I am aware this is a controversial topic for some, but I just want to hear some opinions from people. My opinion is that it isn't wrong if, and only if, it causes no harm to neither the human nor the other animal involved. Some say that bestiality is wrong because it must entail an element of manipulation and abuse, that animals aren't capable of giving consent for whatever reason, mostly because they cannot verbally consent, but sometimes because their minds are compared to children, which I see as a form of anthropocentrism, implying that other animals are inferior to humans. Humans are a different species of animals, but of course, humans tend to place more importance on themselves than others. That doesn't equate to being better than another organism, in my opinion. See, because we are animals, one can consider that anything an animal does is natural in humans as well. For example, animals engage in homosexual activities and can be homosexual, so it is natural in humans. Similarly, certain animals are known to engage in cannibalistic activities, rape, incest, interspecies sex, whatever you might consider morally reprehensible, and you know what I think? Yes, it's natural in humans, given the appropriate circumstances, however, something being natural doesn't mean it's morally right. Nature doesn't tend to care for morals, as far as I know. Mostly, it's concerned with the preservation of life, that we all don't just kill each other. Going back to bestiality, which does happen albeit not so frequently, what's wrong with an animal and a human engaging in sexual activities? There are instances of bestiality that cannot occur without harming animals(and that's where I put my foot down), and this is because of anatomical incompatibility. A larger animal such as a horse will tear apart a human while a human will tear apart a smaller animal. But what of creatures of similar sizes? Surely they can work without causing pain to either party. In that case, it's not wrong, is it? Both can derive pleasure from a sexual encounter. Say a canid wants to copulate with a human female, and don't say that they won't be willing to do so. In regards to sexual activity, anything tends to go with other animals; they don't care for any moral implications. I'm pretty sure when an animal is horny, they'll want to stick their bone somewhere, perhaps preferably in the same species, but taking what they can get is also an option. Anyways, they will mount the human if they are willing, or not, if they're not willing. No force is involved in these instances. When it comes to the human penetrating another animal, the key factor in determining whether the animal wants it or not is in its behavior. If the animal doesn't want your penis, it will make very clear gestures such as growling. If the animal does want it, it will do whatever the hell animals do when they're horny. Now, to close this before I add too much, I will reiterate that I am implying that the sex is done with consent, without harm to either party, and without any emotional attachments, since people tend to say that other animals won't feel the same as humans. You can barely tell what someone else is feeling at times. Try determining that on a creature that can't verbally communicate with you and thinks on a different plane. But anyways, sex is sex; it doesn't have to be some wonderful intimate thing... Again, I can't cover everything here, so post away
Humans are a different species of animals, but of course, humans tend to place more importance on themselves than others. The problem with just about everything you're about to say lies in this sentence. Morality is a human invention. If we are going to judge things by the rule of nature (in other words, without the intervention of human morality) NOTHING is wrong, ever, it is just a thing that happened. But you can;t judge if something is 'wrong' without morality, so in order to answer the question we CANNOT start from the position of 'we are all animals'.
Are you fucking kidding me? What if the animal perceives you as a threat that will harm them? Have you ever seen an animal cower? How can an animal "know" they want something other than from base instinct? THey dont "know" things in the same way that people do. To answer your question yes its wrong. Its disgusting, and most people that engage in it couldnt give a flying fuck if they hurt the animals... just look at all of the rescue agencies that find these animals abused and maimed by these assholes. Animals dont have rights similar to people, so many of them probably go discarded like trash. Dont give me this no harm bullshit.
My sexual opinions are on the liberal side of moderate, but I don't believe in free exercise of bestiality. It may not obviously harm the animal, but it is using it for your own motives basically as a sex toy. I don't know why anyone would want to do this unless they have a specific fetish for animals, but even then it should be acknowledged as one of those things that should be indirectly indulged without actual practice. And it's worth mentioning that proponents of "traditional" relationships would go apeshit if they realize their fear-mongering about the slippery slope of gay rights is actually justified.
Sadly, I see that that is the case with the animals being injured, but assume the scenario that it goes off without harm.
They cannot verbally agree to something, but that doesn't mean they can't consent. ---------- Post added 10th Jun 2014 at 09:44 PM ---------- As in, the animal isn't forced into intercourse, engaging in it willingly, and as the human and animal do the intercourse, neither of them are physically or emotionally injured.
Do you truly believe an animal understands what's really going on? All I can imagine as an animal's consent is the acknowledgement that something is penetrating them, and they may not outright want to fight whatever creature is doing it. This is directly comparable to abuse of very young kids as I see it. Animals do amazing things and their intelligence cannot be overestimated-- at times. In this case, it's safe to assume they don't have human cognitive abilities and bestiality is absolutely abusing them.
Who determines and defines what "physical harm" and "emotional injury" constitutes? Youre throwing out a lot of subjective terms that mean absolutely nothing.
That part right there is rather interesting. Preference for the same sex cannot compare to a preference for other species; to me, they're two different things. ---------- Post added 10th Jun 2014 at 09:48 PM ---------- You tell me when an animal is physically harmed :/ isn't that the rather obvious part? Damage to the body? And as for the emotional aspect, scarring, maybe? Suffering long-term psychological trauma?
YES, bestiality is wrong, and I consider it to be rape 100% of the time. Sure, an animal might not make a reaction if you try to have sexual contact with it and it might comply with you. Sure animals are sexual creatures. But you could say the same thing about children under the age of 10. Young children are also 'sexual' in the extent that they masturbate and play with other children's genitals, but they aren't physically or mentally programmed to be f*cked by an adult. If an adult tries to have sex with a child, the child may also comply and agree because they don't know any better. And there are plenty of cases of young children feeling immense physical pleasure from sex with adults, which is they get so confused when they grow up. But NONE of these reactions or situations makes it okay to do something like that to someone who literally cannot comprehend what you're doing to them. Animals are a completely different species; they don't react sexually or read sexual signals the way humans do. Some animals don't even have sex for 'pleasure' (yes some do, but others don't) and have sexual arousal for the purpose of breeding. Some animals react 'sexually' just for dominance. Just because a dog tries to hump your leg doesn't mean it wants a dick inside it; that's not how their sexual communication works in regards to humans. You'd be taking advantage of it and abusing it. Not to mention as a human you can spread nasty diseases that way.
I cant deal with this thread. That anyone would propose taking advantage of a sentient being that doesnt even have the mental capacity of an infant is beyond comprehension to me Just know that when it comes to YOUR rights or animals rights or any sentient being that cannot fight for themselves, I'll be fighting on their behalf.
No seriously animals can not consent, like yes they can hump your leg but that is not consent; like how children, even if they say yes, can not legally consent because they are determined to lack the capacity to fully judge and understand the situation. Animals can not judge and understand the situation. An animal humping your leg, walking around with an erection, and showing submissive behaviours is not consent. A cat in heat is not consent. A dog in heat is not consent. I don't know if this is a troll topic and I took the bait but if you are seriously considering bestiality is okay then you need to get off the internet before animal fucker forum hugboxes make you think it's okay because it is not, an animal can not consent to humans. To give a bad example it's like trying to get a cat to consent to a shark; they can't communicate that, they can maybe unintentionally give signals to the other animal that are read as "ready to mate" but that's not what it is.