requiring consent which may not be necessary. That's a moral assertion, which is good for you to hold with your personal views, but when you go and call people's lifestyles inherently bad enough to deserve despise, you have to have reasons or recant, or else you're annoying and out of line. What is required from sex with other species and why? I'm going to adress more in my next post, likely to Chato.

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 08/31/07 - 05:54 AM: Subject: ORLY?	#8
Chato wrote: Why would a dog (cow, pig, etc) want to have sex with a human? Why would they want to have sex with their own species? I say: because they do not differentiate between animals, per se; they have sexual urges, and if something relieves those urges, they don't attempt using rationality and think "Wait, I don't have the same number of chromosomes as this creature!" Chato wrote: Let's take dogs. They can only have sex twice a year. At any other time, having sex would be physically painful. Same for other creatures... Really? I haven't taken biology yet( ), so could you cite a source that I could look into? Your argument relies on the pain you state exists for most, but NOT ALL of the year. What about the two times they can have sex? (which is majorly oversimplified) Chato wrote: So this entire discussion boils down to a more enjoyable way to masturbate. Well, masturbation is fun. I hope that people enjoy their masturbation. I do. On the other hand I don't spend long hours rationalising my pleasure at the expense of my dog. Expense? You also imply that zoophiles do not care about their companions. That's blatantly wrong, both by the definition of the term and relative to reality. Chato wrote: The entire question of "consent" is simply lifting your masturbation to a "philisophical" level where one can justify the desire, with intellectual overtones. You're flipping it-consent is called as a requirement to people partaking in zoosexual relations. Consent is not logically necessary when dealing with mutually pleasureful bestiality. Before you start to disagree, list the reasons why we require consent in the first place. Chato wrote: The real and only question here is should such activity with animals be considered a crime? It's almost always abuse of a sort, but does it rise to the level of a crime? You mess with my dog, and it's a crime. You mess with anyone elses but YOUR dog and it's certainly a crime. I'll address this when you reasonably disprove my points... Chato wrote: And since dogs, as I point out, cannot even have sex without pain, except for a short time during the year, then it would seem to be abuse even on a theoretical level. (An English teacher would cringe at using 'and' at the beginning of a sentence... XDx3) Not during that "short time", so what about then? The times when they feel pain and the times when they feel pleasure do not have any relationship or correlation in this circumstance. Chato wrote: Should someone be thrown into jail for life? I don't think so. But you try to screw my dog, and your life will be endangered, and I could probably beat the penalty... Dave I like how you care about your dog, but I think you're muddling taboo with shorthand rationalization and your emotions.

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 08/31/07 - 05:59 AM:	#9
blue_eagle wrote: If I were in a position where someone tried to force me, point a gun at me and say: **** it or die, I would choose DIE! How could anyone conceive such an insane thing!!! I heard HIV may have started in Africa when people had sex with monkeys. How can someone have a pet and then have sex with it??? How can someone have a pet to have sex with it??? It is outright shameful, disgusting, you name it, pet or no pet. Get yourself a nice plastic woman or dildo if sick clips are not enough. This is an unphilosophical rant, thus it is inappropriate for a philosophy based forum site. Please refrain from using such insulting prose on public forums. "I heard that bumblebees break the laws of physics!" You know what that's called? An urban legend. That attempted argument is untrue, but you were right, at least, in connecting HIV to monkeys in Africa. Blood contact caused it.

blue_eagle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 08/31/07 - 06:48 AM:	#10
OpokepianistO wrote: This is an unphilosophical rant, thus it is inappropriate for a philosophy based forum site. Please refrain from using such insulting prose on public forums. "I heard that bumblebees break the laws of physics!" You know what that's called? An urban legend. That attempted argument is untrue, but you were right, at least, in connecting HIV to monkeys in Africa. Blood contact caused it. Actually, that wasn't an insult. It's my OPINION, shouting that the whole matter is out of a bad horror movie. You want a reasoning response? The point of sex lies between two members of the same species which are of the opposite sex. Anything short of that regarding sex is profoundly an abberation, considdering that sex is an important aspect of any being's life.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

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