Thread: Zoophilia

Hello,

animals do not consent to being played with, getting slaughtered, being used to test medication, living in cages laying eggs for us or being repeatedly artificially inseminated so as to produce milk for us without ever seeing their children. Yet it seems that once the topic changes to sexual intercourse between human and animal, the animal rises to the position of a dignified, almost human-like creature which shall only be touched after having given its consent, which it obviously can't.

So it is now considered animal abuse to have sex with animals. Yet we have to note that many animals, such as dogs, cats, horses, mules, donkeys and pigs are clearly able to defend themselves in the case of them feeling they are being treated in a dangerous way. It is certainly possible to combine animal abuse and animal sexuality. Yet, if we do not use weapons or physical restriction to initiate sexual contact with the animal, the element of abuse vanishes.

Please explain your view on this. I would like you to not refer to your aesthetic liking of the concept of zoophilia, as clearly ones personal tastes and preferences are no valid guideline for the ethical judgment of persons who feel different than you do.

I am now tending to think that bestiality should be legal and those who engage in it should be subject to psychiatric treatment. The display of fecal matter in combination with sexual activity is not appealing to most, yet this is allowed here in Germany. Why not bestiality?

Unfortunately, most cases of sexual animal abuse are forced via some form of bondage.

However, I think you are referring to when animals, under their own volition, fornicate with a human. Although very odd and obviously frowned upon in our society, would be the form of the animal consenting to reproduction. The human consenting would obviously also be frowned upon.

I think the argument comes into the similar path with children. The days of antiquity had catamites in which young boys would offer themselves to elders for money. In modern times, this type of activity would be the catalyst to chaos. (Hell, I am afriad of even mentioning it). However, the argument is over whether or not the catamite had the ability to rationally decide that what they were doing was the best course of action for them and if they considered alternative methods.

My point here is, under that same logic, what about a young child (under 10) consenting to fornicate with an adult - is that alright? This is where the problem arises because the law would have to be rather universal and would obviously apply to both humans and animal rights. Otherwise, it is subject to selectionism rather than eclecticism.

What do you think...?
~

I agree with O'nus. I've done some researches and I can also add that genarally, big animals such as: horses, bulls, (when some1 is crazy enought), pigs or even dogs are being attached with chains or stuffs like that to hold them. What i mean is that people are forcing those animals to have sex with humans. And because humans don't want to get hurt they tight them. You don't call that abuse? Or even forced sexual relations?
And also ppl who decide having sex with animals, well it's their opinion. You can't kil them because of that. But most of the times animals prove signs of desagreement. Have you heard of the movie "Zoo"? I haven't seen it but it's about the death of Kenneth Pinyan. A guy who died after having a sex with a horse. There's the link to the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(movie). And theres a link with some more details of how he died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan. ( a perforated colon)
Yeah i was shocked when i saw that. I personally think that Zoophilia should be forbidden because its dangerous not only for the animals but for humans too.

Originally Posted by DreamWave

I agree with O'nus. I've done some researches and I can also add that genarally, big animals such as: horses, bulls, (when some1 is crazy enought), pigs or even dogs are being attached with chains or stuffs like that to hold them. What i mean is that people are forcing those animals to have sex with humans. And because humans don't want to get hurt they tight them. You don't call that abuse? Or even forced sexual relations?

I think he was referring to, most importantly, when animals are free to do as they like and deliberately fornicate with a human. For example, recall how many times you see dogs humping peoples legs? Say a human responds in the same way. I know it seems very odd, but is it wrong?

And also ppl who decide having sex with animals, well it's their opinion. You can't kil them because of that. But most of the times animals prove signs of desagreement. Have you heard of the movie "Zoo"? I haven't seen it but it's about the death of Kenneth Pinyan. A guy who died after having a sex with a horse. There's the link to the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(movie). And theres a link with some more details of how he died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan. ( a perforated colon)
Yeah i was shocked when i saw that. I personally think that Zoophilia should be forbidden because its dangerous not only for the animals but for humans too.

I do not intend to be coy, but I want to show you the problems with this argument (not yours, but the whole thing) and how someone could respond to this.

I would speculate that more people have died from choking on food and food poisoning than sex with animals. I am not suggesting that it is more likely (because it happens more most likely due to simple ubiquity) however, does this mean we should deter the amount of eating as well because of its danger?

What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Unfortunately, most cases of sexual animal abuse are forced via some form of bondage.

Yes. I think that this is probably the biggest problem. We would have to prove the abuse in order to prosecute it. Since we are talking about a relatively small number of cases here, it is simply much easier to simply ban all kinds of bestiality and presume that anyone who engages in it does so without regard for the animal involved.

But, as with drugs, would the legalization not allow us to regulate this behavior so that all creatures involved can be happier with it? Couldn't we even train animals to be voluntarily attracted to humans on a sexual level and then let zoophiliacs have their way with them without having to hurt innocent creatures? It would be sick, but it is possible, no?
If we would do this with children, we would take away their future autonomy by willfully manipulating them for our personal gain. This would be wrong. However, in animals, there is nothing to be taken away because they are animals, used for personal gain in the first place. There is no autonomy, free will or dignity to be taken. We manipulate and use them, even by training them to be good pets, do we not?

I think the argument comes into the similar path with children. The days of antiquity had catamites in which young boys would offer themselves to elders for money. In modern times, this type of activity would be the catalyst to chaos. (Hell, I am afriad of even mentioning it). However, the argument is over whether or not the catamite had the ability to rationally decide that what they were doing was the best course of action for them and if they considered alternative methods.

My point here is, under that same logic, what about a young child (under 10) consenting to fornicate with an adult - is that alright? This is where the problem arises because the law would have to be rather universal and would obviously apply to both humans and animal rights. Otherwise, it is subject to selectionism rather than eclecticism.

I think that the analogy between animals and children is not valid. Animals can never give informed consent, they can only nonverbally communicate their readiness. This is also under the presumption that bestiality shall only occur with animals of mating age. Children cannot give informed consent only in so much as that an adult can and that the child will later on be able to do so as well. An animal well never be able to do so, though.

In interaction with animals, the interaction is based on the level of primitive instincts while in humans we have the element of psychology and consciousness which plays no role at all in animals. In animals the notion of "informed consent" is only an extrapolation of their nonverbal behavior while in children the lack of informed consent is a fact, resulting from the possibility of even giving it which is purely human.

Originally Posted by DreamWave

I agree with O'nus. I've done some researches and I can also add that genarally, big animals such as: horses, bulls, (when some1 is crazy enought), pigs or even dogs are being attached with chains or stuffs like that to hold them. What i mean is that people are forcing those animals to have sex with humans. And because humans don't want to get hurt they tight them. You don't call that abuse? Or even forced sexual relations?

Yes, this is abuse, something that should not be allowed. However, there are cases of animals clearly having an affectionate sexual relationship with a human with no physical restriction taking place. We have all seen dogs hump legs, cardboard boxes and plush animals.

And also ppl who decide having sex with animals, well it's their opinion. You can't kil them because of that. But most of the times animals prove signs of desagreement.

Yes. And this sign of disagreement should be respected, as with human sexuality. As noted above, some people do claim that their animals do not show such signs and engage in the sexual act on a purely voluntary basis.

Have you heard of the movie "Zoo"? I haven't seen it but it's about the death of Kenneth Pinyan. A guy who died after having a sex with a horse. There's the link to the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(movie). And theres a link with some more details of how he died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan. ( a perforated colon)
Yeah i was shocked when i saw that. I personally think that Zoophilia should be forbidden because its dangerous not only for the animals but for humans too.

I have not seen this movie, however I do know the case of Kenneth Pinyan. I have seen the original footage of him taking the 20(?) inches, not a pleasant thing to look at.

Case in point, this horse didn't look so much as if it was being forced or showed signs of disagreement. Clearly it would have ejected, hell, not even gotten an erection, if it would not have been comfortable with the situation. It has done this various times to various people, as has been well documented.

Bestiality can be dangerous, but this is no argument for bannage, as many dangerous things are legal and people should be free to chose in what kind of danger they engage in.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think he was referring to, most importantly, when animals are free to do as they like and deliberately fornicate with a human. For example, recall how many times you see dogs humping peoples legs? Say a human responds in the same way. I know it seems very odd, but is it wrong?

Yes, this is exactly my point.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think he was referring to, most importantly, when animals are free to do as they like and deliberately fornicate with a human. For example, recall how many times you see dogs humping peoples legs? Say a human responds in the same way. I know it seems very odd, but is it wrong?

Yes i agree, but when a dog is humping your leg it's just an instinct. A simple instinct of reproduction. When a male human has an erection is the same thing. Usually when this happens the male thinks of a female of it's specie. So when the dog is doing that it's not because it wants to have relations with you. Most of the times humans use this "instinct" of the animals to have sex with them. Or they just masturbate the animal untill it gets hard on. You"ll never see a horse already with a full erection just because it saw a nacked girl. NO. ALL of the times the horses (or other animals) don't have an erection in the begining. So whether the animal is tight or not there's a reason why it's called "animal abuse". And also something else, if you think of it, the animals that humans are having sex with are always "peacefull" animals. Horses are generally peacefull when raised. Dogs...there have been reported accidents with those species (can't find the site now) but generally they wont hurt you either. Pigs, how can possibly a pig hurt you? I use to have a pig back there in my country. And trust me, there's no way it can hurt you badly. (there's still a little possiblity). Snakes, well, ALL of the times someone is holding the head of the snake and the girl is having fun with it's tail. Sooo...as you see usually they're all raised animals. Now, what happens if a human tries to have sex with a wild animal? Let's take a tiger for an exemple. I've already seen a picture of a girl having sex with tiger but it was a cub. I'm talking here about an adult individual. Not raised. The woman (or man) will end up in a hospital if he/she is still alive. Take any other specie that doesnt live with humans. That is not used to humans. The result will ALWAYS be the same. So, what i mean is that animals don't want to have any sexual relations with humans. But just because horses, dogs, pigs, or all those species are raised by humans and are used to us, they are afraid. And they won't try to hurt you even if you try to kill them. For exemple if you try to kill a sheep or a pig or whatever farm animal. They'll run away but they won't attack you or try to kill you. And then if you compare it with a lion, the lion will jump on you and if u don't have a gun it will kill you. So animals DON'T want to have sexual relations with humans.

I do not intend to be coy, but I want to show you the problems with this argument (not yours, but the whole thing) and how someone could respond to this.

I would speculate that more people have died from choking on food and food poisoning than sex with animals. I am not suggesting that it is more likely (because it happens more most likely due to simple ubiquity) however, does this mean we should deter the amount of eating as well because of its danger?

What do you think...?

I'll have to agree on this one. But let me give an other exemple. In Australia there have been reported around 60 shark attacks for the last year. ONLY 10 of them were deadly. As you say "more people die from food" , or natural desasters, cancer, or car accidents. But you know how many sharks die because we kill them? around 10 000 (in the world) every year. this is the same exemple as the one you gave me above. "So, around 10 people die every year because they have sexual relations with animals. But it doesnt matter because other ppl die everyday from something else"
An then: "10 humans died last year because of a shark attack! We have to KILL the sharks because they're dangerous." you see...what i meant to say here is that people like to see the things like they want them to be. And most of the times whey prefere skipping to face the reality.

EDIT: By the way, is a thread like that allowed?

I don't think the laws have anything at all to do with abuse. I think some people think its sick so they use abuse as a cover to force other people to stop. Its all about controling others, and forcing them to follow your moral guidelines.

As for me, I don't care and I don't want to know what you do in your own home.

Originally Posted by Korittke

But, as with drugs, would the legalization not allow us to regulate this behavior so that all creatures involved can be happier with it? Couldn't we even train animals to be voluntarily attracted to humans on a sexual level and then let zoophiliacs have their way with them without having to hurt innocent creatures? It would be sick, but it is possible, no?

For what purpose? I do not see a reason to encourage beastiality or advocate it. If anything, I would say punish animal abuse and when a human fornicates with an animal forcefully, that would then be abuse. Otherwise, it is simply "animal erotica".

Originally Posted by Korittke

I think that the analogy between animals and children is not valid. Animals can never give informed consent, they can only nonverbally communicate their readiness. This is also under the presumption that bestiality shall only occur with animals of mating age. Children cannot give informed consent only in so much as that an adult can and that the child will later on be able to do so as well. An animal well never be able to do so, though.

Animals can give passive consent. Just as you have said, if they did not like doing it, they would resist. Otherwise, since we cannot truly communicate with animals, they can consent by simply being passive or participating.
A child can give consent because they can say "yes" or "no". Of course, this can easily move to forceful abuse, but the point here is that I think you are trying to say that the child has yet to have found the ability, or comprehension, to say "yes" or "no". However, an animal is even less capable of this reasoning as it cannot even communicate with us. I think it is very valid because they show a problem in the subtextual double-standard of yours. By this, I mean, if you advocate that animals ought to be able to fornicate with humans, you should also advocate children being able to fornicate with elders.

Originally Posted by Korittke

In interaction with animals, the interaction is based on the level of primitive instincts while in humans we have the element of psychology and consciousness which plays no role at all in animals.

Does not behaviourism say that all human actions and consequences are instinctual and simply the result of our synapses?

Originally Posted by DreamWave

Yes i agree, but when a dog is humping your leg it's just an instinct. A simple instinct of reproduction.

You mean to tell us that a dog thinks it can rear offspring by humping my leg? How about dolphins that masturbate by rubbing up against the viewing glass? Monkeys that masterbate in zoo's? They are all forms of empty hedonistic motivation. Furthermore, are you going to make the leap to say that humans do something more "special" than simple fornication? Behaviourism is easily prepared to argue that all things you do are simply the result of your physiological make-up. Any further modifications can be easily attributed to a self-indulgent and arrogant definition (ie. "humans were made by God, and only humans, are the purpose of the entire existance of everything").

Originally Posted by DreamWave

When a male human has an erection is the same thing. Usually when this happens the male thinks of a female of it's specie.

This is simply not true. I think you will give room for this as you said usually. However, the fact is that humans can be aroused by a plethora of things besides the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by DreamWave

NO. ALL of the times the horses (or other animals) don't have an erection in the begining

You will pardon me if I ask you for evidence on this... (Bad joke).
Animals are perfectly capable of initiating sexual acts. The simple dog humping your leg is a mundane example of this.

Originally Posted by DreamWave

Sooo...as you see usually they're all raised animals. Now, what happens if a human tries to have sex with a wild animal? Let's take a tiger for an exemple. I've already seen a picture of a girl having sex with tiger but it was a cub. I'm talking here about an adult individual. Not raised. The woman (or man) will end up in a hospital if he/she is still alive. Take any other specie that doesnt live with humans. That is not used to humans. The result will ALWAYS be the same. So, what i mean is that animals don't want to have any sexual relations with humans.

Actually, that makes perfect evolutionary sense for animals to isolate their reproduction to there related genus and region. It is actually consistent with evolution to only reproduce with those things that you can survive with (ie. domesticated animals). Although this is very awkward and weird in our society, it is simply true. This is why you will find things like "cabbits" (the result of a cat and a rabbit having sex).

Animals can resist. All animals have the capability to fight back. Humans are capable of perceiving this because, if the animal resisted, the human would then have to apply force. Hence, abuse. As I said before, the animal is capable of consenting by being passive.

Originally Posted by DreamWave

I'll have to agree on this one. But let me give an other exemple. In Australia there have been reported around 60 shark attacks for the last year. ONLY 10 of them were deadly. As you say "more people die from food" , or natural desasters, cancer, or car accidents. But you know how many sharks die because we kill them? around 10 000 (in the world) every year. this is the same exemple as the one you gave me above. "So, around 10 people die every year because they have sexual relations with animals. But it doesnt matter because other ppl die everyday from something else"
An then: "10 humans died last year because of a shark attack! We have to KILL the sharks because they're dangerous." you see...what i meant to say here is that people like to see the things like they want them to be. And most of the times whey prefere skipping to face the reality.

I never said that we should focus on other means to how people are dying. My point was that your logic ought to be unviersal and apply to all facets of life. Otherwise, you are subject to bias and selectionism and, simultaneously, an illogical conclusion.

My point was that fornicating with animals is likely to be just as deadly as fornicating with humans. Did you forget about all the sexually transmitted diseases? What about AIDS? You said that having sex with animals should be banned because it is unhealthy. However, having sex with your own species (humans) is just as bad.

I am not sure where you were going with the latter part. Dramatic responses to minor consequences? (Kill all sharks because they killed 10 humans?). I am not sure what you are trying to say there.

What do you think...?

Edit

By the way, is a thread like that allowed?

No kidding. I find it odd that I am arguing it. The implications are odd and I simply do not like them. Personally, I would never advocate abuse of any kind.

~