Gurdur

Wrong.
No matter on what basis the ethics against bestiality are, enough people care so that it is forbidden in most economically-advanced democratic countries - including under animal protection acts.

MrLoverLover

(1) I simply think you're missing the point concerning homosexuality. I did not say or imply that i think it digusting/repulsive. I mean,why would i have homosexual friends if i thought it was THAT repulsive? I sure wouldn't be friends with someone who rapes women, and i do find that repulsive, and i wouldn't be friends with someone who humps cows out in back of the farm. Like I said, I simply don't care what homosexuals, or any consenting adults (beings) do, so long as they're not humping away on the street when i walk past (and you can be quite sure they are consenting or know what it means to consent). No offense, but i really don't care if what i say offends you. I have already said I don't care what homosexuals do BECAUSE homosexual individuals can consent. I find rape, humping children, and humping animals abhorrent because they can't consent to those actions. If a cow suddenly looked up at you and say "take me you bastard" i really wouldn't care what you do. I can say I do find something rather odd and disgusting about wanting to stick a penis up a hole that shoots waste out, but if a guy wants it then be my guest. (In addition, necrophilia and pedophile are different because one is DEAD obviously, so your analogy fails for that reason. A dead person obviously can't consent. Also, it's quite easy to have a healthy relationship with your dog, cat, or horse, so i think you would be wrong to say that the difference lies in that.)

(2) I only date beautiful and smart women, and none of them are covered with fur (in any sense of the word--i would never date someone who even wears a fur coat.

(3) It may well be that people don't CARE about drawing the line at consent, but in such a situation i don't see why i should draw a line at humping a baby or raping a woman then. After all, if we lessen the line of consent then why should i care if a woman/baby/animal doesn't consent with me to have sex?

(4) It seems to me a large part concerning homosexuality and beastiality, or any type of act, sexual or not, centers on what we CARE about, which very often has nothing to do with reason, or at least can be justified by reason. I may say that if i walked by two rooms and in one room i saw a man humping a cow and in another i saw a man humping another man, that the man humping the cow would gross me out more than the man humping the man. Can i lay out x, y, and z reasons why the man humping the cow is grosser than the man humping the man? Perhaps not. Other than consent i don't see anything to justify such a position, but I don't think just due to a lack of reasons that i should say "well, okay, go hump the cows." There is just SOMETHING that seems so repulsive and gross about it, as i'm sure the great majority of people would agree with, and my intuition leads me to think there is something more wrong with humping a cow than right with it, although admittedly my intuition may be wrong, based on how i was raised, etc.

(5) My point concerning nature makes sense if you only take, as i did, what is natural to refer to behavior that spread genes, which oral sex and anal sex wouldn't do, although oral sex could maybe lead to spreading your genes. I agree "nature" is a vague and usually misleading word, but meant in the context of this discussion only to mean behavior leading to the perpetuation of the species, which oral or anal or beastiality would not do, and thus they would all be unnatural. That seems to just follow if you take "natural" to be the sense that i used it. My point, as I said, was just to point out if we don't draw the line at homosexual sex, oral sex, or other animal sex, WHERE do you we draw the line, if we draw a line at all?

(6) For those who brought up consent, as if I didn't argue you that, you may want to just reread what write, since my whole point, or argument, of why beastiality is wrong was based on consent.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: MrLoverLover ]

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: MrLoverLover ]</p>

tronvillain

Gurdur, I'm just saying that it seems unlikely to be forbidden because of lack of consent.

Nickolaus

Helen wrote:
I think there's a distinction to be made between the pain involved in various sexual practices, and generalized pain. To some degree, which largely depends on the individual, limited pain can be used to increase excitement.

Anytime we experience pain or fear or sexual desire, the body "activates" in an almost identical way, the heart rate increases, adrenalin starts flowing, etc.

Once the body is activated, the brain interprets the current circumstances and initiates an emotional reaction. If the circumstances are sexual and the person feels safe with their partner, the pain or fear can be channeled into sexual excitement.

This is known as the Schachter-Singer hypothesis, and seems to bear out in experiment. Of course, if the pain goes too far, or if the person does not trust their partner, the brain is forced to assume that fear is the most appropriate response, so it's not something that would justify any non-consensual practices.

Feel free to let me know if my psychology is out of date.

Other practices discussed in this thread could have their roots in similar phenomena, but I'm not sure I can say that they are all moral, since many things, especially scatology can lead to disease and such. It's probably not all that healthy mentally either. Kind of like suicide, it really doesn't impinge on me, but I'd definitely want to get such a person some help.

Ales

Jane Bovary:
I have an information that girls that have sex with dogs use no force, I believe the details are not suitable for this forum, because it is a criminal offence. I think there is a scarcity of scientific findings on this matter.

To Jailet:

Your mentioning of coprophagy seems to be irrelevant, since coprophagy appears almost exclusively as a concomittant to a psychotic disorder. Besides, I don't find it immoral, I find it disgusting.

ju'iblex

thats just plain pedantic, it was just an example to exaggerate my point. my point being, it is impossible to draw a link between something so disparate as bestiality and homosexuality, which is why you shouldnt have even bothered to come up with it.

and why exactly does my analogy fail? you said it yourself, in one case the partner cannot consent. and as you yourself have said, the animal cannot consent either.

im personally not concerned with who you go to bed with. and i dont care if you exhibit overt signs of bigotry. all im saying is that the subjects of homosexuality and bestiality are completely unrelated so there is not point in continuing that particular train of thought.

Jane Bovary

Xayide,
Haha..okay...they're not sexually innocent, but they are mentally at a, shall we say, "disadvantage", when it comes to making reasonable decisions about sex...I would have thought so anyway!

I'll qualify my assertion with this: I think bestiality is immoral if we are just using them as objects of gratification, without thought or consideration for the animal.

Under certain, and I imagine, rare conditions, you are right...it is not necessarily immoral.


And since the vast majority of people seem to find sex with animals repugnant anyway, there's probably no need to open up a budgie rape crisis centre yet...

HelenM

Oh, I absolutely would!

Ted Hoffman

jaliet
Padeophiles enjoy having sex with children for the same reasons.

Singledad Please forgive me if I was misleading. I was responding to the idea that People engage in anal sex because it is pleasurable. I meant to say its a weak argument (we do because we love it) because padeophiles can use the same argument to justify their actions. So we need a better argument to justify anal sex. Not just pleasure.
Consent fails when you look at doomsday cults. Or necrophagy (since we are looking at the means people choose to satisfy sexual desires) In doomsday cults Adults consenting to take cyanide...In necrophagy, an adult squatting with the mouth wide open to receive fresh and warm turd. It is not enough to say an action is okay because the person doing it is a consenting adult.

quote:
What about using our organs for the right use?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, whether evolution is or is not nonteleological is debatable (unless you want to post us some links supporting this claim).
Secondly, you claim that there is no objective definition of "right use" of any organ.
Lets use the eye as an example. Do you disagree when I say that the right use of the eye is sight only - and not chewing or typing?
What would you do if you found someone trying to drink cofee using their eye? Wouldn't you tell then to use their mouth?
It will be easy at this point for you to say that I am using an absurd example, but believe me, many people aslo fing it absurd to insert the penis into an organ of excretion.

Doesnt what is "natural" matter any more?
First of all, I ate processed food, not manufactured food. Secondly, I dont even know how to drive an automobile, leave alone own one. So, who is making arbitrary statements?

Sexual pleasure first! yeah right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not? This issue is not at all obvious as your comment polemically and nonrationally implies. Why shouldn't seek out and fulfill my desire for sexual pleasure, so long as I do not violate the consent of a human being?
You must also not disgust other right-thinking human beings in the process.

MrLoverLover

juiblex: You're just missing the point. The point was, again, that if one does not draw the line at anal sex, beastiality, etc., then WHERE does one draw the line, and hence the movement from humping other men to humping cows. The answer that was put forth, by others and myself, was to draw the line at consenting, but some didn't see consenting really as a problem, so hence the question of where to draw the line. It's also not hard to tell the differences between a man/woman/other species (nor is it the point), at least usually, but rather to tell the difference of what should be acceptable sexual conduct in society.
Also, you cut what I say and paste it without addressing the line of thought it came from. I have already said in discussions with my gay friends that they haven't had any good reason for drawing the line at anal sex but not beastiality, and like i said, if one is going to argue, as homosexuals often do, that sex isn't just about having kids, it's not "unnatural", etc., then it would seem to me they would have to be okay with beastiality, unless they can give some good reason concerning the difference. I think your anger comes more from you view homosexuality as right/okay and you view beastiality as wrong, and perhaps you are like the many people you get mad at for being bigots (or who you may label bigots.) If we could know with somewhat certainty (which is seems to me someone could argue so i'm surprised they haven't yet) that an animal IS consenting to having sex with you, then I don't see all that much difference between having sex with a man or another species.