Is Beastiality (Zoophilia) morally wrong or right?

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Well, with this we can eliminate sex for fun. No one should have sex unless they are trying to conceive? And if they are horny any other time, it's masturbation or nothing?

That's the dumbest thing ever. Did I say that sex had to be no fun? Did I say sex could only be for conceiving children? I didn't think so, and if you're so unimaginative as to think you either must masturbate for an orgasm or do nothing that's your problem. Since when did human/human sex not be able to result in orgasms?

Only a tiny minority of animals who are abused accept it. Most fight back or escape, and that's if the abusers aren't reported first. I won't deny that there are some animals like this, but I don't see how you can justify using the plight of a tiny minority of animals to make your point. It's like banning peanuts in order to protect those few who have peanut allergies

I beg to differ that it is a tiny amount. Check out the treament of animals in all types of captivity and you'll see many of them mistreated. Even animals being raised for food are treated horribly prior to slaughter. Humans do a whole lot of abuse of authority against other animals who can't/won't protest.

Your own logic is the same as saying that it's okay for a husband to beat her wife as long as she does nothing to resist.

Firstly we aren't talking about human relations. Since you brought it up though I'll use a personal example. My mother was beaten by my father for over 20 years. At any one time she could have left him and didn't. There were so many times that opportunity after opportunity was presented to her to make a better life for herself and us, but she declined them all and took the beatings. Know what I think of that? I think she was being stupid. Why would you stay with a man who is beating you? I think any woman who stays with a man who beats her despite the opportunity to make an escape to places and people who will help her, is being stupid. I don't advocate wife beating at all. I equally don't advocate wives staying to get beaten.

This POV is coming from me not so much as a wife, but as a former child growing up in a household like that. It was very traumatic and not something to be gotten over easily. Women especially with children should make a getaway as soon as the chance comes along. If they don't they doom themselves and their children to a horrible lifestyle.

A master/lesser relationship does not eliminate the possibility of sex between the parties involved.

Why would it be necessary to have such a relationship? It's ultimately pointless other than the gross sex one would have. There could never be a relationship beyond that. You can't marry your dog. You can't rent a hotel room with it and spend a romantic getaway. You can't share your day with it in anyway that it will comprehend. It isn't the same as being with another person at all. What if a person is accustomed to doing their dog but then wants a human partner. You think that dog after having that attachment is going to let that be? Animals can be more possessive than a person over their girl/boyfriends.

Anyway what is it about an animal that would even arouse a person sexually? That in itself needs to be checked out. A person that has that much difficulty and lack of life coping skills that they can't relate to any other human that way, and therefore must relate to animals needs to be evaluated point blank.

Furthermore this is an opinion poll so my opinion isn't any less valid then yours. You prove to me the benefits of having a sexual relationship with an animal beyond having an orgasm. Having sex with an animal is both pointless and gross and I'm not budging off that opinion...... point blank.

Legally around the United States there is an age below which it is considered impossible for a human being to give consent. usually it is around 13-16 years old. This is the point where the law considers a human being as mentally capable of understanding enough about the situation to knowingly give consent.

Can anyone show me an animal with the mental faculties of a normal 13 year old child?

Thank you. I agree. Also what's not being thoguht about is the animals eventual wish to become pregnant or sire offspring. Humans can't facilitate that through sexual intercourse with that animal. The animal might get mad at you because you haven't been able to impregnate it or become pregnant by it. They might start disliking you then.

A dog humping your leg is indicating a desire for sex.

Maybe maybe not. DOgs hump poles outside too you think they wanna have sex with the pole. Another function of that supposed humping is marking territory. So what you percieve as sexual the dog doesn't necessarily see it that way. Dogs know that your leg and that pole outside is not another dog. It doesn't really attemp to mount it nor engage it's knot. Its just a motion. A dog might sniff between your legs too, I shouldn't take that as an attempt at oral sex.

 

[Tiberius]

That's the dumbest thing ever. Did I say that sex had to be no fun? Did I say sex could only be for conceiving children? I didn't think so, and if you're so unimaginative as to think you either must masturbate for an orgasm or do nothing that's your problem. Since when did human/human sex not be able to result in orgasms?

They why do we have to find a way to do it without the animal if sex for fun is perfectly fine? Why can we not have sex for fun with an animal?

I beg to differ that it is a tiny amount. Check out the treament of animals in all types of captivity and you'll see many of them mistreated. Even animals being raised for food are treated horribly prior to slaughter. Humans do a whole lot of abuse of authority against other animals who can't/won't protest.

Then you'll have no worries at all showing supporting evidence for this claim that most animals in captivity are treated very poorly.

Firstly we aren't talking about human relations. Since you brought it up though I'll use a personal example. My mother was beaten by my father for over 20 years. At any one time she could have left him and didn't. There were so many times that opportunity after opportunity was presented to her to make a better life for herself and us, but she declined them all and took the beatings. Know what I think of that? I think she was being stupid. Why would you stay with a man who is beating you? I think any woman who stays with a man who beats her despite the opportunity to make an escape to places and people who will help her, is being stupid. I don't advocate wife beating at all. I equally don't advocate wives staying to get beaten.

This seems to support my claim...

Why would it be necessary to have such a relationship? It's ultimately pointless other than the gross sex one would have.

Again, you are assuming that beastiality is "gross" in order to prove your point. You do see the flaw in this, yes?

There could never be a relationship beyond that. You can't marry your dog. You can't rent a hotel room with it and spend a romantic getaway. You can't share your day with it in anyway that it will comprehend. It isn't the same as being with another person at all.

So what? Since when can you only have sex with someone you intend to marry or have a relationship with? Does this mean that one night stands are wrong too?

What if a person is accustomed to doing their dog but then wants a human partner. You think that dog after having that attachment is going to let that be? Animals can be more possessive than a person over their girl/boyfriends.

A properly trained animal will handle it. Any dog that gets so possesive would have a superiority complex regarding his owner.

Anyway what is it about an animal that would even arouse a person sexually? That in itself needs to be checked out. A person that has that much difficulty and lack of life coping skills that they can't relate to any other human that way, and therefore must relate to animals needs to be evaluated point blank.

A person can have sex with an animal and still be able to relate to other people. On what are you basing your claim that zoophiles can't relate to others?

Furthermore this is an opinion poll so my opinion isn't any less valid then yours. You prove to me the benefits of having a sexual relationship with an animal beyond having an orgasm. Having sex with an animal is both pointless and gross and I'm not budging off that opinion...... point blank.

Who says there needs to be benefits other than the orgasm? The orgasm is the point, and you are entitled to believe it is gross. However, that doesn't mean that you can say it is wrong, just that it is wrong for you. And you don't have to have sex with an animal if you don't want to.

Legally around the United States there is an age below which it is considered impossible for a human being to give consent. usually it is around 13-16 years old. This is the point where the law considers a human being as mentally capable of understanding enough about the situation to knowingly give consent.

Can anyone show me an animal with the mental faculties of a normal 13 year old child?

By this logic, no animal is able to give consent as they are all too immature. Does this mean that animal sex is always rape?

Maybe maybe not. DOgs hump poles outside too you think they wanna have sex with the pole. Another function of that supposed humping is marking territory. So what you percieve as sexual the dog doesn't necessarily see it that way. Dogs know that your leg and that pole outside is not another dog. It doesn't really attemp to mount it nor engage it's knot. Its just a motion. A dog might sniff between your legs too, I shouldn't take that as an attempt at oral sex.

So what? They still show a desire for sex by humping, even if they also hump for other reasons. I sometimes show a desire for sex by flirting, but I also flirt to get a discount when I am buying something.

 

[Buttercup]

They why do we have to find a way to do it without the animal if sex for fun is perfectly fine? Why can we not have sex for fun with an animal?

Tiberius.....since you seem to be the proponent for sex with animals who is most willing to talk about the subject, may I ask you a couple of questions?

You think it's fine to have sex with animals as long as it's done in a loving and caring way right?

Let's say "hypothetically" that you want to have sex with your Golden Retriever Molly who is 5 years old. Would you be willing to take her to your veterinarian for a check up to make sure her vaginal opening is big enough for you to have sex with her? I would think if you were caring enough you would be very concerned and wouldn't want to hurt her. If you or anyone were not willing to do this, I don't think you care enough about your animal to have sex with her.

Let's say you prefer to have sex with male animals. What can a male animal do for you? He doesn't have fingers or thumbs so the obvious there wouldn't work. I'm thinking unless you want to smear a can of Alpo all over yourself, I can't think of much a male dog could do for you that would not harm him. Care to enlighten me?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Keeping along those lines I wonder if he wouldn't mind terribly if (hypothetically speaking) one of his children brought her/his dog to him and introduced it as more than a pet but a lover. Would he be so open-minded? Perhaps if his lover left him for an animal, would that be the same as leaving him for another man?

If I'm correct I think the point Buttercup is making is that when things are perfectly acceptable, then shame is a non-issue. When we are engaged in thigns that aren't quite so nice and dandy, we tend to hide it and keep it to ourselves.

 

[Ðanisty]

Go right ahead. That's just my point. Now you see how ridiculous it is don't you? By saying that an animal is sentient, mature, and intelligent enough to communicate with you a sexual desire then it must be accorded the same rights as you. If not then you admit that the animal, while intelligent in its own right, is still dumber than you.

Not quite. Foreigners aren't accorded the same rights as citizens, children aren't accorded the same rights ats adults, prisoners aren't accorded the same rights at law-abiding citizens. Not everyone has equal rights, but we don't go around saying the foreigners, children and prisoners are less sentient or intelligent.

 

[Tiberius]

You think it's fine to have sex with animals as long as it's done in a loving and caring way right?

Yes, that's right.

Let's say "hypothetically" that you want to have sex with your Golden Retriever Molly who is 5 years old. Would you be willing to take her to your veterinarian for a check up to make sure her vaginal opening is big enough for you to have sex with her? I would think if you were caring enough you would be very concerned and wouldn't want to hurt her. If you or anyone were not willing to do this, I don't think you care enough about your animal to have sex with her.

I agree. If a person is planning on having sex with their animal, they should make absolutely sure that they will not be hurting the animal. In any case where a person hurts an animal because they have not taken adequate precautions, then they are abusing that animal.

Let's say you prefer to have sex with male animals. What can a male animal do for you? He doesn't have fingers or thumbs so the obvious there wouldn't work. I'm thinking unless you want to smear a can of Alpo all over yourself, I can't think of much a male dog could do for you that would not harm him. Care to enlighten me?

There is licking (as an Australian, I have no idea what Alpo is), and there is also anal sex.

If I'm correct I think the point Buttercup is making is that when things are perfectly acceptable, then shame is a non-issue. When we are engaged in thigns that aren't quite so nice and dandy, we tend to hide it and keep it to ourselves.

There's also the issue of certain things being private and not anyone else's business. You could have a sexual relationship with the person next door, but that doesn't mean that you have to inform anyone.

 

[Buttercup]

There is licking (as an Australian, I have no idea what Alpo is), and there is also anal sex.

Alpo is canned dog food. Unless you are covering your body with canned dog food I doubt you will be able to get a dog to lick you long enough for your satisfaction.

You think a male dog is going to like anal sex? Weren't you the one who said yesterday it was "sick" for that puppy to be sodomized? You really think an adult dog is going to enjoy you sodomizing him?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

There's also the issue of certain things being private and not anyone else's business. You could have a sexual relationship with the person next door, but that doesn't mean that you have to inform anyone

.

If you were in love you might tell someone. A best friend maybe, or your family members. Unless of course there was some reason to purposely hide it.

I just don't understand why humans aren't good enough. Animals don't do that. A bonobos monkey might have sex with another species of monkey but guess what......they're both monkeys. Thats like people of two different races having sex. How many times have you seena polar bear and a moose get it on? A lion and an elephant? How about a bird and a dog? Get my point? It just doesn't happen. So why do some people feel this to be a necessary thing. Like Preach the nett asked earlier........does it really need to be done? Are we that desperate for the next plateau of kinky sex?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

.I just don't understand why humans aren't good enough. Animals don't do that. A bonobos monkey might have sex with another species of monkey but guess what......they're both monkeys. Thats like people of two different races having sex.

Not quite. Asians and Caucasions are still Homo sapiens. It would be more like a human having sex with a chimp.

 

[jacquie4000]

I actually avoided this thread for a long time. I do not agree nor do I think it is right for a human to have sexual realtions with an animal or their pet. I love my dog so very much she is part of my family. But to me this just crosses the line in every sense.

 

[Fluffy]

Keeping along those lines I wonder if he wouldn't mind terribly if (hypothetically speaking) one of his children brought her/his dog to him and introduced it as more than a pet but a lover. Would he be so open-minded? Perhaps if his lover left him for an animal, would that be the same as leaving him for another man?

If I'm correct I think the point Buttercup is making is that when things are perfectly acceptable, then shame is a non-issue. When we are engaged in thigns that aren't quite so nice and dandy, we tend to hide it and keep it to ourselves.

Yet it is perfectly possible to make a person feel ashamed about something that is perfectly acceptable and, also, feel no shame at all over something that is totally unacceptable. How then, can shame be an indicator of morality?

Shame is more likely to be the result of social conditioning and so if you base what is acceptable upon it then your morality is relative to a factor beyond your control. You could argue that there is no longer a moral imperative here since changing social conditioning to alter shameful feelings would be equally moral as avoiding those actions that currently produce shameful feelings. Whats more anybody who convinced themselves that whatever they were doing was morally right would void themselves of shame and so validate their own actions.

Shame is product of thinking something is sinful and not a product of sin.

Also you talk about claiming something to be right yet shying away from that belief under practical circumstances. Your argument seems to be that if I state that X is right yet at some point I would also feel negatively towards X (especially when it affects me personally) then I cannot coherently claim that X is right.

But it is no secret that rational argument and emotional need often contradict each other. So yes, at times we do act contrary to reason but when we do, we don't look back and say "my emotions got the better of me. good thing too since we all know reason is a load of bull". It is more usual to try and alter our emotions so they fall in line with reason.

Furthermore, the validity and soundness of an argument are not dependent on how I feel about that argument. I could hate a true argument and it would still be true. So my personal feelings towards bestiality are irrelevant when deciding whether an argument supporting its amoral status is valid.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can't believe you have carried on with this as long as you have . As i have stated....Some people will do what they want when they want. that's including having sex with animals.

I can't comment as to why it would even be necessary. Man and dog, man and man, or man and woman. There's risks, potential for infections or disease in either case.

do any of you have sex with animals? I mean if you do then you are one up on me. You may be best suited to answer the question.

Is it morally wrong???? Well, what are YOUR moral values?

Yours may be different than some one elses.

Is having sex with animals right for me. No.....It's not my preference.

I tend to believe that every species on the planet is suited to and for its own species. I don't mind if you want to refute that statement.

I believe that man and woman are more sexually compatible than... let's say... man and pigeon.....

Some cultures do things that i find disgusting but that may be my lack of experience with what they are doing. I don't PREFER to have sex with animals because i have never wanted to. I find the thought of it to be an uncomfortable undertaking but again I lack practical experience.

But to the OP... is it morally wrong.... All depends on YOUR moral code....

I guess..........

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Yet it is perfectly possible to make a person feel ashamed about something that is perfectly acceptable and, also, feel no shame at all over something that is totally unacceptable

Thats tre but at the same time I wasn't talking about what other people push on a person. If no one else knew about it, and that person still felt a sense of shame over it or felt something was wrong then that would be a type of moral indicator. I tend to take the stance of the prophet in these cases where he says more or less that those things which disturb the peace of the heart is wrong.

We all have a moral compass. We know when things are wrong and when they aren't regardless of what is taught. For a person to even have to question the wrongness of animal/human sex is an indicator that all is not right with that. When things are correct we need no one to agree with it. If you're right you're right, and if you're wrong you have doubts.

 

[Fluffy]

But to the OP... is it morally wrong.... All depends on YOUR moral code....

Generally, if morality is reduced to "I like X and dislike Y" then it seems to be little more than shopping for ice cream. In other words, why talk about morality when you can just say "I dislike bestiality"?

When most people talk about morality they mean something along the lines of "I dislike bestiality and you should not practice it" (or perhaps even "I like bestiality but it should not be practiced anyway"). Now we are of course all welcome to our own opinions but to assume that just because people have different moralities that we cannot make a judgement between them doesn't hold, I think. We can analyse why a person believes as he does and compare that with more or less valid positions. For example, a person who spins their belief out of thin air is in a less valid position to a person who has some sort of justification.

Additionally, when moral codes overlap, the discussion can center on how we have reached different conclusions given the same premises. Most people would say that causing unnecessary harm is wrong, for example, and so whilst a conversation between those people and a group who rejected that claim might be less productive, a discussion amongst themselves can reveal the relative positions on other moral factors eg war, capital punishment.

So if you are saying "I prefer not to have sex with animals" then I would say that is about as moral as me saying "I prefer to eat toffee rather than chocolate". They lack the moral imperative. On the otherhand, if you wish to go further than that then clearly there is quite a meaty debate to be had with those who disagree with you .

Thats tre but at the same time I wasn't talking about what other people push on a person. If no one else knew about it, and that person still felt a sense of shame over it or felt something was wrong then that would be a type of moral indicator. I tend to take the stance of the prophet in these cases where he says more or less that those things which disturb the peace of the heart is wrong.

Okay but then we should be able to apply that consistently to a situation:
However you and I feel about homosexuality, there are clearly both homosexuals who feel ashamed of who they are and those who do not. Is homosexuality, therefore, only wrong for those who feel ashamed at their homosexuality?

Similarly, if I am not ashamed at having sex with animals, would I be in the right (or at least would my actions be amoral)?

Perhaps the prophet was imparting a more practical moral philosophy, a guide for those who did not have the time to question every aspect of their socially engineered morality. I don't see how you can get away from the fact that different people feel differently about morality and therefore if he was trying to support a specific morality then this teaching could not be a very accurate indicator. Perhaps he was simply surrounded by people who he felt knew what was right as he saw it and did not mean it for those who did not share his idea of morality?

We all have a moral compass. We know when things are wrong and when they aren't regardless of what is taught.

We do not know. We think and then we reach conviction through emotion. There is absolutely no difference between the truth value of the man who is unable to doubt that X is wrong (ie he knows that X is wrong) and the man who believes X to be wrong.

Our moral compass is not merely a product of genetics but also of society. Do you believe that the Aztecs felt that ashamed at sacrificing humans? Or that the terrorist feels shame when he takes a life? What about the Spartan warriors and Samurai who practiced pederasty?

For a person to even have to question the wrongness of animal/human sex is an indicator that all is not right with that. When things are correct we need no one to agree with it. If you're right you're right, and if you're wrong you have doubts.

I disagree. If we happened to live in a world where heterosexual sex was considered to be wrong (our species reproduced via IVF only) and I decided to question that wrongness, would you still hold to that belief?

 

[Yerda]

Let's say "hypothetically" that you want to have sex with your Golden Retriever Molly who is 5 years old. Would you be willing to take her to your veterinarian for a check up to make sure her vaginal opening is big enough for you to have sex with her? I would think if you were caring enough you would be very concerned and wouldn't want to hurt her. If you or anyone were not willing to do this, I don't think you care enough about your animal to have sex with her.

If the animal in question is my 22 year-old human, Danielle, would you say I was being uncaring in my actions because I didn't take her to see a doctor to assure me that her vaginal opening was big enough for me before I had sex with her?

Am I a moral deviant?

Out of interest, if a male non-human penetrates a female human, is the female human the immoral one?

 

[Buttercup]

If the animal in question is my 22 year-old human, Danielle, would you say I was being uncaring in my actions because I didn't take her to see a doctor to assure me that her vaginal opening was big enough for me before I had sex with her?

Am I a moral deviant?

A human being's vagina is meant to have sex with another human, therefore it's quite rare for there to be a problem with a male not fitting. And if there is a problem, the female can tell you exactly what the problem is. A dog cannot. She can only squeal.

A dog is not meant to have sex with humans. It's my guess that even a female Great Dane does not have the anatomically correct sized vagina. I think a human male is too large. But, feel free to ask a vet that question.

I'm arguing that sex with animals can't be morally ethical if it brings harm to the animal. The methods of consentual, non harming sex with animals are few. I don't see much gratification for the human or the animal. But, I'm willing to listen to some salient argument proving otherwise.

 

[Yerda]

A human being's vagina is meant to have sex with another human, therefore it's quite rare for there to be a problem with a male not fitting.

Happens, sure.

if there is a problem, the female can tell you exactly what the problem is. A dog cannot. She can only squeal.

I can imagine a human would do the same.

A dog is not meant to have sex with humans.

"A man is not meant to have sex with a man." "A white is not meant to have sex with a black." "You're not meant to have sex with your hand."

It's my guess that even a female Great Dane does not have the anatomically correct sized vagina.

I presume the avergae human male doesn't have the correct sized anus or rectal cavity for homosexual sex. By all accounts it does the job though.

If the canine reproductive organs were perfectly adapted to the humans, would you feel it was less immoral?

I don't see much gratification for the human or the animal. But, I'm willing to listen to some salient argument proving otherwise.

You won't get them from me, if I wanted to have sex with hairy, smelly things I'd turn gay.

 

[Buttercup]

"A man is not meant to have sex with a man." "A white is not meant to have sex with a black." "You're not meant to have sex with your hand."

We're talking completely different species here. And I mean anatomically different. Do you agree that a female dog's vagina is much smaller than a human female's? Sex with a female dog would hurt her and she'd probably need surgery to repair her internal organs.

I presume the avergae human male doesn't have the correct sized anus or rectal cavity for homosexual sex. By all accounts it does the job though.

It is a hell of a lot closer than a dog's anus though. Plus, a human can say, "stop it!"

If the canine reproductive organs were perfectly adapted to the humans, would you feel it was less immoral?

This would be a human if it were the case.

 

[Ðanisty]

You think a male dog is going to like anal sex? Weren't you the one who said yesterday it was "sick" for that puppy to be sodomized? You really think an adult dog is going to enjoy you sodomizing him?

Consider the possibility that he meant the human would be the one penetrated.

 

[Buttercup]

Consider the possibility that he meant the human would be the one penetrated.

Hahaa! Yeah, guess I didn't think of that. Sounds yummy and loads of fun!

Still, you'd have to have the perfect sized dog to fit just right. One too tall or too short wouldn't work. Guess when you're searching for the perfect fit dog to have sex with you could tell a breeder your requirements and they could recommend the right sized breed.