Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[nnmartin]

And yet you did not use that for differentiation - and moreover it is a rather artificial mechanism of differentiation as it explicitly identifies species as being the basis of differentiation, for an of itself - not by effect, such as: "the capacity for creation of a novel disease which may endanger humans" which would be a more sound basis.

So is this kind of pseudo-waffle supposed to be proving anything?

It just looks to me like you are trying to dig yourself out of the pit.

do you or do you not think that bestiality constitutes a disease risk?

 

[Tiberius]

so are you suggesting that we only ban wild animal bestiality then?

ie: it's ok to have sex with your pet if it's lived with you all it's life but not if it hasn't.

That really is absurd and quite funny for a change, he he:clap

Are you serious? I think that it's fairly obvious that anyone interested in doing this sort of thing will be doing it with their pet!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

So is this kind of pseudo-waffle supposed to be proving anything?

It just looks to me like you are trying to dig yourself out of the pit.

do you or do you not think that bestiality constitutes a disease risk?

Perhaps if you actually read that 'pseudo-waffle' and understood it even a little, then you would understand that I was actually providing you with one potential basis from which you could argue YOUR position - by suggesting an objective basis of differentiation based on the criteria you stated.

So for your own benefit, to avoid looking silly, don't just try to argue that people who say things you do not understand are wrong... especially when they are trying to help you.

 

[Tiberius]

well, it seems that Martin hasn't got anything further to say about this. Apparently he's just given up.

 

[atropine]

Sorry to bring up this topic, but I'm writing a book on this matter at the moment, so I felt I should comment.

In my opinion, as long as there is no harm done and the animal consents in it's natural way... which animals can do, for those of you who have never tried to force a full-grown Clydesdale or angry, fully-clawed feline to do something it doesn't want to do... then it should be fine.

I am very much for people doing whatever they want to do, as long as it doesn't cause needless harm. I have known people who were "into" that sort of thing, and most of them were polite, respectful and educated people. They knew what they were doing, they weren't causing harm and frankly, their pets seemed healthy and happy. I can't speak against people when I know for a fact that they are not horrible, bad people.

Animals cannot legally consent, that is true, but there is a difference between consent and legal consent. I can tell my mother that it's okay if she shows my aunt a doofy picture of me, or I can make everyone sign a release form when they want to use my pictures in ANY way, and I can sue her if she shows my aunt a doofy picture without signing a form first. One is consent ("yeah okay go ahead"), one is legal consent ("here you have to sign this contract and agree to these stipulations"). Animals certainly can consent ("yeah okay go ahead"), even though they cannot sign forms and agree to legal stipulations. But why should they? Laws are human creations. The idea of contracts is a human creation. Back before the idea of legal consent existed, did all humans rape each other? No. It was a different type of consent. Party A was horny, Party B was horny, both Party A and Party B took care of it together.

Yeah, so the idea can gross people out. I'm gay. The thought of heterosexual sex grosses me out. Celery also grosses me out. Just because something is gross doesn't make it wrong.

Someone brought up the idea of exploitation and abuse. Unless there is harm being done, then it's not either of those things. Bringing up killing animals for meat and racing horses IS a good point-- if we are going to say that ONE thing exploits animals and is abusive, then we need to address, regulate and/or stop everything else involving animals that could be exploitation. Killing an animal harms it, regardless of whether or not we need it. Racing animals can harm them, and using animals for entertainment IS exploitation. They didn't sign any legal form stating that humans could do that, right, so there's the whole legal consent issue again.

Having sex with something like a horse isn't torturing it. Not unless a person is drugging it, tying it down, forcing it, etc. And from what I have studied and heard from people I interviewed, that is usually not how things go. Horses are large animals. They can and will bite, kick and stomp someone if they feel threatened or are in pain.

Someone else brought up it's use in society. What use is there for homosexuality? What use is there for humans who are barren or don't want kids to have sex? What use is there in BDSM? There are many sexual things that don't really have a use aside from getting someone off and making them feel good. And if all parties involved enjoy it, then what is the problem?

It is not the same thing as pedophilia. A three year old dog is not the same thing as a three year old human. Animals understand what sex is; sex is a very basic instinct and desire for most animals. Children don't really grasp that concept, and while children can be harmed mentally and physically by a sexual relationship... an aroused dog that is not harmed doesn't seem mentally traumatized at all when it romps around with a human. Comparing the two, to me, would be like comparing a BDSM relationship to domestic violence. There is the possibility for abuse, certainly, but one is ALWAYS and ABSOLUTELY abusive.

As for sex outside species, it is not that uncommon. Dogs have been photographed having sex with cats, ducks, sheep, pigs, etc. Pigs have been pictured having sex with sheep. Sheep and goats go at it. There's a photo of an elephant mounting a rhino. Horses and donkeys will mount whatever the heck they feel like mounting. Dolphins not only have sex with other species, but they gang-rape as well. And yes, there IS rape in the animal world. If you don't think so, then you need to do research about courting behavior and about sexual behaviors in general. As I just brought up, dolphins rape; in some instances, male dolphins will court a female and they will have agreeable sex, and in other instances a group of males will gather around a female and hold her underwater as they take their turns forcing her to have sex.

"In order to coerce the reluctant females, males form groups of two or three – often remaining together in their search for sexual gratification for well over a decade. When they find a suitable female they literally force her to mate with one or more of the group, and have even been known to herd their unwilling consorts for months at a time, basically using them as their personal sex-slaves.
Although dolphins are not alone in the animal world of gang-rapists, research suggests they’ve the perfected the art to a degree unseen in any other species, and it seems they don’t limit their advances to their female partners, either: there are several reports claiming divers and swimmers have also been accosted.
Studies would suggest the behaviour is likely to be undertaken for reasons of pleasure as much as reproduction, as dolphins are known to enjoy sexual activity in cases when reproduction would be physically impossible. "

Nurse sharks will gang-rape females. So will chimps. Ducks will also have sex with dead ducks, so there's some necrophilia for you. Animals can and do some rather... interesting things, when it comes to sex. They do not have the some social, moral, or mental structure that humans do, and why should they? Humans are animals. All animals are different.

Who knows what diseases an animal could give you...? That is a good question. Fortunately, there are answers! It is possible to find out which diseases are zoonotic.

With all that said, there are people who harm animals for a sexual purpose, just as there are people who harm other people for a sexual purpose. Those people should be punished, as they ARE causing harm. I think that harming an animal SHOULD be illegal, but because we cannot prove that having sex with animals is ABSOLUTELY harmful in and of itself... I don't think it should be illegal.

 

[atropine]

Shall we go over this issue using various ethical approaches?

The Utilitarian Approach
"To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number."

The Rights Approach
"...what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

• The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.
• The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.
• The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.
• The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action"


The Fairness or Justice Approach
"The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?



Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong."


The Common-Good Approach
"In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment."

The Virtue Approach
"In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?"

Those are the various ethical approaches.

Now, we have to outline the ethical issue and figure out how to make an ethical decision in this case. Let's set up a situation so that we can actually use these approaches and make a choice.

Let's say there is a 30-year old white male who owns a four-year-old, unspayed female Great Dane; this man's sister walks in on him having intercourse with the dog and turns him over to the police. A vet expert concludes that the dog is in good physical health. The man has no prior criminal record. A psychologist reports that aside from his sexual attraction to animals and his extreme anxiety over being separated from his dog (who he sees as his best friend and his lover) the man is mentally healthy. The man claims that he loves his dog, would never harm her, and only sexually interacts with her when she shows signs of sexual desire. The man's family and friend report that the dog seemed overly protective of the man, but was otherwise friendly, happy and was well-cared for from day one. The judge needs to determine if this man is guilty of animal abuse.

Is there an ethical issue at all? Does this man's choice to have sex with a dog be damaging to someone? Certainly. Does this matter involve choosing between a good and a bad option, or two options of seemingly equal better/worse-ness? Yes. Is this issue more about legality, or is it about efficiency? Legality and morality. Okay then, so we have an ethical problem.

What facts do we have that are relevant? The man was in his own home. The dog was of a sexually mature age, a large size and unspayed. The dog is happy and healthy, and shows attachment to the man. The man is deeply distressed by his separation from his dog and the legal proceedings, but is otherwise psychologically sound. What facts are not known? We don't know if the man is telling the truth about the circumstances of the intercourse. Is there a way we can learn more about the situation? The police could search the home for obvious restraints, or see if there are blood tests to prove if the dog has ever been drugged. We could consult an animal behaviorist and an expert on animal sexual behavior to see if it is possible for dogs to give signs of sexual desire. Do we know enough to make a decision? I would say yes.

What individuals have an important stake in the outcome? The man, obviously. The dog, too, since animal shelters tend to put animals to sleep in cases like this. To some degree, the friends and family of the man, as they will be affected if the man goes to jail. Are some concerns more important? Yes. The concerns of the man are the most important here, as his life is the one being severely impacted by the choices he made and the choices being made by the people judging him.

What are the options for acting? They could put the man in jail and rehome the dog. They could put the man in jail and put the dog to sleep. They could let the man free on probation but take the dog and rehome her. They could let the man free on probation but take the dog and put her to sleep. They could release the man and the dog, and order vet checks to make sure the dog is safe. They could release the man and the dog, and order the man not get any other animals within a certain size and type. They could release the man and dog, and leave it at that.

Using the Utilitarian approach, which option would produce the most good and the least harm? The dog seems healthy and happy; the man seems to love his dog. To jail the man and destroy his dog would be the most harmful thing to do. The best option I could see would be to release both man and dog, but to order that the dog is seen by the vet to make sure the dog remains in good condition.

Using the rights approach, which option best respects the rights of the people involved? I think letting the man and the dog free with no stipulations would best respect the man's rights, as there has been no proof of harm being done and the man is not violating the rights of anyone else.

Using the justice approach, which option treats people equally? I think in the case presented, letting the man and dog go while ordering vet check would be the better idea. It refraining from discriminating against the man when no harm is being done, but also acknowledging that there are concerns and making sure the dog is healthy.

Using the common goods approach, which option leads people into acting as the sort of person they want to be? Again, letting the man and dog go but ordering vet checks would be a good medium, I think. I myself would say the man and dog should just be left alone, but by adding in the vet checks, I think it encourages responsibility for the health of the animal and gives the message of "we just want to make sure everyone involved is healthy and happy".

Considering all the approaches, what options seems to be the best one? Well, the answer I came up with would be to leave the two be, but to encourage vet checks to make sure that the animal in question is doing okay. If the animal isn't harmed and the human isn't harmed, who does it harm? Who is left unhappy? If no one is harmed, and the people who SHOULD be happy ARE happy, what is the ethical issue? If we can allow a person to express their natural preferences without it causing harm, then why suppress those preferences?

Why not judge the people who DO cause harm and leave the people who DON'T cause harm alone? If a man wants to sleep with his dog, and we can prove that it doesn't harm the dog or the person... why not? My, your or anyone else's being grossed out doesn't matter. The rights of the dog are not being violated, the rights of the human aren't being violated, and the rights of other people are not being violated. To discriminate against and/or judge (jail-wise or no) a man (or woman or anyone else) for doing such a thing when it doesn't cause harm WOULD violate the rights of the parties involved. If the person is happier with an animal than a person (as some zoophiles are) and is not causing harm, then acting against them is harmful to their well-being, is encroaching on their freedom and is unnecessary.

 

[atropine]

People deserve the chance to participate in something they value and love. If some people are attracted to animals and are careful, healthy and knowledgeable about what they are doing, do we have the right to deny them that? I don't think so. I don't want to be the type of person to tell someone who isn't causing harm that they don't have the right to have the relationship of their choice, sexual or not, with the subject of their affections.

It all comes down to harm. In the end, I think this is best judged as a case by case basis, rather than an overarching law that guns down everyone, regardless of circumstance.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Interesting points.

 

[Tiberius]

Agreed, Atropine.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

People deserve the chance to participate in something they value and love. If some people are attracted to animals and are careful, healthy and knowledgeable about what they are doing, do we have the right to deny them that? I don't think so. I don't want to be the type of person to tell someone who isn't causing harm that they don't have the right to have the relationship of their choice, sexual or not, with the subject of their affections.

It all comes down to harm. In the end, I think this is best judged as a case by case basis, rather than an overarching law that guns down everyone, regardless of circumstance.

Totally agreed. If it can't objectively shown to be harmful, then there shouldn't be a problem with it.

 

[nnmartin]

A psychologist reports that aside from his sexual attraction to animals and his extreme anxiety over being separated from his dog (who he sees as his best friend and his lover) the man is mentally healthy.stipulations would best respect the man's rights, as there has been no prary.

I can't believe this joke thread is still going on.

How do you mean by 'aside from his sexual attraction to animals' - isn't that enough proof of mental disorder or do you need more?

I am sure Hitler was a great chap aside from his aversion to Jews, and maybe the local rapist is also a fine old fellow apart from his aversion to the notion of consent. :sarcastic note: sarcasm

This is real bleeding heart stuff here.

 

[Tiberius]

I can't believe this joke thread is still going on.

Because you keep posting jokes that you think are legitimate arguments. All they really are, however, is various ways for you to say that it's icky.

How do you mean by 'aside from his sexual attraction to animals' - isn't that enough proof of mental disorder or do you need more?

Oh really, is this all you've got? You declare something to be wrong because you don't like it, then use this as poof that since he's doing something that you've arbitrarily decided is wrong, he must have a mental disorder?

Also, bear in mind that the thread has been quite for the better part of a week, so don't coming in here whining that the thread is still active when you are the one who is making it active!

 

[Nashitheki]

Keep it vegan.

They don't call it the salad bar for nothing.

 

[TheArcticSage]

Woah wait what? Last time I checked it's legal in half the states in the United States... but in my personal view, unless the animal belongs to someone, bestiality should be legal. Just do so at your own risk. A gay man died from getting have sex with a horse (the OTHER way around), and a man got his penis bit off in russia when he tried to have sex with a raccoon... also, be wary of STD's.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Ha ha ha the practical implications huh?

Do you have to be so utilitarian? Do you have to crush all the romance out of it?

 

[atropine]

How do you mean by 'aside from his sexual attraction to animals' - isn't that enough proof of mental disorder or do you need more?

A disorder is only a disorder if it is causing someone marked distress, an inability to function in day to day living and/or it is harming the person or others. If it's not causing harm, and a person is relatively happy and healthy, it's not a disorder. And seeing as how "harm" must be decided on a case by case basis, no, that's not proof of a disorder at all.

I am sure Hitler was a great chap aside from his aversion to Jews, and maybe the local rapist is also a fine old fellow apart from his aversion to the notion of consent. :sarcastic note: sarcasm

Your sarcasm is noted, and discarded, as they are not comparable in any way. Killing and raping people causes harm, without a doubt. Sex in general, regardless of who or what it is with, does not always cause harm. Perhaps you should do some research on the subject before engaging in a debate about it, as it would be a lot easier to have an intelligent, informed discussion that way.

The thread might have been started as a joke, I don't know, but the issue is very real.

 

[otokage007]

because it abuses and exploits an animal that is incapable of consent.

You have never experienced the funny event of a dog trying to f*** your leg, right?

 

[fineguy]

A general approval for bestiality (actually beastiality it is) should never be given, no woman should allow an animal to mount her as it is insult to humanity. But a man having sex with a female dog or a female horse may be permitted as long as the animal is not subjected to force as these two animals have long been associated with human society and have been domesticated for ages.

 

[Parsimony]

A general approval for bestiality (actually beastiality it is) should never be given, no woman should allow an animal to mount her as it is insult to humanity. But a man having sex with a female dog or a female horse may be permitted as long as the animal is not subjected to force as these two animals have long been associated with human society and have been domesticated for ages.

Any particular reason for the sexist skew in your argument?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

A general approval for bestiality (actually beastiality it is) should never be given, no woman should allow an animal to mount her as it is insult to humanity. But a man having sex with a female dog or a female horse may be permitted as long as the animal is not subjected to force as these two animals have long been associated with human society and have been domesticated for ages.

Ironically, you're okay with the only consensually-ambiguous form of bestiality.