MrLoverLover

There is no way to know with certainty (or near certainty) that an animal is "consenting" to perform a sexual act, especially if you consider animals to lack rational choice (as most people do.) Thus, while you may be able to get a woman/man to consent to have sex with you without verbal communication, it doesn't necessarily mean they are consenting, but rather may seem to be consenting. One can obviously imagine a situation with a woman being on some type of drug where she just seems willing to get it on, yet later on it's considered rape since she was drugged, so i do not see how nonverbal consenting can be argued as a justification for humping a cow out in the woods, even if the cow seems willing and ready. Further, I can easily imagine a situation where a young girl or boy seems to consent to having sex, i.e. they smile and don't seem to fight back, yet it would be absurd to say that a 4 month old "consented" to having sex (and i think it would be rather odd for someone to argue that people who do such things--which they do--is acting morally if they say "well, nonverbally they let me know").
I would say beastiality is wrong for the same reason it is wrong to hump a little baby: they have no idea what it means to consent, and even if they show nonverbal signs of consenting there is no way to know that they really want to have sex, let alone with you. Plus, if an animal is in heat why don't you let it mate with it's own kind? Are you trying to cut back on goat populations?
However, since someone will show something wrong with that, i have been in discussions with gay/homosexual friends who i've asked the same question. Basically, where does one draw the line? Meaning, if it's okay for them to hump each other in the butt, why is it not okay for me to hump a cow? None of them knew why. However, I can't help but think most of the people in here are being insincere, although they can easily argue beastiality isn't moral. How many of you would honestly see nothing wrong or immoral if you were walking by a motel room and you saw a guy banging away with a goat? I personally think it's absolutely disgusting, and i think anyone who partakes of it is disgusting. How many men in here would actually go up to their wives and say "you know, I don't think anything is wrong with beastiality? How many women? But, whatever you think, stay away from my dog.

In addition, there are cultures in which being a pedophile is not in anyway immoral, nor do the children involved experience any known damage of some sort later on in life. In fact, it is common in at least one culture for young boys to have anal sex (the receivers) as a step into manhood (like getting part of your penis cut off.) The idea that we can't have sex with people under 18 (or usually a lot younger) is a social concept and if one is going to argue that beastiality isn't immoral, they would have to argue the same concerning people who hump babies. I think pedophiles are more moral than people doing beastiality activities, since at least being human you can most likely more readily identify with human behavior and human nonverbal communication (thus be luckier in your shot of them really wanting some or not denying the activity), which you can't do as easily with non-human animals. I am inclined to think i can understand the non-verbal gestures overall in the human species, since i am human, than i can understand non-human animals (although obviously if a tiger shows it's teeth and comes charging at me i'm not going to think it wants to play catch.)

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

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

ju'iblex

interesting MrLoverLover

you argue that bestiality is wrong and then relate it to homosexual sex.
i thus conclude that you think homosexual sex is wrong.
how you could possibly think that those two are in any way related is completely wrong, its like trying to link paedophilia with necrophilia. the only similarity being with those is that they are socially unacceptable (on a societal majority level), the differences start from there.

personally, i find that statement an attack on me. and i can see a difference between sex between same species couples and non-same. the difference is one is about love, and building a healthy relationship. beastiality is about satisfying a sexual need, (im not saying it is wrong to do it), not about finding someone who appreciates you and loves you for who you are and vice versa.

MrLoverLover

Among the homosexuals i know anal sex is considered okay, yet from a "natural" point of view, if we take sex to simply be to pass on genes, then anything other than that woud be unnatural, in the sense it doesn't lead to more kiddies running around, and thus oral sex, anal sex, etc. would be unnatural (although oral sex and obviously lead to the genes getting passed on eventually.) My point had nothing to do with homosexuality being "wrong", but rather if one does not draw the line at it being moral to bang someone up the butt, where do you draw the line? And THAT was the question i asked my homosexual friends, so you're wrong to think i think homosexual behavior is wrong. I simply don't care. Rather, again, my point was simply where does one draw the line, and i think if one thinks it's okay to be gay then it's hard to see why they can draw the line there and not at humping a goat. BUT, as i said, i do not think it is reasonable to get it on with something just because it seems they are consenting, such as the case of a young child. (Homosexuals obviously can consent.)

kwigibo

This 'unnatural' thing means nothing. Nature gives us examples of all this behaviour outside the human species. Homosexuality cannot be considered unnatural for instance, and i'm sure a lot of you know this already, because giraffes, dolphins, chimpanzees and many other animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, therefore how can we consider that unnatural. The same goes for bestiality, a dog having sex with a cat is a not uncommon phenomenon involving housepets, and that is just as much bestiality as a person having sex with a cat. I propose that the total absence of non-reproductive sexual behaviour is what would be unnatural. Nevertheless i still find bestiality repulsive.

P.S. to borry an idea from Richard Dawkins, would sex with, say, a neanderthal be considered bestiality by those here.

ju'iblex

what the hell do you mean???? (im sorry but this guy has really hit a nerve)

you MUST think homosexuality, in particular anal sex is revolting because i distinctly remember you saying you find bestiality repulsive, and you seem content enougvh to draw the link between homosexuality and bestiality.

hard to draw the line between two people and one person and a different species? very strange. see my last post on clarification on the difference there. last time i looked my girlfriend wasnt covered in fur and didnt make bleating noises.

kctan

His obviously did. So don't be too hard on him.

HelenM

Now 'e's 'avin' a go at the neanderthals!!!

Danielboy

Mrloverlover,

You said it yourself. Homosexuals can give consent. Animals and children can't. You drew the line yourself.

Basically it is all about consent. Because with consent, we logically infer that the parties involved are benefiting from the activity, to the best of their knowledge anyway.

Natural or not? Who is to say? Someone spoke of evolution and its objectives. Evolutionary aims are no longer the aims of the human animal. Humanity seemed to have acquired a consciousness that allows us to transcend the notion that procreation is the key issue.

So why do we do things? Simply because we enjoy it. We hardly do anything that is 'natural'.

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

tronvillain

A line may have been drawn, but it may not be significant. Do we humans care that animals can't give consent? Quite often I think that the answer is no.

HelenM

It might be an advantage to the initiator if a non-consenting partner isn't actually able to verbalize that