Is Beastiality (Zoophilia) morally wrong or right?

[Sunstone]

Female animals "present" for the males when they are ready to have sex. if the female does this towards a Human, would this not be a "Come on" signal?

Jane Goodall, in one of her books, writes of an incident in which a male chimpanzee was observed to have sex with a female monkey (of a species I don't recall). According to Goodall, the sex was clearly consensual. The female was in estrus and approached the male and presented herself to him in exactly the way she would have presented herself to a male of her own species.

 

[James the Persian]

Female animals "present" for the males when they are ready to have sex. if the female does this towards a Human, would this not be a "Come on" signal?

Would you say that a young girl initiating sex (and children that have been abused do do this) can be taken as consent? I certainly wouldn't, because part of our definition of consent is that they are capable of making it. In other words consent must be informed. I'm afraid that however you cut it, animals cannot give informed consent.

Then you have to consider why the animal does what it's doing. Has it been trained (I'm pretty sure that would be quite easy to achieve) to do it? Has it been, like the children mentioned above, previously abused? In these circumstances could you take their actions to imply consent? How?

I'll admit that there are some grey areas where species, like Bonobos, are right on theedge of what we would consider sentient, and those are certainly much harder to come down on with certainty (though I still feel it's morally wrong - it's just the issue of consent that's less convincing). How many people, though, even have an opportunity to have sex with a Bonobo? Not many. Zoophiles tend to copulate with dogs, horses etc. and I think that the issue of consent with such species is compelling. You can never be sure that there is consent, but you can always be certain that whatever consent there may be will not be informed any more than a child's will be.

James

 

[Tiberius]

And if a human tried to have sex with a female animal and the animal doesn't want it, she will try to pull away. An animal is perfectly capable of making it clear if they are interested in having sex with a person.

Would you say that a young girl initiating sex (and children that have been abused do do this) can be taken as consent? I certainly wouldn't, because part of our definition of consent is that they are capable of making it. In other words consent must be informed. I'm afraid that however you cut it, animals cannot give informed consent.

The difference, however, is that a child is not sexually or emotionally mature. if you have a five year old dog, then it is mature.

To turn your question on its head, if you met a 30 year old woman who was coming on strongly and you slept with her, and afterwards she told you that sex gave her no pleasure, but she was "trained' to do it ever since she was a kid, did you commit rape or not?

 

[James the Persian]

And if a human tried to have sex with a female animal and the animal doesn't want it, she will try to pull away. An animal is perfectly capable of making it clear if they are interested in having sex with a person.



The difference, however, is that a child is not sexually or emotionally mature. if you have a five year old dog, then it is mature.

To turn your question on its head, if you met a 30 year old woman who was coming on strongly and you slept with her, and afterwards she told you that sex gave her no pleasure, but she was "trained' to do it ever since she was a kid, did you commit rape or not?

No, because she's clearly able to give informed consent, and she gave it. Not only did she give it but her consent was so obviously informed that she was able to tell you why she did it, even though it was not pleasurable to her. Unless you can show me that an animal can give informed consent, which is not something that you appear to have even attempted to tackle, then my comparison of child to animal appears far more apposite.

James

 

[Ðanisty]

Because an animal cannot communicate in a human language, you are assuming the animal is incapable of giving informed consent. Animals of all species are capable of making a decision on who they will mate with. Just watch Animal Planet. Every species has mating rituals. The males of the species compete for a female's attention and she chooses who she will mate with.

Under the logic of a language barrier, would it be rape if a Chinese speaking person and an English speaking person have sex? Afterall, they have no verbal communication. Or, is it okay because they understand each other's non-verbal communication?

 

[James the Persian]

Because an animal cannot communicate in a human language, you are assuming the animal is incapable of giving informed consent. Animals of all species are capable of making a decision on who they will mate with. Just watch Animal Planet. Every species has mating rituals. The males of the species compete for a female's attention and she chooses who she will mate with.

Under the logic of a language barrier, would it be rape if a Chinese speaking person and an English speaking person have sex? Afterall, they have no verbal communication. Or, is it okay because they understand each other's non-verbal communication?

I never mentioned a language barrier at any point. All I mentioned was the requirement for a certain level of sentience. The inability, after all, of a child to give informed consent hs nothing to do with whether or not we speak a common language. Not sure where you managed to get that language barrier idea from, but it wasn't me.

James

 

[Buttercup]

Under the logic of a language barrier, would it be rape if a Chinese speaking person and an English speaking person have sex? Afterall, they have no verbal communication. Or, is it okay because they understand each other's non-verbal communication?

It's rather obvious when a female human is willing to have sex. She either takes her clothes off or you do. If she lets you take her clothes off and proceed....you can bet it's not rape. And besides, the action of the word, "no" is quite universal. I think shaking your head from left to right means "no" pretty much across the globe.

If a male human wants to have sex with a female dog while in heat.....well, it will be messy.

 

[Ðanisty]

I never mentioned a language barrier at any point. All I mentioned was the requirement for a certain level of sentience. The inability, after all, of a child to give informed consent hs nothing to do with whether or not we speak a common language. Not sure where you managed to get that language barrier idea from, but it wasn't me.

James

Your post was based on informed consent. My point is that animals can give informed consent. Some humans apparently can't understand that consent, hence the language barrier. So you don't think that animals are sentient? If so, we will have to agree to disagree.

It's rather obvious when a female human is willing to have sex. She either takes her clothes off or you do. If she lets you take her clothes off and proceed....you can bet it's not rape. And besides, the action of the word, "no" is quite universal. I think shaking your head from left to right means "no" pretty much across the globe.

I think it would be rather obvious also when a female animal is willing to have sex. Growling, snarling and biting are pretty universal too.

 

[James the Persian]

I think shaking your head from left to right means "no" pretty much across the globe.

If you think that, be very careful if you ever visit India. I have a good friend who caused no end of trouble when he came to England by shaking his head to mean yes and vice versa.

Danisty,

I'm quite happy to agree to disagree. I simply don't see the level of sentience of say a dog to be sufficient to give informed consent. If you read back you'll see that I allowed that some animals such as Bonobos might constitute a grey area. I would just like to point out, though, that sentience is a continuum and that you aren't just either sentient or not. Clearly our difference is in where on that scale we feel the cut off point is for someone giving informed consent. I can only suggest that you are probably of the opinion that the age at which a child can give informed consent is younger than I might suggest.

James

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm quite happy to agree to disagree. I simply don't see the level of sentience of say a dog to be sufficient to give informed consent. If you read back you'll see that I allowed that some animals such as Bonobos might constitute a grey area. I would just like to point out, though, that sentience is a continuum and that you aren't just either sentient or not. Clearly our difference is in where on that scale we feel the cut off point is for someone giving informed consent. I can only suggest that you are probably of the opinion that the age at which a child can give informed consent is younger than I might suggest.

James

Well, there certainly is a scale of awareness in animals. A dog is much, much more aware than a hampster, for instance. Even so, all animals do have some kind of mating ritual...even bugs. Regardless, if a human is going to have sex with an animal, I do strongly believe it should not hurt the animal. This requires obviously that an animal be a certain size and that the animal is willing.

As for people, I gave informed consent at 14. I could have done it at 12 if there had been anyone to consent with. I'm not sure what you consider to be a child...no doubt this is younger than you would suggest.

 

[James the Persian]

Well, there certainly is a scale of awareness in animals. A dog is much, much more aware than a hampster, for instance. Even so, all animals do have some kind of mating ritual...even bugs. Regardless, if a human is going to have sex with an animal, I do strongly believe it should not hurt the animal. This requires obviously that an animal be a certain size and that the animal is willing.

As for people, I gave informed consent at 14. I could have done it at 12 if there had been anyone to consent with. I'm not sure what you consider to be a child...no doubt this is younger than you would suggest.

Well, obviously it varies from child to child (and boys are likely later to develop than girls in this regard) but I wouldn't think 14 unreasonable. 12 would be pushing it. The thing is that even a bonobo, which is way more sentient than a dog is, in my opinion, significantly less sentient than a 12 year old human.

James

 

[Ðanisty]

Well, obviously it varies from child to child (and boys are likely later to develop than girls in this regard) but I wouldn't think 14 unreasonable. 12 would be pushing it. The thing is that even a bonobo, which is way more sentient than a dog is, in my opinion, significantly less sentient than a 12 year old human.

James

Well, I'm not about to say that a child younger than 12 could not give informed consent either. I'm just speaking for myself. I'm 28 years old and and looking back, I feel I could have given informed consent as early as 12. Someone else may be able to give consent earlier than that. I think a lot of it is going to depend on culture.

I'm not sure that a dog isn't as sentient as a 12 year old human, but they certainly aren't as intelligent. Funny enough, I think that also depends on the individual dog.

 

[Buttercup]

If you think that, be very careful if you ever visit India. I have a good friend who caused no end of trouble when he came to England by shaking his head to mean yes and vice versa.

Point noted, thank you.

Regardless, if a human is going to have sex with an animal, I do strongly believe it should not hurt the animal. This requires obviously that an animal be a certain size and that the animal is willing.

I have a Border Collie which is a medium sized dog. There's no way a human male would "fit". My advice would be that any male wanting to mate with a female dog find one larger.

 

[Ðanisty]

I have a Border Collie which is a medium sized dog. There's no way a human male would "fit". My advice would be that any male wanting to mate with a female dog find one larger.

I would agree. :yes:

 

[Hema]

Ever heard of Bonobos? Bonobos, as well as using sex as a social tool, are often observed sneaking off with each other for a quicky behind the bushes. They have oral sex, group sex, mutual masturbation, guy on guy action.... these guys know their stuff! Frans de Waal actually mentions a time when he was observing bonobos and a female presented to him!

I'm not saying this for any reason really, it's just interesting. As for my opinion on bestiality, I'm really not sure. Would Frans have been violating the female bonobo if he had had sex with her? Who knows.

Oh wow! I only heard about the dolphins and humans thingy from Discovery Channel, or was it National Geographic Anyway, that's interesting to know. Now I'm going to do a google search to see what on earth is a bonobo.

 

[Fluffy]

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You say bestiality is not immoral but rape is. Yet, you concede that an animal cannot give informed consent. So, shouldn't your answer have been that it's immoral to have sex with an animal?

You are saying that since every incident of bestiality is also an incident of rape and since every incident of rape is wrong, every incident of bestiality is wrong. I agree up to this point. You then seem to say that bestiality itself is wrong. I disagree with this since bestiality appears to remain amoral since it could, theoretically, be practiced with consent.

I feel that this is an important distinction to make firstly because I don't think that transferring the immorality of one event onto another is a logical step to make and secondly because I think it will change how we deal with those who feel sexual attraction towards animals.

If bestiality is wrong, then bestial urges are also wrong in the same way that an urge to rape, an urge to murder and an urge to steal are all wrong. I feel that it is only the rape that is wrong and that it is possible for a person to wish to engage in consensual sexual activity with animals yet recognise that this is not possible.

It is unnecessary to say that bestiality is wrong when the wrongness is attributed to the lack of informed consent (rape). It is not a seperate wrong from raping small people or old people or people with a birthmark on the back of their necks. It is unnecessary to differentiate between any kind of rape unless there is some extra attribute that a specific kind adds to the wrongness. So there is nothing wrong with bestiality and it is still merely rape that is wrong.

 

[Buttercup]

If bestiality is wrong, then bestial urges are also wrong in the same way that an urge to rape, an urge to murder and an urge to steal are all wrong. I feel that it is only the rape that is wrong and that it is possible for a person to wish to engage in consensual sexual activity with animals yet recognise that this is not possible.

Ok, now we're on the same page. Being attracted to animals yet not acting on that attraction is morally fine. Looks like we both agree that the action itself is the immoral criteria. Wasn't sure if that's what you meant but I'm clearer now.

Are you of the opinion that an animal cannot give informed consent? You say theoretically in the future it may be possible. Since that is all speculation, what about now in 2007?

 

[Ðanisty]

Ok, now we're on the same page. Being attracted to animals yet not acting on that attraction is morally fine. Looks like we both agree that the action itself is the immoral criteria. Wasn't sure if that's what you meant but I'm clearer now.

Are you of the opinion that an animal cannot give informed consent? You say theoretically in the future it may be possible. Since that is all speculation, what about now in 2007?

I think what Fluffy is saying is that if an animal could give consent (which I believe it can, but he and others do not), it is not morally wrong to have sex with the animal. It's the act of having sex with an animal (or anyone) without consent that Fluffy has a problem with as that is rape.

For the record, I do not believe it is morally wrong for people to have the urge to rape, murder and steal either. Only actions are morally wrong as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Fluffy]

For the record, I do not believe it is morally wrong for people to have the urge to rape, murder and steal either. Only actions are morally wrong as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah I kinda mushed my words on that one. I don't think it is morally wrong either because I don't really believe in morality. I just feel that if somebody wants to rape somebody then it is fine to act on that information alone even if they haven't actually committed the act since wanting to implies that, given the means, they would. I don't mean jail time or anything but therapy and the like.

Ok, now we're on the same page. Being attracted to animals yet not acting on that attraction is morally fine. Looks like we both agree that the action itself is the immoral criteria. Wasn't sure if that's what you meant but I'm clearer now.

The act of rape is certainly wrong but having consensual sex is not regardless of the nature of the participants. That is the way I would put it anyway.

Are you of the opinion that an animal cannot give informed consent? You say theoretically in the future it may be possible. Since that is all speculation, what about now in 2007?

Right now I am not aware of a animal that is able to give informed consent. I truly don't believe we are that far off and indeed I feel that it is perfectly possible, perhaps even likely, to witness the creation of non-human sentient life in my lifetime.

 

[BFD_Zayl]

ok, "hypothetically" i have the urge to steal all the time, and i do from the rich and spoiled, then i pawn what i steal in order to buy things i need like clothing, food, uhh...video games...and i spread the rest into a bank account and save it for when times are hard. would that "hypothetically" be morally wrong?</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>