Menewsha Avatar Community

Menewsha Avatar Community (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/index.php)
-   Extended Discussion (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=111)
-   -   Zoosexuality / Bestiality is it wrong? (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=158941)

Hayzel 04-28-2010 10:28 PM

Quote:

Do animals "consent" to being taught stupid tricks for our amusement? Do they "consent" to having their testicles cut off? So long as the animal is not harmed, I see nothing wrong with bestiality.
Do Children consent to medical procedures? Nope, they're done for the good of the child.
Do children consent to going to school? Nope, in the US it's required.
Do they consent to having sex? Nope, because it's harmful to children.

Animals do have the choice to do or not to do tricks. They do them because they like the rewards, usually a treat. However not all "tricks" are stupid and for amusement. For example, I taught my cat that when he would like a door opened for him, he will jump up and touch the doorknob. This isn't a useless trick, it's a way I taught him to communicate his wishes to me.

una 04-28-2010 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inertia (Post 1767144283)
There is diversity in sexual behavior among animals, masturbation, homosexuality, heterosexuality, fellatio and even sexual objectification are but a few. The main advantage we humans have is dexterity, not specifically intelligence. We have bodies that are capable of moving in different angles and positions and such that we can easily invent more and yes... Chimps can too.

I'm talking about specific identifiable behaviours which make patterns of social behaviour difficult to establish. For example there is no predictable pattern of foreplay amongst humans, where as in animals we have identified behavioural patterns.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Inertia (Post 1767144283)
You missed the point..........

....... the dots aren't making the point any clearer. I'm all ears my good fellow :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inertia (Post 1767144283)
Animals can be abused sexually, humans can be abused sexually. What's the difference?

Communication and knowledge. I know sexual abuse is illegal and I know my rights and what to do, god forbid, it ever happened to me. I have to ability to tell someone what happened and stand in a court of law and testify against that person. An animal can do none of the above. That is the massive difference.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Inertia (Post 1767144283)
All your points could easily be applied to humans in similar circumstances. Why is it important to you that animals are abused yet not humans.

If this thread was about human rights I would be blowing the trumpet for the homo-sapiens. But this is a thread about animals so go figure.






Quote:

Originally Posted by Inertia (Post 1767144283)
You're applying a human concept to animals here. Bitches are generally humped by random male dogs when they are in heat, leading to a litter of children from multiple fathers, there is no reason to believe they have relationship issues with this. Generally after being humped (especially by professional breeder dogs) the bitch won't see the stud for a whole year at least. Why don't you complain about issues like this? Maybe try to train dogs into having a more family oriented approach to breeding.

You're side stepping my question. What happens if an animal does not find their owner sexually attractive or becomes frigid later in the relationship. What happens to the animal, is it dumped in the shelter for not putting out?
Again humans and animals are different. I doubt a bitch will have to worry about the bills and her career when a one night stand leads to an accidental pregnancy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inertia (Post 1767144283)
And if someone was buying an animal strictly for sex, they're not looking for a loving relationship to begin with and isn't the kind of circumstance we're debating here.

Who said that zoophillia had to be a relationship based on love? It's not, love may configure in it but it is not necessary. So it is entirely possible that people will buy animals purely for their sexual needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherry cocaine (Post 1767149509)
Do animals "consent" to being taught stupid tricks for our amusement? Do they "consent" to having their testicles cut off? So long as the animal is not harmed, I see nothing wrong with bestiality.

Humans ignore animal consent, and you fail to see the possible problem with bestiality?

Hayzel 04-28-2010 11:15 PM

Quote:

....... the dots aren't making the point any clearer. I'm all ears my good fellow
I LOL'd. XD

Quote:

Communication and knowledge. I know sexual abuse is illegal and I know my rights and what to do, god forbid, it ever happened to me. I have to ability to tell someone what happened and stand in a court of law and testify against that person. An animal can do none of the above. That is the massive difference.
Again equating animals with children but it is illegal to starve or abuse a dog, the same way it is illegal to starve or abuse a child. just an interesting thought there...

Quote:

Who said that zoophillia had to be a relationship based on love? It's not, love may configure in it but it is not necessary. So it is entirely possible that people will buy animals purely for their sexual needs.
In fact my mother(who was the manager of an SPCA) said this was partly why they fixed the animals. When people are looking for animals to have sex with typically they look for(at least in male animals) a lack of being neutered. That's just what my mother says though, I'm not really submitting it as evidence, just another thought.


It's legal for two sixteen year old kids to have sex(well most would not have a problem with it or bring up charges anyway), but as soon as you take that sixteen year old and put it with a 20 year old the stakes change. Why? Because there is a difference in maturity and knowledge that exists. I think the same can be said about the difference between the knowledge of an animal and a human.

Lysine 05-01-2010 07:45 PM

It's wrong. Pedophilia and bestiality both indicate someone who doesn't have a normally developed sexuality, because they want to have sex with someone who doesn't have a developed human sexuality -- children being too young, and animals being a different species and thinking of sex in a different way. Furthermore, neither children nor animals can consent to sex.

Hayzel 05-17-2010 03:11 PM

It truly does annoy me when people run out of responses they just don't post...

I feel like if someone has done that good a job of proving their point, they deserve someone saying "your right".

I'm not saying that because I think I'm right, if you have some argument or evidence then please challenge what I said, but if you can't find anything then why not just admit it instead of running away?

Keyori 05-17-2010 05:49 PM

Just because someone backs up their points well doesn't mean that their opinion is correct. ;P

Philomel 05-17-2010 06:03 PM

There's also a difference between not posting and not having a response. In some cases, it simply isn't worth it to continue replying.

Claudia 05-19-2010 07:17 PM

I always find it extremely odd how so many people are concerned about an animal's consent to sexual intercourse or other sexual activity who eat meat, wear fur/leather and use countless other animal products.
Some how sexual consent is more important then consenting to be slaughtered for meat or made into other products.
I feel COME ON!....You don't really care about animal rights..... IF YOU DO, be a bit less hypocritical here.
If it's immoral to subject animals to sexual activity without their consent, how about subjecting them to slaughterhouses without their consent?.

This makes me think that peoples' adversion to zoosexuality is possibly more about the "ewe' factor involved.
Or how they feel threatened by it in the same way they dislike homeosexuality, transgendered people or other differences. Most of the time is has nothing to do with animal rights.

Philomel 05-19-2010 07:38 PM

First off, you (wrongly) assume we're all meat-eaters. You seem to do that a great deal in your arguments. Second, and perhaps more importantly, many (myself included) see quality of life as being more important than basic survival. Not all meat eaters approve of the conditions in slaughterhouses, and death is simply nonexistence. You can't be upset about being dead because you're, well, dead. You don't suffer. Rape is abuse, just as much as kicking or beating or torturing or intentionally starving the animal is. Would you say that those who eat meat but are against people setting cats on fire are hypocrites?

Lordi 05-19-2010 09:28 PM

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

And if it does not affect your personal life, they why do you care?

Philomel 05-20-2010 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordi (Post 1767257814)
"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

And if it does not affect your personal life, they why do you care?

That is just about the most gods-awful reasoning behind choosing what you do and do not care about I've ever heard. Absolutely everything anyone would want to do can be justified using this. Wanna beat your wife to a bloody pulp? Doesn't affect my personal life, so have at it. Want to pimp out your five-year-old? Doesn't affect my personal life. Want to commit genocide? As long as I'm not a part of the group being victimized, it doesn't affect me on a personal level. Laws would simply not exist if everyone used your logic. Thank the gods they don't.

una 05-21-2010 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudia (Post 1767257228)
I always find it extremely odd how so many people are concerned about an animal's consent to sexual intercourse or other sexual activity who eat meat, wear fur/leather and use countless other animal products.
Some how sexual consent is more important then consenting to be slaughtered for meat or made into other products.
I feel COME ON!....You don't really care about animal rights..... IF YOU DO, be a bit less hypocritical here.
If it's immoral to subject animals to sexual activity without their consent, how about subjecting them to slaughterhouses without their consent?.

This makes me think that peoples' adversion to zoosexuality is possibly more about the "ewe' factor involved.
Or how they feel threatened by it in the same way they dislike homeosexuality, transgendered people or other differences. Most of the time is has nothing to do with animal rights.

I don't eat meat, I don't buy animal products, I don't buy products that have been tested on animals, I don't wear fur, I'm anti-hunting- ect. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it :sarcasm:


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM.