Is Beastiality (Zoophilia) morally wrong or right?

[Ozzie]

Okay, you claim that part of the reason that beastiality is wrong is because it isn't normal. neither is skydiving, or walking on the moon, yet no one claims these things are wrong.

It is a cultural norm that bestiality is wrong. Therefore it is immoral. It doesn't help your case if you want to argue bestiality is moral to compare it to skydiving or walking on the moon which are culturally acceptable, therefore moral.

You also claim that it is wrong partly because it confers no reproductive advantage to humans or animals. And yet women who have gone through menopause still have sex, yes?

Would you like to argue here that having sex after menopause is immoral if bestiality is not?

You are attempting to limit communication to human language. This is not the case.

My last post extensively discusses non-human communication in nature, and its fundamental differences to human communication. Please read it.

If a woman is naked and down on all fours, and a male dog comes up and goes for it, and the woman is aware of everything, is it wrong?

Yes. The woman has corrupted the dog. She should either find the dog a partner or desex it in order to remain within the bounds of moral behaviour.

Has the woman forced the dog? has the dog forced the woman? No, in both cases. The dog was not forced to mount the woman. The woman could have stood up before the dog tried to mount her.

Accordingly, perhaps you would like to invent another category of deviant sexual behaviour where the animal initiates the act, to differentiate it from person initiated contact. But then you would be splitting hairs Tiberius.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes. The woman has corrupted the dog. She should either find the dog a partner or desex it in order to remain within the bounds of moral behaviour.

Would you consider neutering (medically altering its sexual capabilities) a dog without its permission a better moral choice to sexual contact with a dog with or without its consent?

If we take the view that morality comes from societal norms, then we must. Personally, I have to disagree. This, of course, depends on our purpose for the neutering. If it's to "save" the dog from moral corruption, then we could use that same reasoning to castrate men or women who deviate from societal norms. Would it be moral in 1940s America to castrate homosexual men? If we take the view of morality being the conclusion of societal norms it would be.

So, yeah, this is an issue that I'm not sure about. Beastiality is one of those things that is almost universally frowned upon. But I think it's due to an instinct of avoiding excessive outbreeding. Inbreeding is also universally frowned upon in cultures, so it makes sense its opposite would be. And beastiality is the most extreme case of outbreeding.

But does that make it an individual immorality or just a cultural one? I guess it depends on your view of morality.

 

[Ozzie]

Would you consider neutering (medically altering its sexual capabilities) a dog without its permission a better moral choice to sexual contact with a dog with or without its consent?

If we take the view that morality comes from societal norms, then we must. Personally, I have to disagree. This, of course, depends on our purpose for the neutering. If it's to "save" the dog from moral corruption, then we could use that same reasoning to castrate men or women who deviate from societal norms. Would it be moral in 1940s America to castrate homosexual men? If we take the view of morality being the conclusion of societal norms it would be.

So, yeah, this is an issue that I'm not sure about. Beastiality is one of those things that is almost universally frowned upon. But I think it's due to an instinct of avoiding excessive outbreeding. Inbreeding is also universally frowned upon in cultures, so it makes sense its opposite would be. And beastiality is the most extreme case of outbreeding.

But does that make it an individual immorality or just a cultural one? I guess it depends on your view of morality.

Interesting GC. Firstly I don't think of societal norms as fixed ideologically. They are thrashed out or defined in behaviour and articulated/transmitted in human language. So if enough people begin to take a fancy towards dogs........

Second thing is that I don't think it is possible to infer morality onto animals in the first place, or to compare dog neutering to human sterilisation for that purpose. For example, can we compare selective breeding of dogs with Nazi plans for a master race on moral grounds? I don't think it makes sense.
Oz

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I hope i'm not missing something if i don't read all of the responses. Some one said animals lack the ability to consent. i disagree. We'll know when a lion or tiger disagrees with your sexual advances. YOU'LL BE DEAD. If one wants to have sex with another animal then he or she is going to do it. i personally think it is disgusting but is it wrong???? I don't care unless you have your eye fixed on my cats..... oh help you if you try that with my cat

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Interesting GC. Firstly I don't think of societal norms as fixed ideologically. They are thrashed out or defined in behaviour and articulated/transmitted in human language. So if enough people begin to take a fancy towards dogs........

Second thing is that I don't think it is possible to infer morality onto animals in the first place, or to compare dog neutering to human sterilisation for that purpose. For example, can we compare selective breeding of dogs with Nazi plans for a master race on moral grounds? I don't think it makes sense.
Oz

Ah, so you believe in more of a socially constructed morality? That's the view I tend to take.

I don't think we ought to infer morality onto animals, especially since I do currently have a socially constructed view of morality. I think we do, though. It's hard not to. Infanticide is to us an unforgivable crime. But to an alpha-male lion its a common act done to ensure reproductive success.

I do have to disagree that we cannot compare dog sterilization to human sterilization. The difference - ignoring situational circumstances - is in the intent. We sterilize dogs to cut down on the dog population, or because we don't want our pet creating more pets. For humans, it is usually done (currently) so that we may have sex without reproduction. It has been done in the past to control slaves, forcing young boys to keep their singing voice through puberty, and other seemingly perverse reasons. So we can compare the intention. Is it more moral for a member of a species to decide to not reproduce, or for a member of a species to decide if a member of a different species can reproduce? Dog breeding by humans can be seen as having the same intention as the Nazi plan for creating a human race: weeding out undesirable traits in order to have a more desirable creature.

I think I do understand your stance with this, though. With beastiality, sex is going to mean something different between the two species. For us humans, sex is something that is culturally considered more sacred than the dog's feeling's towards it will be. While we may consider the consequences - and indeed, sex with an animal must certainly have some repercussions on a human's emotions, given the cultural adversity towards it - the dog may not. Sexually gratified, the dog may lay down and nap while the human is tormented by feelings of shame and guilt. But, if more people began to "take a fancy towards dogs," that shame and guilt may not be a problem.

Forgive me if I misread any of your points, Oz. Thanks for the interesting discussion! I've never thought too deeply into this issue.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a cultural norm that bestiality is wrong. Therefore it is immoral. It doesn't help your case if you want to argue bestiality is moral to compare it to skydiving or walking on the moon which are culturally acceptable, therefore moral.

Argumentum ad populum. Just because most people don't do it doesn't mean that nobody should do it. How can you claim that morality should come from the popular consensus when morality is subjective and therefore different for each person?

Would you like to argue here that having sex after menopause is immoral if bestiality is not?

I never made any such argument. I was simply pointing out that if we claim beasiality is wrong because there can be no offspring produced, then any form of sex that doesn't produce offspring (such as when a woman has gone through menopause) must be immoral by extension.

My last post extensively discusses non-human communication in nature, and its fundamental differences to human communication. Please read it.

It doesn't matter how different it is - if the animal is capable of expressing it's interest in having sex with a person and that person is happy to have sex with the animal, then mutual consent is there.

Yes. The woman has corrupted the dog. She should either find the dog a partner or desex it in order to remain within the bounds of moral behaviour.

Your definition of morality, but obviously not hers. And definately not the dog's. What right do you have to claim that a person who has no contact with you must operate by your ideas of morality?

Accordingly, perhaps you would like to invent another category of deviant sexual behaviour where the animal initiates the act, to differentiate it from person initiated contact. But then you would be splitting hairs Tiberius.

Ah, you are assuming what you wish to prove - that such acts are deviant. Well, you can think that all you like. You just don't have shag your dog then. But you can't claim that what other people do behind closed doors is immoral just because you don't like it - particularly when no one is being forced to do anything and it doesn't hurt either party involved.

 

[Buttercup]

Just is case anyone hasn't thought of this.....here are just a few of the diseases you can get from having sex with animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

​

 

[s2a]

I did not vote, but I can say that I did receive an uninvited leg-hump from a friend's ****zhu last week, and I did not approve.

From an amoral perspective, I don't think that bestiality should be illegal, but then I'm also of the opinion that sheep should be able to petition for restraining orders, when necessary.

 

[Yerda]

Just is case anyone hasn't thought of this.....here are just a few of the diseases you can get from having sex with animals.

Sheep should carry a certificate or something from the clinic....

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Sex with an animal is strictly for the pleasure of the person. There is nothing to be gained from it at all other than that. An animal might accept it because it is after all still sexual contact. But how low should humans go? Is sex that big of a deal that all manner of sexual endeavor should be facilitated? Are there not enough people in the world for us to have sex with? If peple can rationalize the okayness of beastiality, then rationalizing paedophilia is not far behind. We can say that having sex with an animal is cool but polygamy is not? Zoophilia is cool but if a guy has consenting sex with a 15 year old girl he'll go to jail for statutory rape?

The point is it ain't hard to rationalize and justify the sick things people want to be involved in, and it ain't hard to make the public accept it via PC police.

Sex with animals is just kinda stupid and pointless. So what if the animal starts it, does that mean you gotta finish it? Can't say no to sex no matter where it comes from huh? No discipline in the sexual arena for humans. If we cannot control our urges, have any discipline, or draw any lines, what good is our superior intellect?

 

[Tiberius]

Sex with an animal is strictly for the pleasure of the person. There is nothing to be gained from it at all other than that. An animal might accept it because it is after all still sexual contact. But how low should humans go? Is sex that big of a deal that all manner of sexual endeavor should be facilitated? Are there not enough people in the world for us to have sex with?

But with humans, your partner might not always be ready, and there are a whole bunch of emotional issues (is it a one night stand? Does it lead to a relationship?), not to mention the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. Zoophilia doesn't have any of these issues.

If peple can rationalize the okayness of beastiality, then rationalizing paedophilia is not far behind. We can say that having sex with an animal is cool but polygamy is not? Zoophilia is cool but if a guy has consenting sex with a 15 year old girl he'll go to jail for statutory rape?

No it isn't. Pedophilia and zoophilia are very different. If a woman has sex with a five your old dog, then the dog is sexually and emotionally mature (for a dog). A 15 year old girl may be able to conceive a child (although not all girls at this age have finished puberty), but she is far from being emotionally mature.

The point is it ain't hard to rationalize and justify the sick things people want to be involved in, and it ain't hard to make the public accept it via PC police.

What is sick for you isn't sick for everyone. You're trying to prove this by defining it as such. And it's very easy to make the public accept most things by claiming that it is good, just as it is easy to make them hate things by claiming that they are bad - just as you tried to do by calling zoophilia sick.

Sex with animals is just kinda stupid and pointless. So what if the animal starts it, does that mean you gotta finish it? Can't say no to sex no matter where it comes from huh? No discipline in the sexual arena for humans. If we cannot control our urges, have any discipline, or draw any lines, what good is our superior intellect?

Where was it ever said that a person is under any obligation to finish sex once it is started? And how does our intellect become worthless if a person has sex with an animal? Does shagging a dog remove IQ points? if so, how is this done?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

See I'm not going into trying to prove anything one way or another. Beastiality is lame in any circumstance. It doesn't matter if the animal can consent or if it "wants it". Have humans nothing better to do than shag the family dog? I see no point in it at all. There's no health benefit, no psychological benefit, no spiritual enlightement to be gained. When something can't benefit a person in any way whatsoever what's the point of it? A person shags their dog and then what? Why do it in the first place? Because you love your pet? I loved my pets too but its like people can't think how to show love other than by sexual expression.

Animals accept the treatment we give them no matter whether it is good or bad. I was reading the story of an adult chimpanzee who was getting beaten by its master. The chimp accepted this treatment even to its detriment. We know how much stronger a great ape is over a person, yet the chimp was not fighting back against this. For all intents and pruposes the chimp accepted it despite being physically stronger and technically able to put an end to its own suffering. The fiercest animal can be intimidated by a person into submission to whatever treatment that person want to give that animal including but not limited to sexual attention. So it matters not to me whether the animal accepts the sexual contact or not. Animals have a tendency to accept almost anything humans do to them anyway.

If people in general concentrated their enrgies as much on improving the human condition than they did on getting off on the latest sexual feat, we'd be in bliss right now. Alas, many people can't think above the belt.

 

[XAAX]

Hmmmm, didn't really read the debate on this one. Just wanted to throw out an opinion. I guess if you don't harm the animal and you do feel love for it, I don't think it falls into the catagory of universally wrong. But still...does it really need to be?

Help me!

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Furthermore, if animals can be said to be able to consent to have sex with us and it's cool, then they should not have animal rights, they should share in human civil rights as well. For instance, if an elephant whohas been mistreated at a circus kills his oppressors the authorities kill the elephant right? Why they do that? The elephant was clearly acting in self defense yet was put to death for it. Would we do that to a person who was clearly acting ont he same principles? No we wouldn't. So if the animals are good enough to get it on with, they're good enough to treat equally. If humans are ready to acknowlegde that animals are good enough to bang, then we should be prepared not to distinguish ourselves from them on any level.

 

[Tiberius]

I see no point in it at all. There's no health benefit, no psychological benefit, no spiritual enlightement to be gained. When something can't benefit a person in any way whatsoever what's the point of it?

Um, what about the orgasm?

There's also no benefit from playing Solitaire. Should we write Bill Gates and ask him to remove the program from Windows?

Animals accept the treatment we give them no matter whether it is good or bad.

And what about all those dogs who become vicious because of the cruelty they have suffered? And when I was in preschool, there was a cat that hated everyone because it had been teased by all the little kids. It wasn't going to put up with being mistreated, so it never gave anyone the opportunity. It just attacked when anyone approached. Your claim is not true.

Furthermore, if animals can be said to be able to consent to have sex with us and it's cool, then they should not have animal rights, they should share in human civil rights as well. For instance, if an elephant whohas been mistreated at a circus kills his oppressors the authorities kill the elephant right? Why they do that? The elephant was clearly acting in self defense yet was put to death for it. Would we do that to a person who was clearly acting ont he same principles? No we wouldn't.

Well, we'd expect such a person to inform the authorities. Perhaps we can train all our animals to call the RSPCA and talk to an animal counselor? Can you imagine an elephant using a phone?

If humans are ready to acknowlegde that animals are good enough to bang, then we should be prepared not to distinguish ourselves from them on any level.

And I'll register my pet cat to vote too, shall I? And demand that she get a job to help pay the rent?

 

[Comprehend]

this just in.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C243998%2C00.html

A $5,000 reward is being offered in the search for a suspect Tuesday in a sexual assault of a 10-month-old pit-bull puppy in New Jersey.
Police discovered the dog, apparently sodomized by a local resident, Tuesday and notified the Associated Humane Societies of Newark.
The animal was hospitalized for internal bleeding after the attack, the AHS told FOXNews.com.
"The dog was so traumatized, she didn’t even want to get up," said Rosanne Trezza, executive director of the AHS. "She wouldn’t walk, she just laid down."

 

[Tiberius]

Now, that is sick. A man forcing himself on a dog like that and injuring the poor little thing.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Um, what about the orgasm?

What about it? Having a hard time trying to figure a way to get without the animal? Orgasms come a dime a dozen, big deal.

There's also no benefit from playing Solitaire. Should we write Bill Gates and ask him to remove the program from Windows

I wouldn't mind it being removed. I hate solitaire.

And what about all those dogs who become vicious because of the cruelty they have suffered? And when I was in preschool, there was a cat that hated everyone because it had been teased by all the little kids. It wasn't going to put up with being mistreated, so it never gave anyone the opportunity. It just attacked when anyone approached. Your claim is not true.

And what about all those animals who simply submit themsleves to whatever treatment their master place upon them? My calim is not untrue as long a circuses exist.

Well, we'd expect such a person to inform the authorities. Perhaps we can train all our animals to call the RSPCA and talk to an animal counselor? Can you imagine an elephant using a phone?

You should try training the elephant to do exactly that. If an animal can consent to sex according to its actions alone, then what was the problem with it not consenting to abuse via the actions without words? My point is why trreat the animal with secong class citizenry? Smart enough to pleasure you sexually, but not smart enough to share with you all your rights? If an animal can communicate its desire to have sexual contact with a human why would you think it can't communicate some other feeling?

And I'll register my pet cat to vote too, shall I? And demand that she get a job to help pay the rent?

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. Then at that point you are willing to admit that you are taking advantage of an animal that is inferior to you. Same with a small child. While intelligent in his/her own right still isn't smarter than you. Therefore the child is being taken advantage of because you are able to convince the child to have intercourse with you whether by clever coercion or sheer force.


Furthermore soneone else in this thread was talking about a loving relationship witht he animal. Animals and humans share a master/lesser animal relationship. It is up to humans to maintain that relationship honorably and not abuse the level of authority exhibited over the animal.

 

[Tiberius]

What about it? Having a hard time trying to figure a way to get without the animal? Orgasms come a dime a dozen, big deal.

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?

I wouldn't mind it being removed. I hate solitaire.

And lots of people love it. Your opinions on something cannot be used to determine that thing for everyone.

And what about all those animals who simply submit themsleves to whatever treatment their master place upon them? My calim is not untrue as long a circuses exist.

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.

You should try training the elephant to do exactly that. If an animal can consent to sex according to its actions alone, then what was the problem with it not consenting to abuse via the actions without words? My point is why trreat the animal with secong class citizenry? Smart enough to pleasure you sexually, but not smart enough to share with you all your rights? If an animal can communicate its desire to have sexual contact with a human why would you think it can't communicate some other feeling?

Okay, if you can think of a way to get a whopping huge elephant to dial a telephone and then speak to someone on the other end, tell me. If not, then you're making a stupid point.

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.

I've said many times my take on morality. If it hurts someone or disadvantages someone, then it is immoral. If it hurts or disadvantages no one, then it is fine.

In your example, there is a clear case of an animal being hurt. Thus, in my model of morality, it is immoral. Having sex with an animal when that animal is perfectly happy to be involved does not hurt the animal. If a male dog has sex with a women, what harm is done to the dog? How would a vet be able to tell?

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. Then at that point you are willing to admit that you are taking advantage of an animal that is inferior to you. Same with a small child. While intelligent in his/her own right still isn't smarter than you. Therefore the child is being taken advantage of because you are able to convince the child to have intercourse with you whether by clever coercion or sheer force.

I see how ridiculous your point is, yes. Sex is something basic to most forms of life. Crickets chirping away are communicating their desire for sex. A dog humping your leg is indicating a desire for sex.

All you are doing is attempting to push the ludicrous point that if an animal is treated equal to humans in one way, it must be treated as equal in all ways. There is absolutely no jusitification for this point of view, and you have yet to show any justification.

Life forms deserve the rights for things which are applicable to them. There's no point in giving a dog the right to vote, because there's no way they could exercise that right. How can a dog understand what it means to vote? And even if it could, how could a dog fill out the ballot? Voting just isn't applicable to a dog.

On the other hand, dogs do have the right to be treated well. if a dog is mistreated it can have a huge impact on the dog, such as causing the poor animal's death. The right to be treated well is applicable to a dog.

I have shown that animals deserve some of the rights that we Humans have, but not all of the rights we have, because many rights given to Humans simply do not apply to animals. Unless you can support your claim that granting animals some rights given to Humans requires granting them ALL rights given to Humans, your point is invalid.

Furthermore soneone else in this thread was talking about a loving relationship witht he animal. Animals and humans share a master/lesser animal relationship. It is up to humans to maintain that relationship honorably and not abuse the level of authority exhibited over the animal.

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

And you are again assuming what you are trying to prove by claiming that sex "abuses the authority" the human has over the animal. You are simply claiming this and you have not given any support at all to this claim.

You do have support for your claims, yes? How about you show me an instance of an animal having sex with a human by its own consent that resulted in harm to the animal, okay?

 

[Comprehend]

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?