I think becuase it is technicly rape becuase they can not tell you if they want it or not . Also prolonged sex with the animal messes them up pychologicly and makes them start raping any person that walked by so they have to kill the animal at that piont becuase they are cosidered dangerous . A old lady had trianed her pitbulls to have sex with her it was 3 dogs and they would have sex with her all the time she had trianed this behavior since they were puppys . They will not have sex with other dogs only humans so they made the piont those animals are dangerous and can go out raping poeple so they killed the 3 dogs and arrested the lady she was in her 90s and had the dogs a very long time . She was in a country where it is against the law to have sex with animals . So that is why .
This whole thing is just littered with runaround Rhetoric, You can't tell if a dog wants it or not, but then you say they run around raping people...So obviously they want it. A person and an Animal both engage in rape for numerous reasons, in this sited case you suggest that a dog will rape people simply because it has been taught to have sex with people, but that is not the case, same as a human rapist will not just rape people because they have been taught to have sex. They are both seeking gratification from the act they are performing. An Animal, such as a dog, thinks on very base levels, Eat, Sleep, Procreate, when a human introduces to the animal something else that it can readily expect, either a nightly walk, or a nice long breeding session in the evening, the dog understand this as an activity it enjoys and wants to repeat given the opportunity. A Rapist follows many of the same ideas except it FORCES itself upon another human, a Dog would do this thinking the Human wants to engage in similar behavior as their master. Most notable cases of these are during house sitting events, or parties when an individual takes a position that the dog sees as being Invitational, though it's unintended the dog notes this and goes...Hey I want some of that! not intentionally Forcing a human to engage in activity. Now, there is "pattern behavior" in animals too, so yes a dog might seemingly "rape" a person during a particular time of the day if that is the normal time they engage in sex with a person, they are expecting it as they would a meal. It's like the song about the hound dog that gets taken for a walk everynight to go meet up with a female dog and have sex so when the man tries to escape from prison the dog goes to find the female dog instead of chasing the convict.
I did not say that . I did not make the ruling I would have let the dogs leave and simply arrested the lady for breaking the law . Animal control siad it was a danger and had to dispose of the dogs . I wouldve left the dogs be I fealt pitty for those poor animals .Also animals learn what they are tuaght . They follow the tricks becuase they are tuaght they are tuaght to have sex for a treat and they will do it . you can apply this concept to children but that is a bit more complicated in the case .
You actually have a point there.
But I'm talking about the dogs who DO enjoy it, and weren't taught from the beginning.
It's not that I'm talking from first hand experience, because I've never done such a thing.
But I do know that they do in fact, enjoy it.
actually, in quite many countries it's not, unless you PAY for it.
which, as i read it, was never the intent here.
also, while it's definitely not something i'd be interested in, i don't see how people can claim it to be animal cruelty- If the dog gets horny, he'll hump stuff. No place for human morals there. He won't care who is there or watches him do the deed.
As said, not my thing, but if you are both into it, go get freaky. You can train him, but you can't force him, anyway.
This is dangerous logic. If a thirteen year old girl is curious and wants to commit a sexual act with me, I should let her because she wants to and thus it isn't immoral?
Besides all the "ew gross" comments, the real reason things like bestiality are illegal and immoral is cognitive capacity. Neither an animal nor a child has the proper cognitive capacity to fully understand their actions - therein lies an inherent power imbalance that is impossible to resolve. I believe that employing such an imbalance for personal benefit is morally wrong.
Ah, but this same dangerous logic applies to many a thing.
Animals lack cognitive capacity.
Thats why we lock up cows in cages, artificially inseminate them, slaughter their babies for veal meat, and then use the milk for cheese and coffee creamer, before eventually slaughtering them as well once they give less and less milk.
a whole _LOT_ of things we do to animals would DEFINITELY be far from acceptable to do with humans. I just don't think it's very reasonable(and, in my eyes, dangerous) to only apply human-equivalent morals and views in regards to sexuality.
As you say, they lack cognitive capacity, they will usually not be traumatized or experience permanent mental damage...not more than many animals do in their regular farm live. Comparing them with humans in only ONE aspect seems a little...off.
Take note that i'm personally not interested in bestiality, but i wholly understand why the LAW in many places does not forbid sexuality itself, but rather only looks at extreme cases under animal cruelty laws...comparing to other stuff done to animals on a daily basis, sexual intercourse with humans would be one of the lower-priority-things to care about...
and no, i'm not an animal rights activist, just trying to get the priorities right here, both in volume and extent of what is "done" to animals.
I know you're not interested in it, I see nothing wrong with trying to defend an unpopular opinion. I've tried to argue for incest before, and I'm not interested in that either.
I don't quite understand your argument. Are you suggesting that treating them similarly in regards to sexual law means we should treat them similarly in every single other aspect as well? That makes no sense to me, but perhaps I've misunderstood.
Are you instead arguing that if bestiality is immoral due to lack of consent, then slaughter should also be immoral for that reason? That doesn't make sense to me either - there are plenty of things that children may not "consent" to, like going to the dentist or something, but we will force them to because we know better. I think you're generalizing.
As cognitive superiors to both animals and children, we have a responsibility to take care of them. The difference in slaughter is a whole other can of worms - people have to eat. They should do it as humanely as possible, but the simple fact is that feeding on prey is necessary for survival.
Hm, i'm trying to argue on the basis of how we treat them.
Animals, even if we eat them for prey, should, as conscient creatures, have a "free natural life", with being able to act out behaiviours natural for their species.
In opposite, many of our main "food items/procudes", namely chickens, pigs, and cows, are often "held" in very unnatural, crowded areas, some never even see sunlight, and their whole life is based on producing as much in as little time as possible(including restraining movement e.g. for pigs, to make them gain weight faster, or caged batteries for chickens so cleaning is easier). We are even selectively BREEDING them to maximize gain.
Now what i'm trying to say is that while we may "disagree" with how they are treated, we all tolerate that, because a change would mean either a lot less animal produce and/or a significantly higher price.
So we accept that almost all "used" animals are used in unnatural, unconvenient ways because we personally stand to gain from it.
Basically i'm saying that we "abuse" our power, and our cognitive superiority, to mistreat animals for our own good, all the time.
Now if someone has intercourse with their dog, or a sheep, or anything else with more legs than 2(or two legs and wings, or fins, or...you get the picture), i don't really understand why _THIS_ abuse of power is so incredibly wrong it causes outcries, while the other is silently tolerated.
As mentioned, unless the animal is mistreated in general, i doubt sexual experiences with humans would "traumatize" them in the least. They will simply not care about what happened, or not even remember.
So even if an animal owner "abuses" his mental superiority to have sexual relations with that animal, but otherwise treats it great, I'd find him a whole lot more agreeable than someone that mistreats his animal but has no sexual relation with it.
We kill animals for food, for fur, we keep them in cages for our amusement, for centuries we used them to plow fields or as transport(also during war)...basically, we did or do as we please with them, abusing the fact they are our cognitive inferiors.
Saying "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong" just doesn't ring right to me. Why should sexuality be the big taboo here? I can mass slaughter small furry animals to make a expensive coat but someone else should go to jail(according to some people in this threat) for raping their dog when they had sex with him?
So basically i'm stating that if people want to take the moral high ground and say "there's the line, and it can't be crossed" then they will have to explain WHY that line goes exactly there, why so much else is this side of the line and acceptable and exactly this thing would have to be on the other side.
And from that perspective, i understand that the LAW in many countries allows sexual interaction with animals, as long as they are treated right(otherwise animal cruelty would kick in, anyway).
sorry for the long post, but i wanted to make my point clear, unlike angel you actually seem interested in an proper exchange :)
Well, that's the thing. I never said "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong". I absolutely DO think animals should be treated humanely. Just because I think it's okay to eat animals, doesn't mean I think it's okay to keep them in tiny cages and torture them. I never said sex is the only bad thing you can do to them.
Here are two ways I justify the moral line between sex and murder:
1. The (humane!) slaughter of animals provides an overwhelmingly significant ADVANTAGE to humanity. Having sex with them does not. I'm talking about food and important products (tires, glue, etc) and NOT useless expensive fur coats.
2. The (humane!) slaughter of animals is NECESSARY for our survival. Having sex with them is not. I don't think it would be possible for all of society to become vegan, and even if we could, I would question the line between animal morality and plant morality.
I don't think our power as superiors over animals should be abused, but there are exceptions (food, etc), just like I don't think our power over children should be abused, but there are exceptions (forcing them to go to school, etc). The exceptions are very specifically for things that are ADVANTAGEOUS and NECESSARY, as I described above.
As for the whole "they probably won't be traumatized" part, you don't have any way of knowing that. And just because they might "forget" (you also don't know that), doesn't mean it's okay. I can't molest someone while they're unconscious just because they'll never know. And like I said above, just because a thirteen year old girl wants sex and "won't be traumatized", does not make it okay, because she does not have the mental capacity to understand such a decision.
As for Angel, she once tried to argue with me that meat-eaters are scum that deserve to be ranked with serial killers and rapists, so I think she may not be the best person to try to reason with. :/
it's legal in quite a number of nations, still. Note that it's often covered under other things. E.g. Sex with an animal MAY be legal, but mistreatment or "whoring out" of a animal is not.
So the shepherd can indulge his desires on his herd, but if he "pimps" his sheep to wanderers, he's a criminal.
I think becuase it is technicly rape becuase they can not tell you if they want it or not . Also prolonged sex with the animal messes them up pychologicly and makes them start raping any person that walked by so they have to kill the animal at that piont becuase they are cosidered dangerous . A old lady had trianed her pitbulls to have sex with her it was 3 dogs and they would have sex with her all the time she had trianed this behavior since they were puppys . They will not have sex with other dogs only humans so they made the piont those animals are dangerous and can go out raping poeple so they killed the 3 dogs and arrested the lady she was in her 90s and had the dogs a very long time . She was in a country where it is against the law to have sex with animals . So that is why .
Is it normal to have sex with an animal?
← View full post
I will say this now . THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW .
--
IrishPotato
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Incorrect. It's allowed in most countries, and I say, if the animal is enjoying it, then why is it a problem?
--
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think becuase it is technicly rape becuase they can not tell you if they want it or not . Also prolonged sex with the animal messes them up pychologicly and makes them start raping any person that walked by so they have to kill the animal at that piont becuase they are cosidered dangerous . A old lady had trianed her pitbulls to have sex with her it was 3 dogs and they would have sex with her all the time she had trianed this behavior since they were puppys . They will not have sex with other dogs only humans so they made the piont those animals are dangerous and can go out raping poeple so they killed the 3 dogs and arrested the lady she was in her 90s and had the dogs a very long time . She was in a country where it is against the law to have sex with animals . So that is why .
--
Maid_in_Pink
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
IrishPotato
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This whole thing is just littered with runaround Rhetoric, You can't tell if a dog wants it or not, but then you say they run around raping people...So obviously they want it. A person and an Animal both engage in rape for numerous reasons, in this sited case you suggest that a dog will rape people simply because it has been taught to have sex with people, but that is not the case, same as a human rapist will not just rape people because they have been taught to have sex. They are both seeking gratification from the act they are performing. An Animal, such as a dog, thinks on very base levels, Eat, Sleep, Procreate, when a human introduces to the animal something else that it can readily expect, either a nightly walk, or a nice long breeding session in the evening, the dog understand this as an activity it enjoys and wants to repeat given the opportunity. A Rapist follows many of the same ideas except it FORCES itself upon another human, a Dog would do this thinking the Human wants to engage in similar behavior as their master. Most notable cases of these are during house sitting events, or parties when an individual takes a position that the dog sees as being Invitational, though it's unintended the dog notes this and goes...Hey I want some of that! not intentionally Forcing a human to engage in activity. Now, there is "pattern behavior" in animals too, so yes a dog might seemingly "rape" a person during a particular time of the day if that is the normal time they engage in sex with a person, they are expecting it as they would a meal. It's like the song about the hound dog that gets taken for a walk everynight to go meet up with a female dog and have sex so when the man tries to escape from prison the dog goes to find the female dog instead of chasing the convict.
--
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I did not say that . I did not make the ruling I would have let the dogs leave and simply arrested the lady for breaking the law . Animal control siad it was a danger and had to dispose of the dogs . I wouldve left the dogs be I fealt pitty for those poor animals .Also animals learn what they are tuaght . They follow the tricks becuase they are tuaght they are tuaght to have sex for a treat and they will do it . you can apply this concept to children but that is a bit more complicated in the case .
You actually have a point there.
But I'm talking about the dogs who DO enjoy it, and weren't taught from the beginning.
It's not that I'm talking from first hand experience, because I've never done such a thing.
But I do know that they do in fact, enjoy it.
actually, in quite many countries it's not, unless you PAY for it.
which, as i read it, was never the intent here.
also, while it's definitely not something i'd be interested in, i don't see how people can claim it to be animal cruelty- If the dog gets horny, he'll hump stuff. No place for human morals there. He won't care who is there or watches him do the deed.
As said, not my thing, but if you are both into it, go get freaky. You can train him, but you can't force him, anyway.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
This is dangerous logic. If a thirteen year old girl is curious and wants to commit a sexual act with me, I should let her because she wants to and thus it isn't immoral?
Besides all the "ew gross" comments, the real reason things like bestiality are illegal and immoral is cognitive capacity. Neither an animal nor a child has the proper cognitive capacity to fully understand their actions - therein lies an inherent power imbalance that is impossible to resolve. I believe that employing such an imbalance for personal benefit is morally wrong.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ah, but this same dangerous logic applies to many a thing.
Animals lack cognitive capacity.
Thats why we lock up cows in cages, artificially inseminate them, slaughter their babies for veal meat, and then use the milk for cheese and coffee creamer, before eventually slaughtering them as well once they give less and less milk.
a whole _LOT_ of things we do to animals would DEFINITELY be far from acceptable to do with humans. I just don't think it's very reasonable(and, in my eyes, dangerous) to only apply human-equivalent morals and views in regards to sexuality.
As you say, they lack cognitive capacity, they will usually not be traumatized or experience permanent mental damage...not more than many animals do in their regular farm live. Comparing them with humans in only ONE aspect seems a little...off.
Take note that i'm personally not interested in bestiality, but i wholly understand why the LAW in many places does not forbid sexuality itself, but rather only looks at extreme cases under animal cruelty laws...comparing to other stuff done to animals on a daily basis, sexual intercourse with humans would be one of the lower-priority-things to care about...
and no, i'm not an animal rights activist, just trying to get the priorities right here, both in volume and extent of what is "done" to animals.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know you're not interested in it, I see nothing wrong with trying to defend an unpopular opinion. I've tried to argue for incest before, and I'm not interested in that either.
I don't quite understand your argument. Are you suggesting that treating them similarly in regards to sexual law means we should treat them similarly in every single other aspect as well? That makes no sense to me, but perhaps I've misunderstood.
Are you instead arguing that if bestiality is immoral due to lack of consent, then slaughter should also be immoral for that reason? That doesn't make sense to me either - there are plenty of things that children may not "consent" to, like going to the dentist or something, but we will force them to because we know better. I think you're generalizing.
As cognitive superiors to both animals and children, we have a responsibility to take care of them. The difference in slaughter is a whole other can of worms - people have to eat. They should do it as humanely as possible, but the simple fact is that feeding on prey is necessary for survival.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hm, i'm trying to argue on the basis of how we treat them.
Animals, even if we eat them for prey, should, as conscient creatures, have a "free natural life", with being able to act out behaiviours natural for their species.
In opposite, many of our main "food items/procudes", namely chickens, pigs, and cows, are often "held" in very unnatural, crowded areas, some never even see sunlight, and their whole life is based on producing as much in as little time as possible(including restraining movement e.g. for pigs, to make them gain weight faster, or caged batteries for chickens so cleaning is easier). We are even selectively BREEDING them to maximize gain.
Now what i'm trying to say is that while we may "disagree" with how they are treated, we all tolerate that, because a change would mean either a lot less animal produce and/or a significantly higher price.
So we accept that almost all "used" animals are used in unnatural, unconvenient ways because we personally stand to gain from it.
Basically i'm saying that we "abuse" our power, and our cognitive superiority, to mistreat animals for our own good, all the time.
Now if someone has intercourse with their dog, or a sheep, or anything else with more legs than 2(or two legs and wings, or fins, or...you get the picture), i don't really understand why _THIS_ abuse of power is so incredibly wrong it causes outcries, while the other is silently tolerated.
As mentioned, unless the animal is mistreated in general, i doubt sexual experiences with humans would "traumatize" them in the least. They will simply not care about what happened, or not even remember.
So even if an animal owner "abuses" his mental superiority to have sexual relations with that animal, but otherwise treats it great, I'd find him a whole lot more agreeable than someone that mistreats his animal but has no sexual relation with it.
We kill animals for food, for fur, we keep them in cages for our amusement, for centuries we used them to plow fields or as transport(also during war)...basically, we did or do as we please with them, abusing the fact they are our cognitive inferiors.
Saying "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong" just doesn't ring right to me. Why should sexuality be the big taboo here? I can mass slaughter small furry animals to make a expensive coat but someone else should go to jail(according to some people in this threat) for raping their dog when they had sex with him?
So basically i'm stating that if people want to take the moral high ground and say "there's the line, and it can't be crossed" then they will have to explain WHY that line goes exactly there, why so much else is this side of the line and acceptable and exactly this thing would have to be on the other side.
And from that perspective, i understand that the LAW in many countries allows sexual interaction with animals, as long as they are treated right(otherwise animal cruelty would kick in, anyway).
sorry for the long post, but i wanted to make my point clear, unlike angel you actually seem interested in an proper exchange :)
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Well, that's the thing. I never said "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong". I absolutely DO think animals should be treated humanely. Just because I think it's okay to eat animals, doesn't mean I think it's okay to keep them in tiny cages and torture them. I never said sex is the only bad thing you can do to them.
Here are two ways I justify the moral line between sex and murder:
1. The (humane!) slaughter of animals provides an overwhelmingly significant ADVANTAGE to humanity. Having sex with them does not. I'm talking about food and important products (tires, glue, etc) and NOT useless expensive fur coats.
2. The (humane!) slaughter of animals is NECESSARY for our survival. Having sex with them is not. I don't think it would be possible for all of society to become vegan, and even if we could, I would question the line between animal morality and plant morality.
I don't think our power as superiors over animals should be abused, but there are exceptions (food, etc), just like I don't think our power over children should be abused, but there are exceptions (forcing them to go to school, etc). The exceptions are very specifically for things that are ADVANTAGEOUS and NECESSARY, as I described above.
As for the whole "they probably won't be traumatized" part, you don't have any way of knowing that. And just because they might "forget" (you also don't know that), doesn't mean it's okay. I can't molest someone while they're unconscious just because they'll never know. And like I said above, just because a thirteen year old girl wants sex and "won't be traumatized", does not make it okay, because she does not have the mental capacity to understand such a decision.
As for Angel, she once tried to argue with me that meat-eaters are scum that deserve to be ranked with serial killers and rapists, so I think she may not be the best person to try to reason with. :/
I only know of one country where it wasn't illegal. Key point is "wasn't" cos they already changed the laws and outlawed it.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#National_laws
it's legal in quite a number of nations, still. Note that it's often covered under other things. E.g. Sex with an animal MAY be legal, but mistreatment or "whoring out" of a animal is not.
So the shepherd can indulge his desires on his herd, but if he "pimps" his sheep to wanderers, he's a criminal.
--
Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
often covered under other things. Like rape perhaps?
Cos establishing consent can be a bitch right?
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
haha, na, not rape, but as mentioned, animal cruelty laws. But in those cases, it's a "case by case" decision of WHAT exactly happened.
--
Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
rape / abuse
po-tay-toe / po-tah-toe
WEll I do not know where you live but any sex with animals is illegle .
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
did you even check that link? In, i dare say, more than half the countries it's legal.
--
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Not in my country I know my laws its against the law to have sex with animals here If its ok where you live I feel really bad for your Animals.
I think becuase it is technicly rape becuase they can not tell you if they want it or not . Also prolonged sex with the animal messes them up pychologicly and makes them start raping any person that walked by so they have to kill the animal at that piont becuase they are cosidered dangerous . A old lady had trianed her pitbulls to have sex with her it was 3 dogs and they would have sex with her all the time she had trianed this behavior since they were puppys . They will not have sex with other dogs only humans so they made the piont those animals are dangerous and can go out raping poeple so they killed the 3 dogs and arrested the lady she was in her 90s and had the dogs a very long time . She was in a country where it is against the law to have sex with animals . So that is why .