Comparison made between dog fucking and homosexuality in r/askreddit? No one could possibly take offence at that, right? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
17 ups - 8 downs = 9 votes
24 comments submitted at 21:39:15 on Oct 19, 2013 by nopicsnogifsnovideo
>Hey, guess what homosexuality used to be considered? (and still is in many places) Just saying
Are you kidding me? This guy is literally saying bestiality is subjectively perverse and implies that one day it won't be.
Is bestiality objectively perverse?
Yes, I'm pretty sure raping an animal is universally considered perverse
Edit: You guys are literally defending bestiality.
Not at all. For instance, renowned ethicist Peter Singer argues that some animals are perfectly capable of consent (ever tried to stroke a cat in a way it doesn't like to be stroked? It'll let you know) and hence that zoosexuality in some circumstances can be okay:
>http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001----.htm
>But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.
Peter Singer is on the edge here, but he does have a point. It's easy to imagine that in the future his opinions might become mainstream. Society gets bored without new taboos to rub up against.
They're already murdered and eaten daily on genocidal scales, but society lets that slide.
So we should naturally add rape on top of that.
The entire problem with rape is the mental anguish and psychological (and physical) trauma it causes. I'll happily revise my stance if you show this is the case with all bestiality.
Rape can lead to much more harm than mental.
Even if the rape of an animal doesn't harm it, we have absolutely no way of determining how it has been affected. Doesn't mean we get to use them as sex toys.
Well what the hell is there besides psychological and physical harm?
If neither occurs, and the animal is still happy, what's wrong with it?
If killing an animal isn't murder, fucking one isn't rape.
What makes it rape?
Actually, let me rephrase that.
What makes it so that animals can consent to sex with other animals, but not with humans?
Well, typically, being of the same species is a safe bet that they both have a naturalistic urge to reproduce with each other. However, rape does occur in nature. We have absolutely no way of knowing if an animal is consenting so our morals, as humans, keep us from having sex with other species. As well, having sex with an animal (such as a cat) could injure or physically harm the animal even if they are asking for it.
>We have absolutely no way of knowing if an animal is consenting
Really? Even if the animal is the one doing everything?
>As well, having sex with an animal (such as a cat) could injure or physically harm the animal even if they are asking for it.
Yes, you obviously shouldn't have sex with small animals.
I would just like to point out that you are using a throwaway account, and one of the comments you have made also defends bestiality. Kinda creepy, dude.
So, what you are saying is, having a dog lick peanut butter off your dick is fine? Oh, what about a two year old licking peanut butter off your dick?
>"Renowned canine researcher puts dogs' intelligence on par with 2-year-old human"
Look, just because an animal shows active interest in mating, doesn't mean it fully understands what it is doing or why, just like a 2 yr old. You don't get to just pleasure or have sex with an animal because it might show interest; it is simply cruel to do.
>So, what you are saying is, having a dog lick peanut butter off your dick is fine?
I never said that was a good thing? That's blatantly manipulating the dog. I'm talking about people getting fucked by animals.
And dogs... aren't children. They are sexually mature. And dogs can pretty clearly show interest.
And are you really downvoting every response to you?
I guess you're right. I am receiving the downvotes for trying to illustrate how wrong bestiality is. Obviously, the popular opinion is that bestiality should be legal.
If a dog humps your leg, it is totally fine to then pleasure him and allow him to somehow pleasure you without in anyway manipulating him into doing so.
My point was that dogs have the intelligence and decision making of children. They can not properly consent to sex any more than a two year old can.
Considering a lot of the comments have received more than just one downvote, I'd say it's safe to say this is a public thread with multiple people voting in it.
>If a dog humps your leg, it is totally fine to then pleasure him and allow him to somehow pleasure you without in anyway manipulating him into doing so.
That's not how it goes at all. You bend over, and the dog proceeds to hop on top of you, stick it's dick in you, and fuck you.
Sex between people could result in injury, me swimming could result in drowning.
Have you ever accidentally stepped on your pet's toe? They'll fucking let you know if they're in anguish. Animals thoughts and emotions usually show in their actions.
You'd be able to tell if an animal had PTSD and panic attacks, an aversion to sex, depression, all the things that result from rape and make rape a terrible thing.
Alright, you know what, go have sex with animals after it shows possible attraction to you. Be my guest. Please, be the crusader that animal-lovers need. Be the Civil rights activist of animal gang-bangers; stand up to the intolerance that zoophiles face every day. /s
I mean I just really find it amusing that you're defending this...I just, at what point in your life do you have to be at that you defend sex with animals? I guess I simply don't get it or how cross-species sexuality could possible be so in need of defense. You are proving every republican/conservative/etc correct when they claimed gay marriage would lead to more sex with animals, ffs.
Because it was brought up, makes for good debate, and I don't think my own disgust is a valid basis for dictating what other people can and cannot do.
I find it amusing you think wanting to have a logical and evidence-backed opinion is so reprehensible.
Not every decision or opinion can be backed by logic alone; this one doesn't need a study saying that dogs dislike being in an unconsenting relationship. You are trying to allow the mistreatment of animals simply because there is no evidence of direct harm to them and because sometimes dogs hump legs. But, alas, I am receiving the downvotes and am the only one disgusted at the opinion, so I surely won't get very far in this thread regardless of my opinion. Please, I apologize for offending you by saying I don't think bestiality can or should ever be viewed in a positive light....and by the way, it's about dictating what people can do with other living animals, not just themselves. You make the implication that animals aren't somehow involved in this behavior.