/r/Unexpected debates bestiality: "I still haven't heard a better argument against bestiality other than 'but it's icky'" & "People just need more" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
57 ups - 0 downs = 57 votes
190 comments submitted at 17:56:49 on Oct 20, 2014 by oneawesomeguy
>I didn't call this gif bestiality and the guy who did was obviously joking. I answered a question about why the guy above mentioned Denmark. That said, I'm amazed at how many people decided to defend a person's right to fuck their pets.
I love how bewildered he is by the bizarre drama that his comment spawned.
I object to bestiality because yes, it's "icky". Just like necrophilia, or eating your own poop.
I guess for all three, there are also hygiene reasons.
Eating shit is legal.
It's also a really good way to get infested with parasites
Rabbits eat their poo
Then it's a good thing we aren't rabbits!
i am not sure that eating your own fecal matter could infect you with parasites (unless you had some already of course!) but it could likely make you quite sick in some cases.
I was responding to the general 'eating shit is legal' thing, but I guess if you're really committed to autocorprophagy...
It is very interesting to note that while it's not illegal, it's frowned enough in society that if you're caught doing it in a remotely inappropriate setting, you're apt to be remanded to psych care for it.
And i'm not a fan, but i figure people should know all the facts and such.
I also object to it because it's icky. I think most people do. I just wish they'd admit it, rather than hiding behind the consent silliness.
Even in this thread you can see loads of people saying "animals can't consent!". We hunt them for sport, eat their flesh, and we can decorate our houses with their stuffed corpses. Stop pretending you give a shit about their sexual consent.
> We hunt them for sport, eat their flesh, and we can decorate our houses with their stuffed corpses.
This is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand and does not justify obvious animal cruelty in the form of sexual abuse.
No! Nobody ever objects to eating them, killing them for sport or decorating your house with them! Nobody! These are universally accepted activities! So nobody is allowed to oppose fucking them either!
Either every ethical issue connected to animals has to change overnight, or nothing can change ever. Just stop it with your slow paradigm shifts, you make me sick.
>you make me sick.
Damn, sounds like somebody has a hoof up their asshole.
Damn right I do. As long as rednecks and hipsters put dead squirrels on their mantle, I should be allowed a good hoofing without judgement.
Even if it were relevant, the argument still falls flat on its face. "Oh but these other people do 'bad' things. Why can't I do my bad thing?" Two wrongs don't make a right!
>we [violate their consent in various other ways]
Not all of us do. Many of the people making the consent argument are also vegetarians/vegans.
Thing is, nearly all animals CAN consent to human sexual advances, just not through spoken language. If you know an animal's body language, then you can read that and adjust accordingly. For example, flagging of the tail in canines is telling you that they are allowing you to have sex with them, while siting/moving away/growling and biting tells you that they don't want any sex.
Holy shit what. Animals don't have the mental capacity to consent to sex with someone from a different species, jesus christ. Like, even if you correctly read their body language (I want to barf typing this btw), they don't have the capacity to know that it won't hurt them or whatever.
Here's the thing. You said "necrophilia is bestiality."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a forensic expert who studies forensic science, I am telling you, specifically, in forensics, no one calls necrophilia bestiality. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "bestiality family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of sex crimes, which includes things from rape to prostitution to indecent exposure.
So your reasoning for calling necrophilia bestiality is because random people "call sex ones bestiality?" Let's get solicitation and sexual slavery in there too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. Necrophilia is necrophilia and a member of the bestiality family. But that's not what you said. You said necrophilia is bestiality, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the bestiality family bestiality, which means you'd call prostitution, indecent exposure, and other sex crimes bestiality, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
What about eating other people's poop?
But other people find gay sex icky so should that be banned?
Please don't compare gay sex to fucking bestiality. It's intellectually dishonest and just fucking stupid.
Nah. You can compare two similar things even if they're not completely identical.
The most reasonable argument against bestiality is "you might hurt the animal" which can be countered with "So you want animal abuse to be illegal? So do we." Not all sex with an animal hurts the animal.
> You can compare two similar things even if they're not completely identical.
Well, you can when the two things are similar. Having sex with a consenting human is quite different from having sex with an animal.
Homosexual sex - two consenting adults
Bestiality - 1 consenting adult and 1 animal who can't consent. They're not similar at all
I mean you can, but in this case it makes you an asshole.
Reported. Don't post in linked threads.
I came here from there. There's a bot that linked to here. Go look at my comments I commented there first
Time stamps are hard on my mobile app. But you're in the clear, then.
Thanks officer.
Eh, if I wasn't on mobile, I would've PM'd him saying to be careful about doing it, since I've gotten multiple people unshadowbanned when they just happened to post in a meta thread around the time they were commenting in the original thread. It was intended to be more cautionary than it came out (andI didn't actually report it), but that's entirely my fault.
Serious business
Bestiality isn't any more unhygienic than human-human sex. It's probably even more hygienic since there's less STDs that you can contract from an animal, and you don't have to risk your partner lying about having one.
Except if you fuck a monkey and get aids, or whatever other virus that might mutate.
Man, the bestiality brigade on reddit is getting out of hand.
Don't you mean out of hoof or paw?
... take your upvote, and get out.
It's getting out of talon.
Had to think of claw...had to think of praying mantis...and now someone out there is fapping to gigantic praying mantis bestiality vore comics...
Don't blame them. It's those sexy dogs fault.
Seriously, at least I can understand the pedo brigade in a I totally disagree with you but in theory I could possibly maybe however unlikely see a scenario where you were correct. Unless animals have gained the ability to speak when I was not looking, then this shit is just not going to fly.
It's one area why i don't mind so much, because i myself haven't heard a compelling argument against bestiality, either.
And i'd rather have the bestiality brigade then the Pedophile Phalanx any day.
I don't think anyone was actually supporting bestiality, just pointing out the hypocrisy of letting people eat animals but not fuck them.
We eat animals for sustenance. People fuck animals cuz.... I have no idea really.
To cum
People eat animals because they're tasty. Nobody in a first world country actually needs meat to survive, so the sustenance argument doesn't really work. So what's the difference, philosophically speaking, between doing bad things to animals because it makes your tongue feel good and doing bad things to animals because it makes your dick feel good?
>So what's the difference, philosophically speaking, between doing bad things to animals because it makes your tongue feel good and doing bad things to animals because it makes your dick feel good?
MFW
Man, the vegetarian/vegan brigade on reddit is getting out of hand.
An animal can't verbally consent?
EDIT: punctuation
They can't verbally consent to being killed either. And would be even less likely to if they could.
Yeah but we don't tend to eat animals that zoophiles tend to have relations with
Pigs are more intelligent than dogs. Horses are pretty comparable to cattle. What's the difference between animals that are okay to eat and animals that aren't?
Also, does that mean that sheepfucking is A-okay, since we eat those?
I personally subscribe to the eating of horses, it was good enough for the Mongols, so it's good enough for me. Pigs, I don't really eat much pork if I can help it. Sheep, it's cool if you're Welsh.
I just wanna say I don't condemn it outright, I just don't get it. Like, I literally can't figure out why someone would prefer an animal partner to a human one.
Not a fan of bestiality either but my understanding from a male standpoint is..I guess they're not asking for a cuddle or a. Fancy meal or even commitment? I guess? I'm honestly Just trying to see this from their point of view however hard that may be
More Comments - Click Here
And I literally cannot figure out why someone would prefer a human partner over an animal partner. We're just wired differently.
More Comments - Click Here
> Like, I literally can't figure out why someone would prefer an animal partner to a human one.
I don't think anyone does, not even zoophiles. Logically, I should be attracted to humans given that I'm a human, but I'm attracted to certain canid species. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
More Comments - Click Here
I'm pretty sure no animal ever consents to being killed.
Lion: Excuse me, Mr. Gazelle? Do you mind if I killed an eat you? I need sustenance to survive.
Gazelle: Ummmm, sorry but I'm going to have to say no to that, I'm sure you understand.
Lion: Ah, well ok then, sorry to have bothered you.
It doesn't work that way.
And, by your logic, we shouldn't eat plants since they're alive and can't consent either.
you shouldn't use an animal as a means to an end. Or you shouldn't use yourself as a means to an end. The end being a perverted relationship with animal.
It is simply not virtuous to engage in such relations with an animal. The golden mean of human/animal relationships is to love one, without loving one.
In general, there is a greater benefit to both humans and animals if they don't have sex with each other, given any psychological damage that will probably occur. There is no good reason to break this rule for the few occasions this may not be the case.
Moral relativism is the harshest of all, as your society says it is bad so don't do it.
Also, no one in a first world country actually needs bread, lettuce, rice or potato to survive and could live without any of those in their diet. So your sustenance argument borders on ridiculous unless you assume that animals have certain rights that make it preferable to eat something else. The more rights they have, the less likely it is to be acceptable to have sex with them, and the more possible it becomes to rape them.
A general can order troops to their deaths but not steal from them, even though the latter would be a lesser evil against them. Torturing surely less evil than murder. Greater evils do not justify lesser unnecessary evils.
> Moral relativism is the harshest of all, as your society says it is bad so don't do it.
Which can also be applied to gay and black rights
obviously. Relativism is a very bad idea.
Wow...
> you shouldn't use an animal as a means to an end. Or you shouldn't use yourself as a means to an end. The end being experiencing the taste of animal flesh for a few minutes
Many people have realized they don't need to eat meat and then stopped. And usually they never have any problem because of it. It's actually quite easy to do.
> It is simply not virtuous to engage in such relations with an animal. The golden mean of human/animal relationships is to love one, without loving one.
Why...
> In general, there is a greater benefit to both humans and animals if they don't have sex with each other, given any psychological damage that will probably occur.
What psychological damage is that? Why do you think it will probably occur?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
> More recently, research has engaged three further directions – the speculation that at least some animals seem to enjoy a zoophilic relationship assuming sadism is not present, and can form an affectionate bond.[39] Similar findings are also reported by Kinsey (cited by Masters), and others earlier in history.
> Zoophiles' emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal,
> Miletski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent – and even initiation – in their own way."[112] It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders.[113] Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively.[105]
#
> Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal[117] (see Harm principle). In the article "Heavy Petting,"[118] Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed.
#
> So your sustenance argument borders on ridiculous unless you assume that animals have certain rights that make it preferable to eat something else.
Sentience...
> The more rights they have, the less likely it is to be acceptable to have sex with them, and the more possible it becomes to rape them.
What right exactly would that be, that makes it less acceptable? (I'm only talking about sex that does not involve violence, coercion etc.)
Here, churn on that: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm
I have read Singer's article.
I was merely provoked to suggest philosophical arguments against bestiality. As you show, they can be quite similar to ones for vegetarianism, as they both often invoke animal rights. But real objections can be made against it using every major ethical theory. I used Kantianism, Virtue Ethics and Rule Utilitarianism. Probably all wrongly, but its a learning process.
> > In general, there is a greater benefit to both humans and animals if they don't have sex with each other, given any psychological damage that will probably occur.
> What psychological damage is that? Why do you think it will probably occur?
>you shouldn't use an animal as a means to an end.
What do you mean by this?
that you shouldn't treat them solely as a way of getting something you want yourself. Everyone treats others as means sometimes, but to solely treat someone as a means would be to not treat them as human being.
1) Because it's legal where I live and I have the freedom to do so.
2) She's beautiful and I love her (and she's cozy!).
3) I'm not harming her in any way. People tend to think of the worst case scenario when imagining bestiality, but the majority of zoophiles are careful not to hurt the animal.
Honestly? I probably treat her better than quite a lot of non-zoophile pet owners. I have plenty of space in my backyard, I don't keep her in a crate when I'm out of the house, I don't hit her (you would think this would be common sense, but there are still pet owners who think that physical discipline works), I don't feed her shitty food, etc.
4) Sex is awesome. Sex with your partner is even better.
Most people in the western world don't eat meat for sustenance unless they're poor and buying fast food. They eat it because it's more delicious than a healthier vegetarian alternative (and yes, it is possible to have a healthy diet without consuming meat).
http://i.imgur.com/1hqWB9B.jpg
Hey, he wanted to know. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)
Please stop raping your dog veryqtsociopath.
They live up to part of their username, I'll give 'em that.
If I was a sociopath, I wouldn't legitimately love her and care for her wellbeing, now would I?
If you legitimately loved her and cared for her well-being, you wouldn't be having sex with her.
Given how she acts, I'm pretty sure she likes it.
Worst case scenario, she's mildly uncomfortable and is only pretending to like it but doesn't suffer any physical injury.
you're 10 levels past fucked up
Unless she's a dolphin, she will not enjoy it
Jesus Christ.
Haha that's what I say about the girls I drug and fuck. Worse case scenario it's only mildly uncomfortable for them.
More Comments - Click Here
I will not stop having sex with my dog, Saganomics.
I thought you were a supporter of social justice though? Zoophiles are literally executed in some countries and in some of them, the animal is killed too. It's fucked up.
That's too bad. They (and you) should spend years in prison.
She can't concent. Leaving behind any conversation about abuse or eating meat, she can't consent. That's why it's not the same as homosexuality. An animal, like a child cannot consent and that makes it rape.
"a) [children] will almost certainly be damaged psychologically. Animals are not subject to the social pressures that can lead to a lot of the problems a child may suffer after engaging in sex acts with an adult.
b) ...they are not biologically ready for sex... which can lead to physical injury. No zoophile would ever knowingly do anything sexual with an animal that could physically hurt it.
c) ...they don't understand what's going on because they haven't yet developed a sexual maturity. A child can't comprehend the desire to mate... it's a desire that he or she does not have. An adult animal (and most zoosexuals don't condone sex with sexually immature animals) certainly has a sex drive.. often a very strong one.
d) ...children tend to be very easily coerced by adults. Reluctant animals can be pressured and even trained to tolerate sexual acts and therein lies a gray area but in the end, if a horse or dog absolutely refuses to put up with sex, they can and will resist in a way dangerous to a human.
e) ...children can be physically overpowered by an adult. It would be unwise to try and force a great dane or a horse into anything. The only way a mare is going to accept sexual advances is if she is biologically ready and accepts her partner as one of her herd, accepts them personally. Try anything with a mare that doesn't meet both criteria and you will have 1200 pounds of fury in your face…
d) When it comes right down to it animals are simply NOT children. We don't eat children or breed children for appearance and conformation to breed. We don't hunt children, don't do medical experiments on them, don't sterilize children early on so they can't breed. (Although Adolf Hitler did try to do most of these things.)"
I disagree with the "no zoophile would ever knowingly physically hurt an animal" part, though. Every bestiality forum I've posted on has condemned risking injury towards an animal, but I wouldn't doubt that there are some zoophiles who don't care.
> I don't think anyone was actually supporting bestiality
I do. I've had to try to explain why the concept of "consent" isn't "really, really stupid" more than once just here in this thread.
Playing devil's advocate is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
I need a fucking shower.
I've reached a point where I totally support the bestiality brigade as long as it keeps the paedophile brigade from emerging all sticky and wild-eyed from the woodwork.
The woodwork class, that is.
In a school.
Because they're paedophiles and that's where they like to hang.
How so?
What about the zoosexuals that are jailed for loving and having sex with their animal partners? Do you know what happens to the animals after the fact? They sure don't go to a happy, loving home. They get put into the pound and are murdered because they are "unable to be rehabilitated". Bullshit. Thats what's out of hand.
I... Are you being sarcastic?
I mean, it is true that we abuse animals in a lot of other ways. We eat them, we wear them, we stick them in circuses which I do think is wrong but it doesn't mean that we should just say "fuck it" and not even bother stopping any kind of abuse
Exactly. If you're concerned about animal abuse in other areas like thd the meat industry or the entertainment industry, then reduce your meat intake or something. Don't decide to rape your dog because other animals are abused too.
>So why do we stick animals in zoos? Circus? TV shows and movies?
I can't speak for zoos and circuses, but how is showing an animal on television anything like abusing or fucking them?
People really want their legal bestiality on reddit and it just seems so surreal to me.
The internet is a wonderful place for giving a voice to these kind of people. I still wanna vomit though.
I've tried to write a well-reasoned comment about 4 times now but I keep on getting angry so I'm going to get a cup of tea and feel sorry for any animals those people own.
> feel sorry
Why exactly? What do you think is happening to them?
Other than forcible rape?
Why do you assume rape by force?
> zoozooz
You know, I really don't get it. Click on the links I provided below. These are respected researchers that will tell you straight to your face that you can't assume that sex with animals is always "forcible rape". Yet nobody bothers.
> > Why do you assume rape by force?
You still haven't answered. Why do you? What are your credentials that you can afford dismissing all of that without giving them even a single look?
Here, I'll give you a quote from wikipedia:
> There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002);[35] their research arrived at the following conclusions:
> [...]
> Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning.[35] The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".[35]
When they talk about a misinformed society they are talking about you and the people who are upvoting you and downvoting me.
> it's not worth trying to debate rape with a rapist
Impressive. People are honestly upvoting willful ignorance.
I'm not asking you to debate me. I'm asking you to read and respond to the work of respected researchers with PHDs and whatever.
By the way: You know nothing about me. That I'm allegedly a "rapist" is wrong even by your own definition.
But I get it: You don't care about being wrong. If Masters, Miletski and Weinberg telling you that you are misinformed and causing social harm isn't getting you to fucking get a minimum of information about the topic, there's nothing I can do here.
Have a good day and may you never get into a situation where you have to make an important decision about people who are different than you.
Crocodile tears won't work, I wouldn't trust you around one anyway.
Saganomics sometimes you're brilliant.
Sometimes I hate you and you're pretty funny then too but I can't bring myself to say it.
> Yet nobody bothers.
Will those same researchers also tell you straight to your face that you can't assume that sex with animals is in any way consensual?
Because I suspect if they're actually "respected" in their fields, they're probably not thrilled at the notion of being name-dropped by zoophiles trying to bolster their arguments with their research.
> When they talk about a misinformed society they are talking about you and the people who are upvoting you and downvoting me.
Heh. Yup. It's all our fault -- the ones who aren't banging animals -- that are to blame for all those stereotypes. Not the animal bangers, who are simply loving as nature intended.
I can see the back of my eye sockets with how far my eyes are rolling at this stupidity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
http://cultureghost.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=11503
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm
Yes yes, I've already heard about your favourite form of rape. I'm pointing out your name so anyone stumbling across this thread realizes that it's not worth trying to debate rape with a rapist.
Good arguments all around
> zooman1200
I don't understand how all of the same zoophilia apologists keep finding these threads, but something is up.
More Comments - Click Here
>saganomics
Still good arguments I'm proud of you
He's not looking to argue, he's looking to yell at evil animal rapists. Some people anthropomorphize animals to the degree that they can't not see animals as children.
The repeated quoting of usernames is pretty weird coming from the guy who named himself after a Reddit meme, though.
> He's not looking to argue, he's looking to yell at evil animal rapists.
Awesome. Best projection I've seen all week. Bravo.
> Some people anthropomorphize animals to the degree that they can't not see animals as children.
So now your argument is essentially "they're too stupid/primitive to know better, so who needs consent? Let's fuck!"
I'll give you this much -- you're refreshingly honest... while arguing very disingenuously at the same time, of course.
Don't tell anyone, but my username doesn't openly and proudly declare my love of rape.
Okay, so I don't really buy the "bestiality is not okay because animals can't consent" thing. I think bestiality is not okay because it's an abomination in that it is a flagrant misuse of a holy act. Obviously this is a minority opinion, and you should basically just ignore it; I only provide it for contrast.
But even all that aside - your argument is completely ridiculous if you are trying to claim that animals can consent. You claim that animals ARE sufficiently able to consent to sex with a human, and then go on to ridicule people who "anthromorphize animals" TOO MUCH? Having sex with a thing requires consent. For that, it needs to be capable of consenting. The only way to claim an animal is capable of consent is anthropomorphizing it - assuming it has the cultural and mental know-how to agree to sex with a human. So by your own arguments, you're a rapist. Congrats.
> it's not worth trying to debate rape with a rapist.
Let's be honest: What sources about that topic have you read so far?
We force them to have sex with each other. Do you feel sorry for them then? If yes, are you a vegetarian? If no, why is one rape worse than the other?
People condemn puppy mills and the like, as well as inhumane conditions on ranches and corporate farms, you analogy doesn't really work.
Believe it or not, our laws regulating treatment of animals are more nuanced than "anything goes" or "nothing goes."
It's legal to kill an animal for food (presuming you do it humanely), but if you decide to torture an animal to death by skinning it alive, and you'll be breaking the law.
Whoops, forgot it was np and posted but deleted it now. Posted a reaction to "Dolphins can consent". Genuinely wtf. Then came across this on google:
www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/586097-How-to-have-sex-with-a-dolphin-and-why-you-should
Yeah I'm not clicking that...
Yeah this was my face for a good half an hour after reading it http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140712003555/cwamilitarysquads/images/1/17/Jackie-Chan-WTF-meme-face-70958233396.jpeg
This is the kind of argument the anti-LGBT crowd likes to trot out when people point out that their objections to non-heterosexual sex essentially boil down to "it's icky" and "because [religious text] says so."
That very same crowd loves to argue that legalizing same sex marriage will lead down a slippery slope -- "first it's gay couples, then it's people trying to marry dogs and cats!" Because we all know the big pro-bestiality lobby will stop at nothing to ensure man can marry donkey.
Then comes this "but why is bestiality actually bad?" rhetoric -- a poor attempt to flip the "why exactly is LGBT sex bad?" point on its head.
Of course, it falls flat on its face for an assortment of reasons, not the least of which are concerns about the animal's consent, physical incompatibility between the prospective "partners," risk of injury to the animal (or the human) during the act, transmission of disease and so on.
Maybe that's not what's going on here, but every time this particular question comes up on Reddit (how sad is it that I've seen it more than once?) it always ends up boiling down to homophobes arguing a pro-bestiality position to try to prove a (very bad and stupid) point.
Edit: I see they've already dismissed consent as a counterpoint since we already do lots of other things to animals without their consent. I guarantee you there's homophobia at the heart of this argument.
I dunno.
I always get downvoted to hell on these threads, but I'm okay with sex between two (or more) like minded (consenting) similarly-aged humans.
I try to be sexpositive, I can't rationalize a strong attraction for kids, critters, corpses, cars, etc. At best, that is an indication of an inability to have an intimate emotional attachment to an equal.
> animal's consent
I am against bestiality, but treating animals as though they are human is pretty stupid. A dog can give consent to sex just as much as it can give consent to being petted.
Especially with male animal sex with human females or male human sex with large female animals. It is highly unlikely the animal would be hurt in these cases and often they would probably like it (if in heat). Isn't the best way to settle down an in heat female cat to literally fuck it with your finger (I mean that a vet would do this as standard practice, or so I've heard).
The reason consent matters in humans is because we have emotional connections with sex that aren't experienced in other animals.
Again, I am 100% against bestiality, but I really hate seeing this consent argument because it's really really stupid.
> I am against bestiality, but
Danger! Danger! No statement beginning like this can ever have a happy ending.
> treating animals as though they are human is pretty stupid.
No one's "treating animals as though they are human." I'm pointing out they have the right not to get banged if they don't want to.
> A dog can give consent to sex just as much as it can give consent to being petted.
A dog can surely bark, growl, bite and scratch to effectively communicate it does not consent to sex. It's ridiculous to assume that just because one doesn't, it must want sex.
> Especially with male animal sex with human females
That'd be two consenting creatures ...
> male human sex with large female animals
... this one, not so much. Horses can kick really hard (and have done so to men trying to have sex with them, sometimes fatally). I'm pretty sure they don't consent in those situations either. Again, just because a horse doesn't buck against a "suitor" doesn't mean it wants what's happening.
> Isn't the best way to settle down an in heat female cat to literally fuck it with your finger (I mean that a vet would do this as standard practice, or so I've heard).
Never go anywhere near my pets. "Finger banging" a domestic cat will cause substantial (possibly fatal) injury.
Using a (well-lubricated) cotton swab (gently) will briefly relieve a queen's "urges," but she'll be back in the mood within minutes.
> Again, I am 100% against bestiality
Everything else in your post suggests otherwise.
> I really hate seeing this consent argument because it's really really stupid.
No, it's really, really not. It's one of the most important arguments. Then again, we still have a lot of trouble convincing some people that a woman's consent is important, so it's probably wishful thinking on my part to hope people would know they probably shouldn't be fucking animals, especially when they don't know whether their advances are wanted or not.
> Everything else in your post suggests otherwise.
No, it doesn't. I disagree with the consent argument, not the argument that bestiality should be illegal. You are also clearly not who I am talking about as you make it clear that you believe an animal can give consent by being willing.
I am talking about consent in the legal sense which is what people are talking about when they say an animal cannot give consent. The same way a child can say they want whatever but they can't legally give consent.
>Never go anywhere near my pets.
Oh stfu you obnoxious twit. I made it very clear that I was not sure how it exactly works.
> Oh stfu you obnoxious twit. I made it very clear that I was not sure how it exactly works.
And this is exactly where abusive behavior comes from. You aren't sure about how it works, but you might just be stupid enough to "experiment" with it the next time a cat in heat irritates you and you've got a few minutes alone with it.
Seriously. Stay the fuck away from my pets.
Thanks for the laugh.
> not the least of which are concerns about the animal's consent
Why does an animal need to give verbal sexual consent? We don't ask for their consent when it comes to anything else, and there's no reason that they would even find sex to be something special that demands consent.
>physical incompatibility between the prospective "partners,"
It's not physical incompatibility depending on the size and gender of the animal you have sex with. If you try to do anal with a toy dog, yeah, that's animal abuse.
>risk of injury to the animal (or the human) during the act
See above. In Denmark, sex that causes physical harm to the animal is considered animal abuse. As for harm to the human, why should that be illegal? It should be a matter of common sense. Don't take it up from the butt from a horse unless you're prepared for the consequences. A lot of things that you can do that can cause injury for yourself aren't illegal.
>transmission of disease
The human gets the disease if transmission does occur. Also, it's legal to have sex with someone who has an STD or HIV/AIDS.
Also, you do realize that gay men spread AIDS at a disproportionate rate, right? I don't know why you're bringing up disease when you're trying to argue that arguments regarding homosexuality aren't similar to ones regarding zoophilia.
I'm impressed. Someone is actually going to offer a pro-bestiality argument. I guess there's always one.
> Why does an animal need to give verbal sexual consent? We don't ask for their consent when it comes to anything else, and there's no reason that they would even find sex to be something special that demands consent.
"We do all these other bad things to animals, so why not tack on this other bit of nastiness too?"
I'm pretty sure an animal's physical reaction to forced sexual contact (shrieking, scratching, biting, pulling away, trying to run, etc.) can be used as a suitable indicator of a "no." It's not as if animals haven't injured or killed people before for trying to have sex with them.
It's pretty hard to make an "animal rights" argument (i.e. by pointing out we don't get an animal's consent before butchering it) when you're using it to claim having sex with them is perfectly fine.
> It's not physical incompatibility depending on the size and gender of the animal you have sex with.
Holy shit. This is literally an "if my dick can fit in there, it's all good!" argument.
> If you try to do anal with a toy dog, yeah, that's animal abuse.
I'd like you to spend some time contemplating the fact that you felt the need to clarify this point and type this sentence.
> A lot of things that you can do that can cause injury for yourself aren't illegal.
This activity, of course, does not just involve one actor.
> The human gets the disease if transmission does occur.
Oh good, so really we're just giving them a sore backside and some spilled seed, then. Glad that's all cleared up.
> Also, it's legal to have sex with someone who has an STD or HIV/AIDS.
Sure, when both parties consent.
> "We do all these other bad things to animals, so why not tack on this other bit of nastiness too?"
I'm not just talking about things like hunting or factory farming, I'm referring to things even as innocuous as putting them in clothes to take a photo and putting them in a crate when you're going to a store.
>I'm pretty sure an animal's physical reaction to forced sexual contact (shrieking, scratching, biting, pulling away, trying to run, etc.) can be used as a suitable indicator of a "no." It's not as if animals haven't injured or killed people before for trying to have sex with them.
>It's pretty hard to make an "animal rights" argument (i.e. by pointing out we don't get an animal's consent before butchering it) when you're using it to claim having sex with them is perfectly fine.
That does mean no, I agree. That's rape. Animals don't always do that if you try to initiate sex with them.
>Holy shit. This is literally an "if my dick can fit in there, it's all good!" argument.
...because your argument was "If your dick can't fit in there, it's not good."?
>I'd like you to spend some time contemplating the fact that you felt the need to clarify this point and type this sentence.
I'd spend more time contemplating why you even responded to my comment if you're going to pull out the "LOL WE'RE DEBATING ZOOPHILIA ISNT THAT WACKY" card.
>This activity, of course, does not just involve one actor.
One party is being injured. Not both parties.
>Oh good, so really we're just giving them a sore backside and some spilled seed, then. Glad that's all cleared up.
Sore? I guess if you're rough with it.
>Sure, when both parties consent.
This goes back to my previous argument. Animals do not need to sexually consent. You can rationally infer that the animal does not care if it gives you a zoonoose.
> I'm not just talking about things like hunting or factory farming, I'm referring to things even as innocuous as putting them in clothes to take a photo and putting them in a crate when you're going to a store.
Sure. Those are more "bad things" to add to the pile, along with killing them and fucking them.
> because your argument was "If your dick can't fit in there, it's not good."?
I'd love to see it pointed out where I made that argument.
> I'd spend more time contemplating why you even responded to my comment
No need. I commented to correct you. You seem to believe having sex with animals, without their consent, is just fine. I think you're wrong, and I've said so. It is not just fine.
"Debating" zoophilia isn't "wacky." It's god damned stupid. You're cheerfully banging animals and concocting sophist philosophical drivel to rationalize it.
> One party is being injured. Not both parties.
Yeah, and given how we treat animals even when we're not fucking them, it's pretty obvious which party comes out on top in those instances.
> Sore? I guess if you're rough with it.
I can't imagine it'd be very gentle.
> Animals do not need to sexually consent.
Holy fucking shit.
I can just as easily imagine a redpiller saying the same thing, just replacing the word "animals" with "women."
> You can rationally infer that the animal does not care if it gives you a zoonoose.
You cannot possibly know that. For all you know, the animal you're bending over and pumping vigorously is thinking "what the fuck is going on here?!?!"
If I may butt in here...
>Sure. Those are more "bad things" to add to the pile, along with killing them and fucking them.
It's not even "bad" things. We don't ask consent to rub their ears, you start rubbing them and they'll react accordingly. I am not saying that you do not need consent, I am saying it works differently in animals, they use body language instead of verbal language.
>I'd love to see it pointed out where I made that argument.
Here.
>physical incompatibility between the prospective "partners,"
And this gem...
>I can't imagine it'd be very gentle.
Of course it can be. Can't you have gentle sex with a human?
You do realise gay women are least at risk of HIV? it's anal sex, not homosexuality.
...but I said gay men?
Gay men are more likely to have HIV/AIDs. Statistics prove this.
>Why does an animal need to give verbal sexual consent? We don't ask for their consent when it comes to anything else, and there's no reason that they would even find sex to be something special that demands consent.
I've actually never really heard a rebuttal to this argument. Saying "animals can't consent" appeals to my sensibilities, yet animals obviously don't consent to factory farming and slaughter either. I'd say most factory farming practices are far more cruel than bestiality is.
I personally think bestiality should be illegal, but I've gotta be honest, I don't really have a solid logical reason for why I think it should be while also believing factory farming for meat production shouldn't be.
My thinking is that animals should not be abused sexually nor via factory farms. It's a very controversial opinion...
I think the point he's trying to make is just that the majority of people would say "Ban animal sex? Of course!" while never questioning their lifestyle of eating cheap meat every day / keeping their hamster in a way too small cage / etc., while at its core the issue (animals' rights) is basically the same.
No. Consuming an animal as food is distinctly different than having sex with an animal.
Please stop suggesting that "at its core" the argument is the same. That's very disingenuous. It very plainly isn't the same argument.
Is "we do these bad things without permission, so why not also do this other bad thing without permission?" really the line of reasoning you want to use for a subject like this?
The thing is most people don't consider farming animals to be "bad" even though the logic is the same.
> Then comes this "but why is bestiality actually bad?" rhetoric -- a poor attempt to flip the "why exactly is LGBT sex bad?" point on its head.
What's poor here is your attempt to prematurely dismiss the question because otherwise you would need to read, understand and respond to the views of respected researchers who do in fact ask this question: http://cultureghost.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=11503
> not the least of which are concerns about the animal's consent,
That's a great cause for concern, but instead of using it as a knockout argument you could try to actually argue one way or another. Like, can you explain what exactly consent is, to what extend dogs can give it and to what extend the whole concept can be applied to dogs in a meaningful way.
The trick is: Try to do this without comparing adult dogs to human children.
Maybe you'll come to surprising results. Maybe not. You'll only know if you try.
> physical incompatibility between the prospective "partners," risk of injury to the animal (or the human) during the act, transmission of disease and so on.
I would love to see the statistics you got these opinions from.
From what I know: Dog penisses usually fit really well. What do you mean with "physical incompatibility"? A dog humping a human usually does not injure himself. What kind of injuries are you talking about? I have yet to see any actual data or argument that you're more like to get a disease from a healthy dog that is checked regularly by a veterinarian than from a human sexual partner...
Have you noticed how vague all you post is? I have.
> it always ends up boiling down to homophobes arguing a pro-bestiality position to try to prove a (very bad and stupid) point.
Meh. Have you seen the people who are arguing against zoophilia? Example: http://www.yourtango.com/2013188025/sex-animals-head-germany. Doesn't the word "lifestyle choice" remind you of something? Doesn't it remind you of something when they talk about that they should "get any [X] sex completely out of their system"? Doesn't it remind you of something when the sexuality of a minority is marginalized as a "small but vigorous fan club"? Who's fault is it that this is most of the same rhetoric?
> Edit: I see they've already dismissed consent as a counterpoint since we already do lots of other things to animals without their consent. I guarantee you there's homophobia at the heart of this argument.
As a vegan I guarantee that at the heart of this argument is pointing out the hypocrisy. If you regularly pay people to kill animals, why should I even begin to listen to you talking about consent?
What if I told you that many zoophiles do in fact care about animals and are not going to do anything that an animal does not like, whether you call it technically consent or not?
Do you think average dog vagina is suited for the size of average human penis? (Can't believe I'm actually asking)
Depends on the breed. The general rule is "Have a penis the same size as or smaller than the male of the breed you're intending to bang."
I'm not anti-bestiality (or pro-bestiality, either), but i'm certainly not homophobic.
i'd note that talking about animals' consent is absolutely asinine, since animals are not sentient. You might as well talk about a toaster's consent.
>Of course, it falls flat on its face for an assortment of reasons, not the least of which are concerns about the animal's consent, physical incompatibility between the prospective "partners," risk of injury to the animal (or the human) during the act, transmission of disease and so on.
Three of the four arguments can apply to humans as well.
Indeed. Sounds like great reasons not to fuck creatures that haven't indicated they want to be fucked, human or otherwise.
Jesus christ there's actual zoophiles in this thread and admitting it. Is there a way to report this to some kind of authority? :(
Nope.
1) Extremely hard to prove.
2) It's not illegal everywhere. I'm in a state where it isn't.
3) Police likely won't waste their time.
4) Some people post using VPNs.
You shouldn't be concerned about us anyway. Do something better with your time like going after actual animal abusers. I used to post on a forum where someone was found to have posted a video and pictures of herself getting fucked by her lab and the police went to her house because a few people reported her and she wasn't arrested because they couldn't prove it.
>Do something better with your time like going after actual animal abusers.
Like you? get some psychological help and stop raping your dog. BTW say hi to tips.fbi.gov for me.
>get some psychological help
I'm fine, thanks.
>stop raping your dog
It's not rape.
>BTW say hi to tips.fbi.gov for me.
I'm sure the Federal Bureau of Investigations will be on my ass for doing something that is legal in my state.
> I'm fine, thanks.
No, you're not. This is me telling you you're not. This is a great many people telling you you're not.
Has it even entered your head for a moment that it's possible you could be wrong about this? Or are you just thinking with your junk and enjoying a legal technicality while abusing animals?
> It's not rape.
Did your dog tell you that?
> I'm sure the Federal Bureau of Investigations will be on my ass for doing something that is legal in my state.
It'd be kinda funny if it turns out this is one of those situations where it's illegal federally (i.e. marijuana possession) but not at the state level (i.e. Colorado).
I haven't checked, and I'm not going to (because I'm sick of this stupid shit and am going to bed now), but it's a very funny thought.
>Has it even entered your head for a moment that it's possible you could be wrong about this? Or are you just thinking with your junk and enjoying a legal technicality while abusing animals?
No, it actually hasn't. We both love each other and I'm very careful not to cause any physical harm to her. If she doesn't seem DTF, I leave her be.
How is it abuse when she isn't damaged in any way?
>Did your dog tell you that?
You bet.
>It'd be kinda funny if it turns out this is one of those situations where it's illegal federally (i.e. marijuana possession) but not at the state level (i.e. Colorado).
They've never bothered to make it federally illegal because they never felt like it was something necessary to do. It actually has became legal in more states over time due to sodomy laws being repealed.
drama in /r/subredditdrama :I
>it's not rape
Said every rapist ever
1) Morally, it's not rape.
2) Legally, it's not rape.
I'm sorry to tell you that performing cunnilingus on my husky is not, in fact, rape given that I live in the state of Ohio.
> I'm sorry to tell you that performing cunnilingus on my husky is not, in fact, rape given that I live in the state of Ohio.
That's pretty fucking icky, dude.
She likes it especially when she's in heat. It's not like she's a stupid dirty feral animal either, she's kept clean.
I wouldn't say your husky is the stupid, dirty, feral animal living in your household.
> Federal Bureau of Investigations will be on my ass for doing something that is legal in my state.
...But still illegal federally. You do realize that federal law trumps state, right?
Bestiality isn't federally illegal. That was the point I was making when I italicized "Federal."
> 1) Extremely hard to prove.
Well, at least when you're not actively discussing and admitting to it.
> 2) It's not illegal everywhere. I'm in a state where it isn't.
God dammit. I really need to move out of fucking Florida. If it's not actually legal here, it probably is legal in one of the nearby cesspools.
> 3) Police likely won't waste their time.
Now that's some wishful thinking.
> 4) Some people post using VPNs.
Uh-oh. He's behind seven proxies here, guys.
>Well, at least when you're not actively discussing and admitting to it.
Admitting it isn't good enough, they actually have to prove that you had sexual interactions with the animal. That's more difficult, especially if you're a woman who had sex with a male animal.
There are entire zoophile communities out there that haven't been shut down (notably, Beastforum and here on Reddit, /r/sexwithdogs and /r/zoophilia).
>God dammit. I really need to move out of fucking Florida. If it's not actually legal here, it probably is legal in one of the nearby cesspools.
Surprisingly, the distribution of states where it's legal is actually pretty even across the U.S. It's not legal in Florida.
>Now that's some wishful thinking.
It's pretty low on the scale of things the FBI actually cares about.
>Uh-oh. He's behind seven proxies here, guys.
I'm not even posting on a VPN. It's legal in Ohio, so I have nothing to hide.
SnapShot
(mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
ISIS has sex with animals, you don't want to be like ISIS do you?
Ah the weekly thread. Just in time!
I've never wanted to actively dox someone so hard than all these animal rape apologists popping up in these threads. Like you're all committing multiple crimes you know that right? You should all be in jail where someone gets to put their penis in you.
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.
The only argument against bestiality I agree with is consent, although bestiality discussions are also one of the only times when people seem to care about the consent of animals.
All the animal fuckers are coming out of the woodworks to defend their position.
edit-After reading this thread I feel icky.
\>but they can't consent
I really wish people would stop trying to use this argument when arguing against zoophilia.
Required reading.
Wish all you like. It won't stop reasonable arguments against what you practice.
No.
Look at this animal rapist trying to push his propaganda.
[deleted]
Funny how you are preemptively calling out vegans/vegetarians when most of the time I see people bring up vegan/vegetarianism, it's people who eat meat.