Serious Legality of Bestiality

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
My issue with most of the con reasoning is

"Calling someone a bad name can hurt their feelings. As such, calling your dog a bad name will also hurt its feelings"

Animals literally aren't people lol saying that doesn't insinuate that they don't have rights. It just means that 99% of people things aren't going to apply to animals. How anybody thinks so strongly otherwise is incomprehensible to me.
 
My issue with most of the con reasoning is

"Calling someone a bad name can hurt their feelings. As such, calling your dog a bad name will also hurt its feelings"

Animals literally aren't people lol saying that doesn't insinuate that they don't have rights. It just means that 99% of people things aren't going to apply to animals. How anybody thinks so strongly otherwise is incomprehensible to me.
Did anybody actually say that? Everyone's argument is about how animals cannot provide INFORMED consent. Whether or not informed consent is understood by animals is irrelevant. Seriously, it's no different than fucking children.
 
omg lol, this thread is going nowhere fast... MikeDawg, I at least get your frustration that many people seem to be reducing the issue to one or more unstated assumptions, so I'll try and make this simple:
Non-consensual sex is everywhere in the animal world. It exists in almost every specie. Why is it suddenly 'rape' now?
This point is the main problem and a good example of a statement I made in some other thread where I said that there's more to a non-scientifically-controlled inquiry than a "truth value" (though in this case I guess it's a "moral value"). Non-consensual sex is everywhere in the world, and it is rape and it is wrong, but that doesn't mean that it is morally preferable to try to abolish rape across the animal kingdom (and somehow enforce this abolition). Generally, when humans try to interfere in the activities of animals, it does not go well for the animals in the long run. Because of this, when researchers observe animals in the wild, they make sure not to interfere at all, even when it's something like a baby elephant stuck in the mud being eaten alive by hyenas. That is about as traumatic a death as I can imagine (also I saw it on TV a long time ago, so yeah), but in the aggregate the general understanding is that it's still preferable to trying to police nature.

If anything, I think we need to pay more attention to how we enforce laws on people. I feel like a lot of what we talk about in that respect is "Yeah that guy is bad, he deserves to be in jail."
“[Alec] flatters her, he impresses her with a show of wealth, he gives help to her family to win her gratitude, and he reacts with irritation and indignation when she nonetheless continues to repulse his advances, causing her to feel shame at her own ingratitude” (Conly 96). Conly reflects rape culture ideology that produces the belief that if a man provides a woman with material things that the women, in return, is obliged to engage in sexual acts with him.

good point, if a human being gives you something, it's obviously abnormal to have the desire to repay him... that's rape culture for ya

as to why it's her body-because she has no other means of repaying him and they both know it's what he's after.

that's not to say that she isn't allowed to say no or should be shamed if she does, just that it's not -rape culture- if she feels guilty.
Despite everything in this thread, IMO this is the most disgusting post of all. If you think that men expecting women to have sex with them as "repayment" is not indicative of something fucked up in our culture, then I have no words.
 

tehy

Banned deucer.
"Despite everything in this thread, IMO this is the most disgusting post of all. If you think that men expecting women to have sex with them as "repayment" is not indicative of something fucked up in our culture, then I have no words.
the quote was talking about victorian culture, which is what I was also discussing.

i think it's fucked-up, but about as fucked-up as victorian culture. I don't, however, feel that said culture was a 'rape culture'. What's unreasonable isn't that she feels that she needs to repay him, necessarily, because that makes fucking sense-he has given her something, she has no other means of reciprocation, she's aware of what he wants-not necessarily sex, but to be courted by him.

the gross thing is that he even thought it was a good idea to give money in return for her in the first place; if he was just paying her like a prostitute it's fine, but it's clear that he wants some kind of a serious relationship with her and that's how he goes about trying to get it. I think that's fucked up, but not 'rape culture', and it's not some sign of her being so beaten down or w/e that she is ashamed about saying no, because he has given her something which she has gratitude for and she has no other way to repay it.

again, this is clearly fucked up. it's just not 'rape culture' to me-what it comes off as is guys not really knowing how to start relationships with women they like, so they try to use their money to pull it off.
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
The way I see it, the only 'solution', so to speak, is for some kind of scientific evidence on either side (that is, are animals emotionally harmed by non-consensual sex?). Rape is not wrong in the animal world, as far as we know (nor do we know that it's right). The absolutes in this thread are ignorant.

If, however, it turns out that sex is effectively meaningless to animals, then the primary anti-bestiality point is completely void. We consider non-consensual sex to be so terrible because of the emotional impact that it has on humans. Do we think that non-consensually sending a child to their room is as terrible? Absolutely not, because giving a child a time-out has a negligible amount of harm. We would not support a mother leaving her newborn children on the street, would we? However, this is simply the way of life for some animals, because the cultures are incredibly different. If indeed dogs, for example, are not negatively impacted by non-consensual sex (thus avoiding any "what is consensual" argument to begin with), then why would we condemn non-physically harmful human-animal relations?

Tl;dr: non-consensual does not mean bad (like giving a child a time-out against their will). Rape is bad because of the harm. If it turns out that animals don't experience this harm, then what justification is there for limiting it?
 
Animals being used for the testing of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics or for food doesn't justify beastiality. "Two wrongs don't make a right." It's just a matter of whether or not you think using animals for food, products, test subjects, etc. is morally acceptable or not. The actual difference is that some of these things are taboo and some are not. Welcome to modern-day society where it all boils down to the corruption of the innocent, young minds of our children.

You kind of answered your own question about why the government can regulate this and not other sex-related things--consent. Humans can physically say, "no, I do not want to have sex with you (and if you violate that, what you are doing is actually against the law)," and animals cannot. Equating your "consent" example to actual humans since nobody is going to start humping you in order to express interest in intercourse, if a woman starts to flirt with a man, thus expressing some kind of interest in him, it does not give him liberty to do whatever he wants to her in return. The same should apply to animals. A dog humping your leg doesn't mean you can have your way with it.

I'm out of this discussion because it's weird as fuck and has caused me to say things I never thought I would say, but I figured I'd throw these thoughts out there.
 

His Eminence Lord Poppington II

proverb:the fish who eats most dies still too
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
The way I see it, the only 'solution', so to speak, is for some kind of scientific evidence on either side (that is, are animals emotionally harmed by non-consensual sex?). Rape is not wrong in the animal world, as far as we know (nor do we know that it's right). The absolutes in this thread are ignorant.

Tl;dr: non-consensual does not mean bad (like giving a child a time-out against their will). Rape is bad because of the harm. If it turns out that animals don't experience this harm, then what justification is there for limiting it?
there is no 'right' and 'wrong' in the animal world because animals don't have morals. autonomy is an inherent good, that is why we form laws from the base of 'we should be allowed to everything with exceptions' and not 'we shouldn't be allowed to do anything with exceptions'
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
For everyone reading MikeDawg did make the beastiality and interracial comparison. For those keeping up at home he for all intents and purposes just compared black people to animals (or vice versa if that makes you feel any better [it shouldnt]).

And yes this thread about "maybe beastiality is cool" was posted LITERALY THE DAY THE US LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGE. Keen eye folks! Well spotted! This in no way can be misconstrued as disparaging to gays because, well MikeDawg is gay, and he knows what's acceptable and isn't for all gay people.

CHRIST, how did this thread keep going after 'animals cannot give consent... Full stop. They can't.'


EDIT: oh shit there's a FULL SECOND PAGE THAT I MISSED. I'm sure there's more great discussion I haven't read yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top