is it ok to screw animals?
 

i'm not asking cause i want to screw animals (promise). i was just thinking... what is the reason it's not ok to screw animals again? i have heard that it is wrong because sex requires consent.. but that only applies to humans. sex with a doll for example doesn't require consent. so if sex with animals requires consent then you are extending human rights to animals. in which case we probably shouldn't be slaughtering them cause we like the way they taste, or doing experiments on them that we think it would be unethical to do to humans.

the way i look at it either animals' lives aren't worth that much so we do what we please with them or they are worthy of rights in which case we are way out of line with how we currently treat them across the board. i'm having trouble finding the middle ground where slaughtering them is fine, keeping them in captivity for entertainment is fine, injecting them with **** to see what happens is fine, but screwing them is over the line.

another possible objection i thought of is maybe we consider exploitation of animals ok depending on the objective. so we consider food (farming), sport (hunting, rodeos, etc), science (experimentation), and education (zoos and ****) to be worthy causes for animal exploitation. but exploiting them for sex is wrong for whatever reason. as for what that reason is i'm not quite sure.

thoughts?

None of those are universally considered morally sound, they're fairly controversial topics, some more than others. People just draw the line at different points and the freedom to get yourself some literal tail doesn’t tend to rate highly as a worthy cause for most people.

No.

i'd tend to think eating steak is far less controversial than screwing a cow. yet i'm not sure why my taste for steak is more important than some pervert's lust for cow parts.

http://res.mindbodygreen.com/img/ftr...ade-cattle.jpg

It's not just the food industry that benifits from cows.

i think my point stands.

Not really, a lot of products rely on the continued butchering of animals until they can find a sustainable/affordable substitute. I'm not sure there's one product out there that requires the cow to be ****ed. Eating is also a little more of a necessity than sexual gratification. I don't think many people consider the act of killing a cow a good thing, but to keep everything chugging along the way it has it's what we're stuck doing until some dramatic changes are made. Game on the other hand leaves a lot of waste, it's not something we rely on and I consider hunting to be more humane than farming. I still consider cooking pheasants to be of more use than ****ing pheasants.

It's ok to screw animals as long as those animals are human.

but eating cows is still one of the primary reasons they are killed. there is an entire industry centered around raising cows to be butchered for food. and eating is more necessary that ****ing yet eating meat is not at all necessary. it's a matter of taste. people like steak and burgers so they kill cows to eat them. so explain to me again why that is important enough to disregard their rights but some pervert's sexual lust is not.

It is, and it's thanks to that that many products can be made affordable. Our realiance on cows for products other than meat is a byproduct of our diet, but that doesn't make it any less of a reliance. That entire industry built on butchering cows began as a necessity, before globalisation people didn't have the choices we do now.

I'm one of "those" people. I'm okay with hunting/fishing for your food though.

Idk where I stand on the ****ing(probably somewhere in the middle). I'm generally open-minded about letting people do whatever the **** they please as long as it's not harmful to others but without knowing the affects it would have on an animal I can not answer.

I love animals but I'm even on the fence about keeping them as pets. I think we impose to much of our **** on nature. I guess it's a little late for dogs since the species as a whole has become so dependent on humans to survive.

Nonconsensual sex isn't wrong just because, it's wrong most importantly because it causes severe emotional trauma on the victim. If it didn't then people wouldn't make such a big fuss about it. If it can be shown that sex with an animal causes similar emotional trauma then obviously it's immoral. If not, then using human standards where they don't apply is irrational.

And if you're going to say that an animal can't legally give consent to sexual intercourse, then at the very least dog breeders are committing a form of rape by having two animals mate, and if you take it far enough animals in general shouldn't be allowed to mate with each other in the same way that two six-year-olds aren't allowed to have sexual intercourse.

The only thing that might apply off the top of my head is if you can show that a species of animal would be able to contract an STD from a human being, and even then it would only make sense on a species to species basis.

Icky does not equal immoral.

I've been on MAL, this is nothing.

What is MAL?

Mal is his pooch. Poor Mal.

:laughing:

John is not ok because it's nasty, NASTY.


When was the last time you saw a bovine and said, "mmmm look at those utters"

One of the larger anime forums.

I once watchrd a video, as to what appeard as painful intercourse, was actually a good thing to the receiver so it turns out.

Immoral thing to do with a stud horse in my book.

*resists the urge to post .gif of dolphin ****ing a headless fish*

Dolls are inanimate objects with no concept of existence whatsover. Why even bring that up?

Sex with animals is wrong because they can't consent and even if they did... I mean come on dude. It's like tryna pick up on a really drunk girl too blitzed to know left from blue, you just don't do that ****. You call her a cab and get her a glass of water or you're a piece of ****.

Yep. Pretty much exactly this. It's sick what is done to intelligent, sentient, living beings.



None of those things are fine. Most people just don't give a ****.

I wouldn't ever do it unless I had to but the way I see it if you're gonna eat an animal, have the stones to kill it yourself. Hunting for sport? Sub-human. Industrialized meat-farming is sick but we've all seen the videos and heard the stories. Buying meats locally is a good way to not contribute to that if you're, you know, one of those people- but I find eating meat objectionable simply because it's highly, highly, highly unnecessary. Eating meat is basically just vanity. I like the way it tastes so I'll conveniently not think or pretend to care about it's whereabouts. Only a gigantic pussy would think like that. Rodeos are stupid, The End. Science... it depends on what's being done. I find it very saddening but stuff like cancer research and disease control and all that... kind of important. In the end I do think human lives, for the most part, are more important than "animal's". But that's very, very, very far from any sort of justification for how they are treated in almost all cases.

Zoos can be cool. Some of them are basically wild-life rescues, the animals held in captivity wouldn't survive in the wild because whatever circumstances made it so. Others... not so much. Pretty lame to put a bunch of critters in cages so toddlers and their parents can gawk and then later forget about them.

because they can't consent and because if they could it'd still be just lame and gross.

You own your dog without her consent. You give her medical care, and possibly invasive procedures that may endanger her life, without her consent. You choose what food she eats. How much she eats. When she goes to the bathroom. Just about every part of your dog's existence is decided without her consent. No matter how benevolent, if you treated a human in the same way you would be a monster. And yet only in the case of sex do you apply human ethics?

Crossing species is pretty gross and we all know that what's gross is not cool. I'll stick my round peg into the trademarked and appropriate hole thank you very much. I remember talking to a goat ****er though, he was from Palestine and his uncle showed him the ropes. Yeah. Goat raping aside the kid was totally normal apart from his accent. I thought it was too creepy how he looked like he he didn't show remorse for it at all but seemed almost proud of it.

Maybe society's taboos are too ingrained in my skull but I see banging different species as one of those fetishes to fulfill by banging people like The Batlord and using their imagination. Or maybe it's objectively wrong and you should stop screwing your poodle.

not sure what you mean about globalization. but regardless of how it started it's not a necessity anymore. in fact it's pretty wasteful compared to farming veggies. can't you just admit people have no problem killing cows cause they taste good?

i'm not one of 'those' people, but at least it's an internally consistent position. i'm one of the amoral people who are willing to let animals suffer because i like to eat them and use the other products and advances that we derive from their general exploitation.

i sorta agree with you about pets though. seems useless to me. i hate it when people have exotic pets especially that sit in a cage all day. what a waste of a life. but once again i don't condemn people for it cause i would be a hypocrite if i did.
i think giving rimjobs is nasty. like batlord said... icky != immoral
i bring it up because in making the consent argument there is the presumption that animals have rights. and it seems like if they do have rights they have very strange rights which allow their wholesale exploitation in almost every possible way imaginable.

Aint no body asked you for a rimjob!

you don't know that.

I see what you're saying Wilkes Booth. I actually do. Surprisingly it's not something I'd given much thought to before reading through this post.
It's another one of those things people are just going to offer the view of 'no that is wrong' without really questioning why they stand to be so morally objecting.

I see animal testing as a form of torture. No animal is consented to being tested, to being made subject of scientific (and plenty not so 'scientific') experiments. No animal has signed a waiver or receives an incentive for being forced to partake. Is this really any more acceptable than bending a sheep over and shoving your cock on? Surely they've got to be on the same level. Surely nobody would think torture is a lesser crime than rape. Both are horrific obviously, but if we look at the sentencing each crime brings by law, torture is considered more severe in the eyes of the law. So surely, in the rules that uphold how we behave, what is marked as more severe there, surely should apply to our moral ranking of its severity also?

As Batlord said, we breed animals to breed with one another. It's playing God as much as cloning a sheep in a laboratory. We're manipulating the lives of creatures we rear for purpose. The only reason cattle have a life in the first place is to be raised for slaughter. For their meat. Without the demand for meat, these animals would not have life in the first place. It's all well and good saying 'Don't eat meat, spare the animals' but these animals would not exist without being bred for the purpose of being slaughtered.
So I see what JWB is saying. Why is it so much more wrong that you could breed animals for the purpose of shagging them?

You don't really want to create infertile or hybrid offspring, but why would it be so much different to breed animals, wear contraceptive and f*ck them. The only difference is that it's not already happening so as a society we haven't come to accept it. We see it as abnormal because it doesn't happen (at least that we're aware of)
If it did, we'd all be at it. We just say it's morally wrong because that's what society expects us to say, and nobody wants to be looked as the outcast that wants to f*ck animals, through fear of being shunned or worse.

I imagine torture has the same traumatic effect on an animal as it does a person. I don't know that I've ever heard that nonconsensual sex with an animal has the same traumatic effect that it would on a person. So comparing rape to torture in the case of animals may not be relevant.

to me the real point is we are willing to inflict said traumatic effect on animals in other ways so even if screwing them has the same effect that isn't an argument for it being wrong unless you are willing to equally condemn all the other ways we inflict that sort of pain on them. and so this requires that you not only be a vegetarian but that you push to ban the practices that are currently hurting animals, or else you should also be willing to let people screw them.

Reasonable, but while the issue of whether or not sex with an animal is actually cruel may not be relevant to your question, in the world of "real life" morality, where it's okay to eat an animal but not to hit one, it still matters.

But yeah, logically, if it's okay to eat an animal, it's irrational to then say you can't **** one, and I don't see much of an argument to say otherwise.

How about just realizing the fact that having eating food for nourishment isn't the same as bestiality?

This is pretty simple, just don't **** something that isn't your own species.

You weren't meant to pro-create with them and it isn't natural so it's morally wrong.

Really? You're going with that? You're also arguing against vegetarianism then, since we have canines. Hell, you're arguing against homosexuality, since we're not "meant" to procreate with our own gender. You're confusing biology with morality.

I seriously have yet to hear an argument against my and JWB's positions that doesn't amount to either, "It's icky, so therefore it's wrong," or inconsistent claims about consent. Rationalizing cultural taboos is not a legitimate logical argument, and if you're worried about consent then the entire concept of a pet is abusive. Not to mention commercial uses for animal products.

Its nothing like homosexuality Bats ..That is a stretch.
Same gender ok whatever floats yer boat.
Animals are not the same species.. ..

So its not Icky then? The short answer is no. The long answer is get the **** away from my animals freakshow.

DJ's point was that we were not "meant" to mate with animals. We are likewise not "meant" to mate with people of our own gender. I was pointing out a logical inconsistency, not comparing the act of bestiality with the act of homosexuality. I think it illustrates the intellectual laziness that a lot of people here are using just because this isn't the kind of issue that's easy to feel good being open-minded about.

Dude there aint no open mindedness on this topic for me.Bestiality turn my stomach.

I'm sure we can find somebody who will agree with this fixed statement. You can't just say something is wrong because you think it's gross. That's a subjective, aesthetic opinion that has no place in a logical discussion on morality.

I might be old fashioned but laying pipe in an animal has just never been an option.

So did you vote yes or was it Booth? LOL