Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 170 (414818)
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


Is bestiality morally wrong?
If so why?
If it could be demonstrated that there was some sort of genetic predisposition to beastiality would that make it any more wrong or right?*
Are we prone to making irrational decisions as to what is moral and what is not based on personal disgust??
If so should these decisions based on personal disgust hold any sway when attempting to legislate behaviour.
Given the other ways in which we regularly abuse animals do morally relatavistic arguments about consent hold much water?
My own view is that the naturalness or otherwise of an activity is irrelevant as to it's morality.
As a moral relatavist broad notions of consent and harm would be my normal barometer for determining the morality of any activity. Sexual or otherwise.
However I find it hard to reconcile this idea of immorally abusing non-consenting animals with the other (worse?) ways in which we regularly cause animals to suffer without ever considering either consent or morality.
It would therefore seem that my instinctive answer that beastiality should be considered morally wrong is based more on feelings of personal disgust than anything else.
What do others of a non-absolutist moral disposition think?
Obviously beastiality has been raised regularly as an issue in quite contentious circumstances elsewhere. My intention is definitely not to make unjustified comparisons of any sort but to consider the issue of beastality and morality in it's own right.
*I make no claim that any such genetic explanation does exist. This is purely a 'what if' scenario.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 2:55 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 08-06-2007 3:03 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2007 7:25 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 12 by Jaderis, posted 08-07-2007 3:04 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 14 by ikabod, posted 08-07-2007 5:08 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:01 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 8:33 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 170 by frako, posted 04-27-2011 5:33 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 170 (414823)
08-06-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


However I find it hard to reconcile this idea of immorally abusing non-consenting animals with the other (worse?) ways in which we regularly cause animals to suffer without ever considering either consent or morality.
I agree. If you accept causing animal suffering in other areas, then your qualms about bestiality might very well be based on personal feelings of disgust.
Let me ask a question: suppose that it could be shown that a particular animal enjoys sex with a human being. So now it's no longer a matter of suffering. Could you now accept bestiality in that case?

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 3:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 170 (414826)
08-06-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


There's nothing wrong with beastiality.
We slaughter animal for food. We put them in cages and sometimes let them rot in there. We breed animal to feed other animal. We ground up animal to feed them back to their own kind. We use animal to guard our properties. We mutilate them and prevent them from bearing children. We do all of these things and more without ever considering if they would consent or not.
So, clearly, we don't give them any right at all. The reason I can't just go next door and kick my neighbor's dog is because that dog is my neighbor's property. Heck, even if his dog bit me, his property insurance would get involve, implying that the dog is nothing more than property.
Animal "rights" advocates have pushed through legislations to give animal INTERESTS. There's a difference. We don't give animal rights, but we give them interests.
So, if we can bestow all of these things on animal, why the hell can't we have sex with them? Sure, the idea disgusts me, but that doesn't mean I can impose my taste on other people.
So, fellas, if you want to have sex with your dogs, go right ahead. Just don't touch my dogs. I'll sue you for property damage and violation.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 3:36 PM Taz has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 170 (414833)
08-06-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Chiroptera
08-06-2007 2:55 PM


Yuck
If you accept causing animal suffering in other areas, then your qualms about bestiality might very well be based on personal feelings of disgust.
Yes that is my conclusion.
So rationally I have no reason to believe bestiality to be wrong.
Let me ask a question: suppose that it could be shown that a particular animal enjoys sex with a human being. So now it's no longer a matter of suffering. Could you now accept bestiality in that case?
I think that I do accept it already. Whether the animal suffers or not. In the same way that I accept the depraved conditions in which we keep livestock.
If the animal enjoys itself in the process all the better
My conclusion is that I do accept it. I can find nothing reationally more immoral about it than I can eating meat. On that basis I have no right to tell anyone else what to do regards this matter.
However I do find it disgusting. So do many others.
How much should that disgust dictate how far it is 'displayed' in society?
Should bestial porn be as freely available as other sorts of porn?
Should prime time TV be allowed to show human/beast affection of a non-graphic but obviously sexual variety as perfectly acceptable.
Is there a line?
If so where is it?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 2:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 08-07-2007 8:57 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 5 of 170 (414837)
08-06-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
08-06-2007 3:03 PM


Lines of Acceptability
So, if we can bestow all of these things on animal, why the hell can't we have sex with them? Sure, the idea disgusts me, but that doesn't mean I can impose my taste on other people.
Basically I agree BUT do we really have the courage of our rational convictions???
How much should that disgust dictate how far it is 'displayed' or expressed in society?
Should bestial porn be as freely available as other sorts of porn?
Should prime time TV be allowed to show human/beast affection of a non-graphic but obviously sexual variety as perfectly acceptable?
Should a pair of self confessed bestial orgyists be allowed to adopt children?
Would you feel comfortable answering the question of your children as to why the nice man next door seems sooooo fond of his sheep?
Rationally I agree with what you say. Feeling wise it still seems more 'wrong' somehow.
Is there a line?
If so where is it?
Is it the same line we would apply to the freedom of expression for other human sexual practices?
If not why not?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 08-06-2007 3:03 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 08-06-2007 7:28 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 08-07-2007 2:25 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 24 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2007 5:11 PM Straggler has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 6 of 170 (414872)
08-06-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 08-06-2007 7:29 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 7:32 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 7:43 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 170 (414875)
08-06-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
08-06-2007 3:36 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
I'm officially pissed because I wrote a lengthy reply and the message got lost because my dumbass clicked submit while my internet was unplugged.
How much should that disgust dictate how far it is 'displayed' or expressed in society?
Let's look at it this way. If we can legislate beastiality because it disgusts you and me, why stop there? Hairy man-ass sex disgusts riverrat and his kind, so we should ban that too? How about vaginal sex? It digusts some gay people I know. Perhaps we should ban that too? Let's not stop there. Obesity and obese people disgusts me. We should ban them from showing up in public? Perhaps we can ban fatty foods as well? Fast food places ought to be banned?
Where do we stop? Taste, or distaste, is never a good reason for legislation.
Should bestial porn be as freely available as other sorts of porn?
Why not?
Should prime time TV be allowed to show human/beast affection of a non-graphic but obviously sexual variety as perfectly acceptable?
Let me tell you a short story. During my last vacation, my wife and I visited a zoo. While waiting in line for lunch, the young couple ahead of us were really going at it. They were just one step from having vaginal sex right there in public. His tongue was visibly down her throat and vice versa. His hands were massaging her body. If his hands were 2 inches from where they were, they would have been massaging her breasts.
I didn't mind much but my wife was bothered by it and wanted us to go elsewhere for lunch. Everyone else around us didn't seem to mind.
We as a society tolerate such blatant public display of affection between and human male and a human female. What about other people of orientation? I'm pretty sure some people were disgusted by such public display of affection. How come we don't pass laws against straight people going at it in public?
Oh, and did I mention that both these people were obese?
Would you feel comfortable answering the question of your children as to why the nice man next door seems sooooo fond of his sheep?
I'd tell my children to mind their own business unless it harms them or other people.
Is there a line?
If so where is it?
Is it the same line we would apply to the freedom of expression for other human sexual practices?
If not why not?
No line. Special interest groups draw their imaginary lines and want to force the rest of us to follow them. You really want to join their ranks?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 3:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 7:44 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 08-07-2007 3:20 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 170 (414876)
08-06-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by riVeRraT
08-06-2007 7:25 PM


riverrat writes:
Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?
Can you prove that heterosexual sex would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2007 7:25 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 9 of 170 (414877)
08-06-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by riVeRraT
08-06-2007 7:25 PM


Er No.
Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?
Can you prove that 'normal sex' would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?
I am not sure what your point is?
What does disease have to do with immorality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2007 7:25 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 08-07-2007 10:28 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 170 (414879)
08-06-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by riVeRraT
08-06-2007 7:25 PM


Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?
Does he have to?

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2007 7:25 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 11 of 170 (414880)
08-06-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
08-06-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
No line. Special interest groups draw their imaginary lines and want to force the rest of us to follow them. You really want to join their ranks?
Hell No!!!
I admire your consistency and on any rational and practical level completely agree.
Disgust must not be a measure of what is right and wrong and thus be used to dicatate what is acceptable in society. No question.
The reason I asked the original question is because I am finding it hard to reconcile my feelings on the subject with my logical conclusions.
That difficulty remains.
I'm officially pissed because I wrote a lengthy reply and the message got lost because my dumbass clicked submit while my internet was unplugged.
Man, that is a real pisser. I hate it when that happens.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 08-06-2007 7:28 PM Taz has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 12 of 170 (414938)
08-07-2007 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


Is beastiality morally wrong?
To me, yes.
If so why?
Because the animal cannot say one way or the other whether or not he desires to be a part of the act.
That said, I must say that letting your dog lick your balls (I believe RiveRrat provided us with this scneario), while not necessarily pleasant to imagine, would not fall into the same category as, say, penetrating the dog due to the potential for harm, but we can't say one way or the other if the ball licking dog really wants to do it even if he seems eager and happy to do so. I would say it doesn't give a shit, but in cases where the person/animal cannot speak up for themselves I err on the side of caution.
Are we prone to making irrational decisions as to what is moral and what is not based on personal disgust??
Yes, but not all people all the time.
If so should these decisions based on personal disgust hold any sway when attempting to legislate behaviour.
Absolutely not. Laws should be based on reason. If we allowed peple to legislate based on personal disgust we would have laws all kinds of stupid things (well, we already do, but most of those are based on emotion and not reason). For example, I am physically disgusted by most milky or creamy food stuffs (i.e. mayonaise, cream cheese, cottage cheese, sour cream, whipped cream, yogurt - it's a texture thing mostly). I have an irrational, visceral reaction to even the very idea of eating these things, including other people eating them. If we allowed laws based on my own personal disgust I could, as a legislator with enough public support, pass a law banning the production and consumption of these things. I might even misconstrue evidence to show that eating these things is bad for you or that some deity doesn't want people to eat them in order to support my position.
Pretty stupid, huh? I am content to avoid these food stuffs and leave everyone else alone.
Given the other ways in which we regularly abuse animals do morally relatavistic arguments about consent hold much water?
Someone else would have to answer that. I am a vegetarian and I only consume free-range/humane dairy products/eggs. Incidentally, I am a vegetarian for similar reasons to why I object to bestiality, not for health reasons and I advocate for more humane treatment of animals.
My own view is that the naturalness or otherwise of an activity is irrelevant as to it's morality.
Agreed.
As a moral relatavist broad notions of consent and harm would be my normal barometer for determining the morality of any activity. Sexual or otherwise.
Agreed.
However I find it hard to reconcile this idea of immorally abusing non-consenting animals with the other (worse?) ways in which we regularly cause animals to suffer without ever considering either consent or morality.
That is why I try to avoid such cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. I have been known to equivocate a few times (i.e. if I ever feel the need to buy leather products I buy them used, if I am in the home of someone who has cooked a meal for me not knowing I am a vegetarian I will eat a bit of meat out of respect for that person - usually a well meaning mother of a girlfriend or friend), but I consider the consumption of meat and the inhumane treatment of animals in our food supply to be immoral.
{ABE: I, however, do not advocate for legislation outlawing meat eating or fur/leather owning. That is for me to choose to do/not to do. I do advocate for more humane treatment of animals, not only in the food supply, but in other areas as well}
It would therefore seem that my instinctive answer that beastiality should be considered morally wrong is based more on feelings of personal disgust than anything else.
That may very well be why you consider it immoral, but that does not mean that everyone else does. (I know you weren't saying that...just making a point)
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 9:51 AM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 49 by Answers in Gene Simmons, posted 08-08-2007 12:10 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 170 (414942)
08-07-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
08-06-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
Taz writes:
Oh, and did I mention that both these people were obese?
Oh My God! That changes everything!
Its just like the law that should be passed prohibiting obese people from wearing spandex! It for the public good!
As for the Beasts....I could care less what people do in private.
I think animal rights are more important. My bird kisses me a lot and seems to enjoy it, and I massage her neck muscles, but thats as far as we go!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 08-06-2007 7:28 PM Taz has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 14 of 170 (414950)
08-07-2007 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


currently i would say yes it is morally wrong .. BUT thats based on current morallity ( as i am aware of it )...
next you need to ask does eveyone agree with the current morallity ..... i mean talk to my grandfather and he will say having any debt apart from a morgage is immoral , only bad people live off credit .... he has same opinion of benifit payments as well ..only the morally weak take handouts ..however he has no problem with Page 3 in the Sun ( uk newpaper with bare chested ladies on page 3 , every day !)
So morallity may change its collective mind ....
IF there was a genetic predisposition to beastiality , then you would have to ask the moral question does that make it right .. we then see debate in which morallity will chosse its own route , any facts aside ...
it may answer .. still immoral but forgive the poor afflicted
or will if its a natural urge go ahead ..and /or well yes but only if the animal shows the same type of genetic predisposition to "humaniality"
given our passed record on whats moral it could be any thing .. however i do think more people "love" in the sense like /respect /care for animals, more that thoswho want to have sex with them , and those views will continue to make it morally wrong ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 9:36 AM ikabod has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 170 (414959)
08-07-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
08-06-2007 3:26 PM


Re: Yuck
Should prime time TV be allowed to show human/beast affection of a non-graphic but obviously sexual variety as perfectly acceptable.
Here in the UK it is treated with so much humour that I think the edge is taken off the taboo nature. Jokes about the Welsh, sheep, wellies and cliff edges abound, even at prime-time (as it is highly euphamistic). An excellent Dave Allen sketch from decades ago involved DA as the priest taking confession, and the confessor admitting to an encounter with a sheep that started with just affection but soon led to full love making. The priest, horrified, yelled at the sinner that he had never heard of anything so outrageous and told him to get out quick... and we see the ram leaving the confessional in a hurry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 3:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 12:57 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024