"Farmhand busted for 'having sex with miniature donkey named Doodle'. . .

[Skwim]

Interesting discussion. While the comparison of zoophilia to slaughtering animals in that the animal doesn't consent to either sometimes confuses me, I have to say that I find bestiality to be inherently sick and disgusting.

... and I realize that this is just a personal view that doesn't necessarily have to influence state laws, but it is still how I feel about this subject. I simply can't stomach the idea of having sex with an animal.

On first hearing of cunnilingus as a teenager I had the exact same reaction; eeew!

 

[Skwim]

I disagree with this.

An honest and open admittance to prejudice on one subject does not mean that there is any validity in judging her every subsequent answer on RF by establishing a predudice that her response must be based upon prejudice.

You're right. But now we know that she feels it's an appropriate approach.

Even as much as we may try, in good faith, to approach and evaluate subjects fairly, it is fairly common for most people to have some predudice in some areas of life.

Yes it is, but once they realize they hold a true prejudice most fair-minded people abandon it, or at least try to. dawny0826 seems to regard it as acceptable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I figured the donkey would kick him.
If the donkey gets pregnant however i think the fella needs to support his children.

Counseling wouldnt hurt either.

 

[dawny0826]

So, should we assume that you deem yourself the arbiter of necessity?

You and others are doing the same damn thing. I'm expressing my opinion as you are. If you favor the legalization of beastiality than you're defining what's acceptable practice when it comes to animals too.

And your presumption that having sex with them is less than kind is based on what? In the case of bestiality its a sexual benefit to the human participant, as are the many other uses we make of animals.

Based upon the fact that anatomy wise, certain animals would be seriously harmed if a human inserted body parts and had sex with them. Likewise, a human's anatomy can't accommodate the anatomy of some animals and injury or worse can occur.

Did you read the article about the ******* who died from injuries from sex with a horse?

Local News | Enumclaw-area animal-sex case investigated | Seattle Times Newspaper

Beastiality isn't illegal in Washington, but, after this incident - abuse of the other critters on the farm was looked into because of the concern that "weaker" animals were physically harmed during sexual acts.

But obviously you believe that strapping them to a plow, which is even done today in the USA, is a kindness to them.

I don't understand how sex with a critter doesn't translate to abuse.

I suppose that your question may be that of many zoophiliacs and their supporters...if sex doesn't hurt the animal, than how is it abuse?

We could put our running shoes on and run in circles all day around our differing opinions. That's what this boils down to, differences in acceptance as to what is deemed "abusive" and what isn't. I don't find utilizing animals that are physically capable of being utilized for manual labor to be abusive and I'm sure that there are people who apply that same logic to sex with animals.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious as to what criteria you use to determine the mental health of others. Is it merely the rarity of a behavior, or your personal repugnance to it?

Paraphilias are classified as psychosexual disorders. Zoophilia is a paraphilia. Pedophilia is a paraphilia. It's not illogical for me to draw comparisons and to have concerns.

I'm not daft. I know that there isn't a unified approach within the medical and scientific communities as to whether or not zoophilia deserves such a label. There are good arguments for and against.

My concern regarding zoophiliacs is the seeming arrogance...the assumption that one CAN have their way with a creature that can't give consent and that it's just okay.

So how does a psychological predilection rise to the level of illegality. Perhaps you can take us through the process, or tell us where the harm or injustice lies in bestiality, outside of mere opinion, of course. Because we don't make reasonable laws based on opinion, but rather, facts.

Death or severe abuse of animals by sexual acts warrants illegality in my opinion.

Certain animals can be severely injured by sex with a human. Fact.

Well, that's refreshing. An honest admittance of prejudging people. Not many would admit to such a human failing.

Glad to have your number, now we can properly judge your answers here and all those to follow on RF.

I've given logical explanation as to why I disagree with the legality of beastiality. You can disagree with me.

I won't sugar coat my thoughts for the sake of appeasing others. If my honesty offends you, that's fine. I'd rather be honest than to kiss the behinds of others to gain favor.

Nice non-inquisitor.

Is it really?

Yes, we know. And we know why you feel this way. Perhaps in time you'll come to see that reason, not personal prejudice, is a far fairer basis for judging others.

Beastiality is illegal in over 30 states. My personal discomfort and prejudice over beastality isn't much of an issue here in Virginia as its a felony. For those who want to fight for the right to screw animals, more power to them.

 

[dawny0826]

You can decide how they spend their lives, what work they get used in, and decide the time and reason they die for and in, when we kill them for food, to meet our needs, essentially (and as you said in the first sentence) determine the very purpose of their existence, and you don't consider any of that cruel.

Yet having sex with them is cruel. I'm sorry, but that seems inconsistent to me.

I suppose I'm inconsistent then.

As far as i know, being a zoophile does not necessitate being exclusively so.

I didn't say that it did.

But, it's important to note that in some medical circles, zoophilia would be approached as a psychosexual disorder.

Once again, they can't speak out against any of the other myriad of things that are done to them. Why use that objection here and not in other instances where the animals are flat out used? Why on one hand approve of using them to meet your needs and that of others, and on the other refuse to accept for anybody to have sex with them for needs that you don't feel personally?

As I've stated before, it's the arrogance to the notion that one can have their way sexually with another creature, regardless as to whether there's consent. The consent is assumed.

Verbal expression is not the only type of expression.

Yeah. But unless an animal bites or kicks, how the hell does a human being know whether or not the animal is enjoying being sexually utilized?

Saying that zoophiles are okay with taking advantage of living creatures who supposedly can't express objection is pretty unfair. Given that at the least, some of them hold the view that animals can give consent. IOW, you're misrepresenting their mentality and generalizing against them.

It is unfair of me to blanket label zoophiles. I acknowledge this. But, I don't agree with the notion that critters can give humans consent to sex. So, my struggle with the fairness of human behavior in this regard will continue.

 

[dawny0826]

2) Even as food, like i said before one can choose to be a vegetarian.

And a zoophiliac can sustain from having sex with an animal - so what's your point?

Again, i don't think you can claim logically that their supposed lack of consent in sex is cruel as it's using them and so forth and at the same time claim to be okay with what i highlighted above and explained earlier. You're determining the very purpose of the their life based on a belief you have, are okay with using them for work to our benefit, and are okay with killing them for food. All disregarding their lack of consent.

My primary argument against beastiality is the ****** up concept that one can please themselves without regard to the other party. It would be unfair of me to claim that all zoophiles think this way. But, when we're discussing consent...if one THINKS that they have consent but has in fact, violated another without consent - is this not rape? I can't support the legality of rape in any form.

This is where I'm coming from in all honesty. I think of the man who can't control himself and grabs an animal without regard to that animal's well being and has his way with the animal. Doesn't matter if the animal is hurt in the process.

His sexual needs were paramount and he went about fulfilling those needs through force.

I don't condone unkind treatment to animals. If animals are being used for work, they should always be treated well, without being forced to take more than their physical stature can handle. Animals being raised for food should be well treated and slaughtered as humanely as possible.

I can't justify rape.

The basis of your objection is ruined by the inconsistency.

My objection is no less real and valid to me, regardless as to your construal of its consistency.

You can obviously hold whatever feelings you want on the subject and the people involved. However, if you want to make something illegal, or defend it's current status of illegality, then i can't take your feelings as proper basis for an argument.

Beastiality is illegal in over 30 states in the United States. There's not much wriggle room for arguing the legality of beastiality in most US states. If people want to fight the laws in their states, more power to them. That's their right.

I'm quite comfortable with the fact that beastiality is illegal (and a felony) in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

i also distinguish between that and between moral and/or legal arguments. The fact that i'm not "into" this thing, and struggle to imagine how can someone like to have sex with animals, is no proper basis to claim that it's immoral nor that it should be illegal.

My lack of support for beastiliaty has nothing to do witht he fact that I'm not "into" beastiality myself. My primary objection is that beastiality can result in injury for participants and an animal can't express consent and discomfort in the same manner that a human can.

I was clarifying that you were misrepresenting them by claiming that they're okay with taking advantage of animals. That is not the case as many of them are of the side which believes that animals can give consent. Human consent is not under dispute. So the comparison fails to note the complexity of the issue.

I'm not ignoring the complexity of the issue.

My aim here is not to justify, but to attempt to address the issue properly. It's been something that i'm unsure about for a while and i wanted to get to the bottom of it by discussing and debating it.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I can't think of one single thing that is 'just' not okay.

I don't suppose there's any point in roller skating around in circles.

But, I do believe that there are actions that are NOT okay. Rape is one of those actions.

 

[Badran]

I'm addressing both posts together and rearranging so as to minimize getting repetitive as much as possible.

I suppose I'm inconsistent then.

My objection is no less real and valid to me, regardless as to your construal of its consistency.

Let me attempt to clarify something. Being inconsistent doesn't mean that it follows that you're supposed to embrace zoophilia now or that you should stop opposing it and start advocating for it. Neither does it discredit your point of view in general.

What it does mean is that if you are inconsistent, your perspective needs reassessing. You could end up with the same position regarding zoophilia, as you can realize that your other statement(s) is what needs changing. Put differently, what i'm proposing is that you've offered two separate statement(s) that contradict each other, two statements which are not consistent with each other. I'll have to clarify again on the inconsistency i'm proposing in the next part, but for now, in this part, what i'm saying is in short; you needn't feel as if your position, or you in general are being discredited.

While inconsistencies do suggest possible ulterior motives, it does not necessitate it, in other words.

And a zoophiliac can sustain from having sex with an animal - so what's your point?

The part you're responding to there was in response to your claim of necessity;

I believe that animals have specific purpose and are here primarily to contribute to an ecosystem and to benefit humans, but in necessity.

If you can survive on other means, yet choose to kill animals for food anyway, that means you're doing something similar, if not actually much worse (at least in the case of the people who do the killing themselves) than what you're objecting to.

You choose to kill animals, end their existence, deny them their opportunity in life, simply because you want to and because you can. You could have refrained from doing so, but you did it anyway. If we consider zoophilies to be engaging in something immoral because it disregards the consent of the animal and uses it anyway for personal benefit, and want to make that illegal on those grounds, then we must note that you and me, people who eat meat, are contributing to an even worse crime. Which is slaughtering animals to enjoy eating them, with complete disregard for their consent. If the first ought to be illegal then the second most definitely should too. At the least, in principle.

If it's still not clear, then please pause for a minute and consider the following. Our starting premise usually plays an important factor on where we end up. If you start off from the premise that animals are here for our benefit, and think of that benefit in specific terms, such as food, labor and so forth; things that seem to have a supposed practical use or sense to it, you'll always see sex with animals under a different umbrella. This differentiation between the two things will be extremely strengthened by the fact that you're not attracted to animals and can't even imagine someone being attracted to them.

IOW, you'll always feel that it's just unnecessary. It's different, it's not an essential, normal, part of 'our' lives. There's no need to go there etc... While killing animals to eat them is just normal, essential and so on.

Do you see what i'm trying to say?

Of course, this isn't necessarily what's happening with you, but it is just a possibility that i'm offering.

I don't condone unkind treatment to animals. If animals are being used for work, they should always be treated well, without being forced to take more than their physical stature can handle. Animals being raised for food should be well treated and slaughtered as humanely as possible.

To elaborate more on what i said above, why should they work for us in the first place? Why not let them live their life on their own?

Why use them? The fact that it benefits us as basis is exactly the kind of mentality you're objecting to. You are taking advantage of animals while disregarding their consent. You are pleasing yourself without regard for the other party. You may be humane in the way you kill them, but you do kill them, to enjoy their taste. Disregarding the fact that they certainly haven't consented to being slaughtered so as to make their way into our bellies.

Note that all the "you's" up there is not meant as you personally; like i said before i eat meat. The you is for everyone that falls under the category mentioned, including me.

I didn't say that it did.

But, it's important to note that in some medical circles, zoophilia would be approached as a psychosexual disorder.

Noted.

I felt it was important to make the distinction just in case.

As I've stated before, it's the arrogance to the notion that one can have their way sexually with another creature, regardless as to whether there's consent. The consent is assumed.

My primary argument against beastiality is the ****** up concept that one can please themselves without regard to the other party. It would be unfair of me to claim that all zoophiles think this way. But, when we're discussing consent...if one THINKS that they have consent but has in fact, violated another without consent - is this not rape? I can't support the legality of rape in any form.

This is where I'm coming from in all honesty. I think of the man who can't control himself and grabs an animal without regard to that animal's well being and has his way with the animal. Doesn't matter if the animal is hurt in the process.

His sexual needs were paramount and he went about fulfilling those needs through force.

Well, one thing that can be helpful is to put some of the distinctions and details i attempted to provide into perspective. To emphasize it so that one is able to view the issue as objectively as possible, without being too much affected by stereotypes and/or certain portrayals of what zoophlies do and what goes on into the act.

Zoophilies do not all (as you noted) disregard the other party. They also don't all just attempt to please themselves through force. Neither do they all have sex with an animal if it showed any signs of not wanting to engage in the act.

Now, as to your point, what if it is actually rape, even if they don't genuinely think that it is, let me try to address that in the next part. To also in part elaborate on the "signs of not wanting to engage in the act" part.

 

[Badran]

Yeah. But unless an animal bites or kicks, how the hell does a human being know whether or not the animal is enjoying being sexually utilized?

There are all sorts of manners in which the animal can express their dislike to any specific thing in question. First, for the most obvious and clear cut case, to get it out of the way, there is the fact of cases where the animal actually instigates the act.

When the person (human) instigates, there are all sorts of ways in which they may do so. They don't necessarily just grab the animal and go for it. I don't want to particularly go into details since the subject is obviously too much for many people, but i have no choice but to allude to it at least. I imagine they may get intimate and/or coddley first. Then, a gesture or an act to both send a vibe and get feedback....you can see where this is going.

So, in this process, and even once they attempt to start the 'serious' action, the animal may pull away, make certain sounds, make certain signs that are known to be associated with discomfort, and if need be, go for more obvious signs, such kicking and or biting, even if not too violently.

In short, just like we interact with animals in general, where we can be extremely intimate while having them as pets for example, and can understand when they like something and when they don't.

Now, i don't claim that any of this is necessarily the way it goes, neither am i certain as to what happens since i've never seen it happen infront of me, but i'm offering what i think are reasonable guesses as to what can count or work as communication between the human and the animal.

It is unfair of me to blanket label zoophiles. I acknowledge this.

Thanks, i appreciate your honesty.

But, I don't agree with the notion that critters can give humans consent to sex. So, my struggle with the fairness of human behavior in this regard will continue.

That's fine. And even if after this post you're still failing to see consent to be available here, there's obviously no problem.

Beastiality is illegal in over 30 states in the United States. There's not much wriggle room for arguing the legality of beastiality in most US states. If people want to fight the laws in their states, more power to them. That's their right.

I'm quite comfortable with the fact that beastiality is illegal (and a felony) in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Okay.

My lack of support for beastiliaty has nothing to do witht he fact that I'm not "into" beastiality myself. My primary objection is that beastiality can result in injury for participants and an animal can't express consent and discomfort in the same manner that a human can.

Disregarding the consent part (since i already addressed it), the injury part would actually fall under what i mentioned to be what seems to me as the crux of the matter. Information regarding the likability of this happening and possible measures of protection would be a determining factor into the issue. Whether it should be legal or illegal right now, to me should be based around things of this nature.

I'm not ignoring the complexity of the issue.

Well, you did at least in that part by providing an example that was unfair, or not appropriate, in that it didn't note an important distinction.

I don't suppose there's any point in roller skating around in circles.

But, I do believe that there are actions that are NOT okay. Rape is one of those actions.

What i said was nothing to me is just not okay. As in, if something is not okay then it's so for a reason, not because it's just not okay.

I know you provided the reasons for your position, but you stated at the end "somethings are just not okay". My response was aimed at that based on what i understood from it. I may have misunderstood it, though.

One last thing; thanks for taking the time to discuss the issue. I appreciate both the effort and your honesty.

 

[Skwim]

You and others are doing the same damn thing. I'm expressing my opinion as you are. If you favor the legalization of beastiality than you're defining what's acceptable practice when it comes to animals too.

Hey, it was just a question. If you can't answer, so be it.

Based upon the fact that anatomy wise, certain animals would be seriously harmed if a human inserted body parts and had sex with them. Likewise, a human's anatomy can't accommodate the anatomy of some animals and injury or worse can occur.

Very true, but how about those other than the "certain animals" you have in mind? If seriously harming animals is your main concern then I presume you're fine with bestiality with animals that are not harmed. As for humans being injured, the reasonable presumption is that any human who could be harmed by having sex with animals would either stop before it reached that point or opt out of participating altogether.

Did you read the article about the ******* who died from injuries from sex with a horse?

Part of it, but what's your point, that an activity should be unlawful because someone got hurt or died because of it? If that was how we operated skiing, hunting, swimming, and thousands of other activities would be outlawed. But we don't base our laws on isolated cases.

I don't understand how sex with a critter doesn't translate to abuse.

I know.

I suppose that your question may be that of many zoophiliacs and their supporters...if sex doesn't hurt the animal, than how is it abuse?

Good supposition.

We could put our running shoes on and run in circles all day around our differing opinions. That's what this boils down to, differences in acceptance as to what is deemed "abusive" and what isn't. I don't find utilizing animals that are physically capable of being utilized for manual labor to be abusive and I'm sure that there are people who apply that same logic to sex with animals.

And I think many do. In any activity that's deemed unacceptable the onus of proof or explanation lies with those uttering such a notion, not the other way around.

Paraphilias are classified as psychosexual disorders.

"The view of paraphilias as disorders is not universal. Some groups seeking greater understanding and acceptance of sexual diversity have lobbied for changes to the legal and medical status of unusual sexual interests and practices. Charles Allen Moser, a physician and advocate for sexual minorities, has argued that the diagnoses should be eliminated from diagnostic manuals. Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard writes that despite efforts by Stekel and Money, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances."
source: Wikipedia
​

Zoophilia is a paraphilia. Pedophilia is a paraphilia. It's not illogical for me to draw comparisons and to have concerns.

Think homosexuality should be classified as a paraphilia? Perhaps you do; however, almost no one else does. Yet interestingly enough homosexuality was once categorized as a form of paraphilia.

The larger point here is that psychological classifications, including those outside of psychosexual disorders, are continually being redefined and changed, so it would be folly to rely on any as the last word on a particular behavior. The most one should assert is that "currently X is considered a Y disorder." "Currently" being the operative word here. Moreover, a particular disorder in an otherwise mentally healthy individual may well be insufficient to deem the person dysfunctional or even worthy of concern.

My concern regarding zoophiliacs is the seeming arrogance...the assumption that one CAN have their way with a creature that can't give consent and that it's just okay.

Yet I assume you do eat meat from animals raised for just that purpose and nothing else. Or that you enjoy Zoos where animals are kept in cages no less punishing than solitary confinement is for humans. Or that you approve of animals being raised for the leather your shoes are made of. Think any of them had a choice of the kind of life they led or how they'd wind up? Of course they didn't; people had their way with a creature that can't give consent and that it's just okay.

Death or severe abuse of animals by sexual acts warrants illegality in my opinion.

Certain animals can be severely injured by sex with a human.

And if neither death or severe abuse takes place during bestiality can I assume you're fine with it? Of course I can't, because aside from any possible harm to the animal, you're "wholly prejudiced against zoophiles."

I've given logical explanation as to why I disagree with the legality of beastiality.

They may be logical, but logical doesn't necessarily equate with reasonable. Start out with a bad premise or two, and your conclusion inevitably ends up tainted--unreasonable. Probably the most convincing piece of information as to why you disagree with the legality of bestiality is your statement "I am wholly prejudiced against zoophiles."

Is it really?

Yup.



BTW. The term is bestiality, not beastiality.

 

[crossfire]

Hypothetical scenario: A boss is put in charge of several workers, and then proceeds to use their authority over their workers to coerce them into having sex, and rather enjoys this.

Corollary scenario: A farmhand is put in charge of several animals, and then proceeds to use that authority over the animals to coerce them into having sex, and rather enjoys this.

If authority is such a turn-on for these people, are they really suitable for holding authority? If they cannot keep their own baser instincts in check, and actually indulge and become consumed by those baser instincts, then not only is their ability to hold authority called into question, but there is also good evidence for an active degradation of what abilities they had before they started indulging their baser instincts.

Eastern philosophies would call this karma of intention, that degrades ones mind. I also like this western version from the Gospel of Thomas:

7. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."​

 

[dust1n]

For you what makes the seperation from an animal to a child? Or do you believe the animal should be at least 18 years old?
If being selfless is a sic position to you than there is no good position to stand.

So we have both dominion over animals and little children, but since we wouldn't have sex with little children, we shouldn't have sex with animals? Does that mean we should eat children?

 

[Revoltingest]

So we have both dominion over animals and little children, but since we wouldn't have sex with little children, we shouldn't have sex with animals? Does that mean we should eat children?

I'm strongly resisting the temptation to post a youtube video.
Curse you, Dustin!

Anyway, all of you posters are disappointing me. No one is offering any objective reasoning to make boinking Bessie illegal.
If lawmakers read this thread, you might be giving them ideas.

 

[dawny0826]

What it does mean is that if you are inconsistent, your perspective needs reassessing. You could end up with the same position regarding zoophilia, as you can realize that your other statement(s) is what needs changing. Put differently, what i'm proposing is that you've offered two separate statement(s) that contradict each other, two statements which are not consistent with each other. I'll have to clarify again on the inconsistency i'm proposing in the next part, but for now, in this part, what i'm saying is in short; you needn't feel as if your position, or you in general are being discredited.

I'm not concerned about being discredited or with the manner in which I've presented my ideals. I respect the time and effort that you've taken to post your responses, but, I'm not interested in a lecture on how to better present my views.

I've presented my views in honesty and that's the best that I can do. I've never claimed to be strong in debate and I'm comfortable bowing out of the debate at this point.

I am well aware of the original premise of my argument and I am comfortable with it, even if inconsistencies are found.

Simply put, I can't accept that animals serve the purpose of filling our sexual desires and people who utilize animals in that manner trouble me for reasons that I've stated.

I don't view these actions to be comparable in nature to utilizing animals for food, work, materials, etc.

I fully respect the right of Americans to push legally, for that which they feel should be legal. In this regard, I do respect the rights of zoophiles and their pursuit for freedom and happiness. Those that want beastiality laws to remain intact or to be changed should support their leanings.

I personally can't support the legality of beastiality for the reasons that I've stated.

 

[dust1n]

I'm strongly resisting the temptation to post a youtube video.
Curse you, Dustin!

It's dust1n.

I'll do it for you!

[youtube]6fbahS7VSFs[/youtube]
Lion tries to eat baby PART 1. - YouTube

Anyway, all of you posters are disappointing me. No one is offering any objective reasoning to make boinking Bessie illegal.
If lawmakers read this thread, you might be giving them ideas.

It is an interesting notion though. I'm not really sure the whole meat diet has much to do with it. Eating meat, it seems consistent you should be able to have sex with them. Not eating meat, it seems consistent you should be able to have sex with them. Unless you view is explicitly that humans should never mess with animals, I'm not really sure how you can distinguish herding, milking, working, eating, beating from sex in terms of 'abuse'.

 

[dawny0826]

Hypothetical scenario: A boss is put in charge of several workers, and then proceeds to use their authority over their workers to coerce them into having sex, and rather enjoys this.

Corollary scenario: A farmhand is put in charge of several animals, and then proceeds to use that authority over the animals to coerce them into having sex, and rather enjoys this.

If authority is such a turn-on for these people, are they really suitable for holding authority? If they cannot keep their own baser instincts in check, and actually indulge and become consumed by those baser instincts, then not only is their ability to hold authority called into question, but there is also good evidence for an active degradation of what abilities they had before they started indulging their baser instincts.

Eastern philosophies would call this karma of intention, that degrades ones mind. I also like this western version from the Gospel of Thomas:

7. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
​

Thank you.

 

[dawny0826]

Hey, it was just a question. If you can't answer, so be it.

It wasn't a question worth answering. Anyone with a position as to how animals should be treated is an arbiter of necessity.

Very true, but how about those other than the "certain animals" you have in mind? If seriously harming animals is your main concern then I presume you're fine with bestiality with animals that are not harmed. As for humans being injured, the reasonable presumption is that any human who could be harmed by having sex with animals would either stop before it reached that point or opt out of participating altogether.

I'm not okay with beastiality (which is spelled both ways, by the way).

Part of it, but what's your point, that an activity should be unlawful because someone got hurt or died because of it? If that was how we operated skiing, hunting, swimming, and thousands of other activities would be outlawed. But we don't base our laws on isolated cases.

My view is that beastiality should be unlawful as it's rape. I believe the premise that animals can give consent is bull ****.

And I think many do. In any activity that's deemed unacceptable the onus of proof or explanation lies with those uttering such a notion, not the other way around.

No joke. And I believe I've stated why I see beastiality as unacceptable practice.

"The view of paraphilias as disorders is not universal. Some groups seeking greater understanding and acceptance of sexual diversity have lobbied for changes to the legal and medical status of unusual sexual interests and practices. Charles Allen Moser, a physician and advocate for sexual minorities, has argued that the diagnoses should be eliminated from diagnostic manuals. Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard writes that despite efforts by Stekel and Money, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances."
source: Wikipedia

I've already pointed this out in a response to Badran. I understand that paraphilias are not consistently referred to as psychosexual disorders. It's still fact that some would be treated for a psychosexual disorder if they sought help for their zoophilia.
​

Think homosexuality should be classified as a paraphilia? Perhaps you do; however, almost no one else does. Yet interestingly enough homosexuality was once categorized as a form of paraphilia.

I do not. And it still is in some medical/scientific communities.

The larger point here is that psychological classifications, including those outside of psychosexual disorders, are continually being redefined and changed, so it would be folly to rely on any as the last word on a particular behavior. The most one should assert is that "currently X is considered a Y disorder." "Currently" being the operative word here. Moreover, a particular disorder in an otherwise mentally healthy individual may well be insufficient to deem the person dysfunctional or even worthy of concern.

I know this.

Yet I assume you do eat meat from animals raised for just that purpose and nothing else. Or that you enjoy Zoos where animals are kept in cages no less punishing than solitary confinement is for humans. Or that you approve of animals being raised for the leather your shoes are made of. Think any of them had a choice of the kind of life they led or how they'd wind up? Of course they didn't; people had their way with a creature that can't give consent and that it's just okay.

I've already answered these questions.

And if neither death or severe abuse takes place during bestiality can I assume you're fine with it? Of course I can't, because aside from any possible harm to the animal, you're "wholly prejudiced against zoophiles."

I'm wholly prejudiced against a mindset. And no, I'm not fine with it.

They may be logical, but logical doesn't necessarily equate with reasonable.

That's fine. If I haven't been reasonable, I'm okay with that. You've already suggested that my contributions on this forum (whatever they may be be) will be discredited in your eyes.

I would agree that your argument and Badran's arguments are the more reasonable.

My opinions on this topic are influenced by a great many things, morality and religion being a part to this. There are many issues that I easily reconcile my moral/religious views with the notion that people should not be limited to civil liberties because of the objection of others.

This is a subject that I greatly struggle with. Perhaps at some point, I'll be presented with evidence to sway my views in another direction. I must always remain open to the possibility that my views can be influenced as such to sway in another direction.

 

[Badran]

I'm not concerned about being discredited or with the manner in which I've presented my ideals. I respect the time and effort that you've taken to post your responses, but, I'm not interested in a lecture on how to better present my views.

That wasn't really my intention or what i was trying to say.

I've presented my views in honesty and that's the best that I can do. I've never claimed to be strong in debate and I'm comfortable bowing out of the debate at this point.

I am well aware of the original premise of my argument and I am comfortable with it, even if inconsistencies are found.

Simply put, I can't accept that animals serve the purpose of filling our sexual desires and people who utilize animals in that manner trouble me for reasons that I've stated.

I don't view these actions to be comparable in nature to utilizing animals for food, work, materials, etc.

I fully respect the right of Americans to push legally, for that which they feel should be legal. In this regard, I do respect the rights of zoophiles and their pursuit for freedom and happiness. Those that want beastiality laws to remain intact or to be changed should support their leanings.

I personally can't support the legality of beastiality for the reasons that I've stated.

Okay, thanks again for taking the time to discuss this and for honestly sharing your views.

 

[Debater Slayer]

On first hearing of cunnilingus as a teenager I had the exact same reaction; eeew!

Yes, I also have an "eew!" kind of reaction toward many other things, but in this case, it has to do with the nature of the act itself: the way I see it, it is practically raping the animal. I don't think I'd argue for it. If the premise of the argument comparing slaughtering animals to having sex with them was at all true, then I don't think that would make me argue for bestiality — it'd make me argue against bestiality and slaughtering animals, but definitely not for bestiality.

 

[Skwim]

It wasn't a question worth answering. Anyone with a position as to how animals should be treated is an arbiter of necessity.

Yet it was worth replying to.

I'm not okay with beastiality (which is spelled both ways, by the way).

But not by educated folk or those who simply know better.

"Bestiality is frequently misspelled as 'beastiality' "
Source: Wikipedia

_______________________________________________________________

Beastiality , beastiality meaning , definition of beastiality -

A common way to incorrectly spell bestiality. Sexual intercourse involving a human and a lower animal.
source

______________________________________________________________
Urban Dictionary

8. beastiality

to do sexual things with animals
Beastiality turns Jan on.


9. beastiality

Note: I deliberately spelt this word wrong, as many people are.

source

______________________________________________________________

beastiality

English
Noun

beastiality

Common misspelling of bestiality.
source

__________________________________________________________________
Beastiality

Did you mean bestiality?
Definitions
Wiktionary

n. misspelling, common misspelling of bestiality.

source

_____________________________________________________________________

Beastiality

Common misspelling of bestiality.

source
​

My view is that beastiality should be unlawful as it's rape. I believe the premise that animals can give consent is bull ****.

And I don't believe anyone here, myself included, has ever presented such a premise or intimated as much. You're tilting at windmills.

No joke. And I believe I've stated why I see beastiality as unacceptable practice.

And your prejudice is sufficient. However, one's prejudice is hardly a convincing argument. In fact, it's no argument at all.

I've already pointed this out in a response to Badran. I understand that paraphilias are not consistently referred to as psychosexual disorders. It's still fact that some would be treated for a psychosexual disorder if they sought help for their zoophilia.

And you know this as a fact how?
Such a person may well be treated for his predilection for bestiality, but not necessarily as a psychosexual disorder. This is nothing more than an presumption on your part.

I do not. And it still is in some medical/scientific communities.

Is that so. Then please share your sources. (plural)

I know this.

Good.

I've already answered these questions.

"Question." (singular)

I'm wholly prejudiced against a mindset. And no, I'm not fine with it.

There's no moving goal posts, dawny. You said. "I am wholly prejudiced against zoophiles." (post 74)

That's fine. If I haven't been reasonable, I'm okay with that. You've already suggested that my contributions on this forum (whatever they may be be) will be discredited in your eyes.

Really? Mind showing me where I suggested as much, because all I recall saying is "now we can properly judge your answers."

I would agree that your argument and Badran's arguments are the more reasonable.

My opinions on this topic are influenced by a great many things, morality and religion being a part to this. There are many issues that I easily reconcile my moral/religious views with the notion that people should not be limited to civil liberties because of the objection of others.

This is a subject that I greatly struggle with. Perhaps at some point, I'll be presented with evidence to sway my views in another direction. I must always remain open to the possibility that my views can be influenced as such to sway in another direction.

And I appreciate your candor and openness.

 

[Reverend Rick]

On first hearing of cunnilingus as a teenager I had the exact same reaction; eeew!

LOL really?