Is bestiality "wrong?"

Bestiality is wrong where there is no consent or no clear consent beyond inference from the animal's behaviour. In that respect, a human initiating contact with an animal is far too questionable to be deemed right under any circumstances, so even though the animal may be consenting it is rape because they can't communicate consent to us by any firm standards. When it's being initiated by the animal, however, I'm with StoryJinx in that it's at least more ambiguous. The animal is not being coerced - unlike human initiation - and is consenting if it's initiating. So you can't really make the claim that it's always wrong, but I think there's enough doubt to treat it as categorically wrong.

I'll add that because it's abnormal/unnatural/unhygienic/disgusting etc., that doesn't make it wrong.

Still, I don't know why the comparison to children is being raised here. You're saying we can't understand the body language and thought processes of animals, yet you say they have the same thought processes as children- so you do have an understanding of animal thought? There's nothing to say that animals think or act remotely like human children, the sole issue here is with the communication barrier to consent. I just don't see the assertion that animals are "like a child" as valid, strikes me as a little assumptive.

 

If bestiality is wrong ONLY because there's no consent, then forcing my kids to clean their room is wrong too because they hella don't consent XD

If it's wrong because it implies non-consent sex, so the whole problem here is the sex, and I think that human beings are the only one who make a big deal out of sex...

 

Yes. As others have said, sex without consent is rape.

 

How do you KNOW it's rape?
Is it only because the animal can't talk and say "yes"?

 

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but that may be the dumbest comparison I have ever read, and I've read many.

 

Story Jinx, even if the animal were technically consenting the fact that we can't reliably interpret that consent - we don't understand animal behaviour as we do human behaviour nor use the same standards of communication - means that the human is acting unilaterally (in cases of human initiation) without definite consent. In that respect, it is rape.

 

the mental hurdle jumping going on here to view animal fucking as a legitimate philosophical quandry is putting olympians to shame

 

Of course I was kidding Mike <.<

 

No, because there are significant differences between the levels of cognitive, social, and emotional functioning between a human and a chimp (or any other animal).

ANIMALS ARE INHERENTLY UNABLE TO CONSENT.

 

Some people seem to be confused of the meaning on consent in a sexual activity.

Consent is not the ability of one party to vocally or physically show agreement or enjoyment of a sexual act. Consent is when a party's mental state is in a place of understanding and awareness of the sexual interaction that is occurring. Drugged and intoxicated people can agree to sex. Children can agree to sex. Animals, in certain cases, can agree to sex. Though none of those instances is classified as content. Many animals show signs of far more cognitive ability than the human race gives them credit for. The problem is not an inability to understand the current situation, but a lack of neurological ability to adequately assess the situation, articulate a discomfort, or determine the long-term effects of what is being done.

Technically, the cognitive ability of many animals is equal various stages of human infancy. With the exception of verbal communication, certain animals such as chimpanzees and certain breeds of dogs have no problem rivaling our toddlers. They can show forms of agreement; however, like children, the neurological development to fully comprehend the events that are taking place are simply not there.

People seem to think that rape and molestation automatically tells of pain and physical suffering. This is not the case, especially in the topic at hand. One of the most difficult things for a victim of child molestation is coping with the fact that the many victim enjoyed the altercation in the moment. They knew enough at the time to know that something seemed wrong, but physically they exhibited signs of enjoyment. It is the critical thinking aspects of the mind that is missing in children and animals, which is exactly why physical agreement is irrelevant in the question of consent in these cases.

 

How is this even up for debate?! Its wrong end of discussion! As someone who works in animal rescue and has seen the depraved sick things people do to animals i cant believe people are asking why its wrong! I know of cases where animals have been raped and as a result their bowels or uterus have prolapsed outside of their bodies, some of them have so much internal damage they have to be euthanized, the sickos excuse was the dog came on to him because it kept humping him! Even animals who are not physically damaged are still psychologically damaged and have issues trusting people again if they ever do. If you think sex with animals is in any way ok then you need to get your head examined, there is nothing ok about it!!

 

if a child comes up and starts fucking you up the butt guess what the law is gonna slam you down because "the child came up and started fucking me so i just let em" is not gonna fly, and I know bringing a comparison to children here is questionable but seriously that's how stupid the argument is, if a dog comes up to your naked downward ass with a boner and starts pumping you stop the activity like what the hell, it doesn't matter if anyone is getting hurt or not

like do you have any pets

what sort of circumstances would it start penetrating you that you couldn't stop it, like

jesus christ IS THIS REALLY NOT AN ELABORATE TROLL BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN HAD.

---------- Post added 11th Jun 2014 at 01:49 PM ----------

there is no "makes you think huh" social enigma here, don't fuck animals

 

I'm surprised the admins haven't locked this yet...

 

No, you don't get to draw ridiculous scenarios and comparisons then try to frame others as impossible. That's not how the game works. Hypothetically it would be like if someone that could not consent came up to you and started trying to fuck you; you do what you can to stop it immediately whether it's hurting them, or you, or not.

Like the responsibility is on your hands to know better and to end it.

 

The legislature agreed that not all 15 year-olds are mature enough to accurately weigh what they are getting into even after sex-ed. So they made it easy and told everyone under the general age of majority to keep it in their pants. Do I universally agree? No, as I believe in the capabilities of some teenagers to make wise decisions. But I sure as hell wasn't ready at that age hehe.

About necrophilia: I can't bring myself to say it's morally wrong as I don't believe in any attachment to a person's body after they die (the spirit goes away leaving an inert hunk of matter with no objective importance*) but I wouldn't want to do a dead person. Just ten kinds of skeevy.

*Off-topic but that's not to say I think funerals are bunk. It is a wonderful gesture to give someone you love and respect a proper send-off. But outside of considering my survivors' well-being, I can't bring myself to worry about what happens to my body when I die. I won't be using it