Is it normal that people use this argument so often?

On this site when some people are faced with issue of human-animal sex, they bring up the good old 'They can't give consent'.
Is that implying that if animals had the capacity to do so, the whole zoophilia bandwagon would become morally accepted and normal to them?
To me, romping animals is disgusting consent or not. One day what will probably happen is that the group of people who do/want to do this will grow larger and and more comfortable in society, and begin pushing their ideas through in an attempt to drill their message in to everyone's heads - it is good, it is good, accept us or you shall be an outcast who will be called rude names by the world and is it normal community.

Voting Results
50% Normal
Based on 6 votes (3 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 15 )
  • TheWrinklySailor

    It's my opinion that my wife, 42 years my junior, has sex with a wrinkly ballbag like me (check my profile pic) because she's scared of sex with real people.
    It's nothing more than masturbation with a creature, as that creature certainly isn't a participant in the act, only a receptacle.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • G)d

      How profound. Tell me, oh wondrous ballbag, what will the future bring me?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dytrog

    From what I've read and heard. Dogs don't mind fucking girls. Is that consent?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • snarkygirl

    If you need to justify a reason NOT to have sex with an animal you are a huge fucking pervert.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • thegypsysailor

    It's my guess those who feel the need to have sex with animal do so because they are afraid of having sex with a person. It's nothing more than masturbation with a creature, as that creature certainly isn't a participant in the act, only a receptacle.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • NeofelisNebulosa

    An animal can't give consent. Zoophilia is akin to pedophilia in that way. I doubt zoophilia will ever become accepted as normal. Maybe 1000 years from now when nobody gives a shit about conventional values or morality.... Who knows.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Arm0se

    Animals can't give consent? That's ridicules. If you stick something inside an animal they don't want there they're going to turn around and bite it off. They do it with toys, food, and when the wrong people pet them. Why wouldn't they do it with fucking?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Arm0se? Come on. Don't you jump on the bandwagon also.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Arm0se

        What are you talking about? You said you hate when people say "animals can't give consent". I'm saying they can give consent, I'm agreeing with you.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • NeofelisNebulosa

          Even if an animal does not bite you, it does not mean it is capable of giving consent. Children might not stop pedophiles either, but that doesn't mean they are consenting to the act. Perhaps the animal does enjoy the feeling, or is trained to enjoy it, but it still is not truly giving consent. At least that's my thought.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Arm0se

            Not your fault; common misconception. I was just using the biting thing as an example. Just as you can tell weather or not an animal wants anything else or not you can tell weather or not it wants sex though it's movements, expressions, and the noises it makes. For example, it the animal is whimpering and has it's tail between it's legs, and is trying to slip away, you can tell it's in an uncomfortable situation.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • NeuroNeptunian

              Having sex with someone who is special needs and does not have the capacity to understand what is going on, whether or not they enjoy it, is considered a sex offense.

              Consent isn't simply whether or not a person enjoys something. It also takes into consideration the person's perceived capacity to understand what is actually going on beyond the "feeling" of having sex and to properly act on that understanding. Hence, why a 16 year old is illegal for a 47 year old man to fuck but the same man can fuck an 18 year old girl. The 16 year old girl isn't even legally allowed to move in with him should she get pregnant, abort the child (in many states) and, in some cases, even make her own private medical decisions. He's basically fucking a legally powerless individual so it being against the law gives her some type of power.

              The animal can get hurt or killed in the acts performed upon it or contract a disease. The animal can't go to the doctor and may not even understand why or how it is hurting.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • victorygin

    People don't usually say that's the ONLY reason it's not Ok. It's one reason of many; part of a larger argument.
    It's not implying that if animals could give consent, zoophilia would be acceptable. That's crazy talk.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Couman

    The main reason this bugs me is that consent (as used here) is a legal concept. And arguing ethics from law is ass-backwards.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • VinnyB

    This just isn't the case and animals can't consent so it is completely irrelevant, but if animals had the mental capacity to consent I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it if consenting humans wanted to hook up with consenting animals. I wouldn't engage in it myself because it doesn't interest me and I would exercise my right not to consent and participate.

    Comment Hidden ( show )