Bestiality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

At the point at which a human would suffice for an animal is a point of extreme sexual tension and deprivation to the point of cruelty. And for what reason? A few seconds of sexual gratification for the owner? That's highly immoral.

I don't think an animal has a right to have sex.

It may prefer sex with a same-species partner, but that doesn't mean it won't still appreciate and enjoy interspecies sex.

 

[A High Way Man]

It may prefer sex with a same-species partner, but that doesn't mean it won't still appreciate and enjoy interspecies sex.

One could think evolution would've accounted for it. Why would an animal spend time mating with species it could not reproduce with?

 

[Enteebee]

One could think evolution would've accounted for it. Why would an animal spend time mating with species it could not reproduce with?

Evolution doesn't really need to lead to an advantage and it can have in a sense 'misfirings'. There might even be some sort of an explanation..

 

[Kwayera]

One could think evolution would've accounted for it. Why would an animal spend time mating with species it could not reproduce with?

Because it doesn't necessarily impinge on their ability to produce young with their own species. A male discovering a female of his own species in heat? I find it difficult to believe that in that case they would reject that female in favour of another species, simply because he would react instinctually to her pheromones.

 

[KFunk]

News to me old boy!
How does that square up with doing medicine?

Sometimes it's good, sometimes not. It certainly helps me work within a patient's moral framework without feeling that I am getting dirty hands or that I paving my own path to the underworld. I have my own values of course (are they characterised by objective truth? No. Are they important to me? Yes, certainly) and boundaries which come with them. I would willingly push for state guardianship if I thought that a parent's moral system were causing grievous harm to their child. The law generates practical boundaries too. A moral martyr can do little good while incarcerated. It's funny really; I act on moral impulse in a number of situations where friends suggest that a more selfish option would be acceptable, and yet I am the (impassioned, it would seem) moral nihilist?

And it makes ethics tuts much more fun.

 

[sam04u]

Why would it necessarily be unhygenic? One assumes that a person having sex with an animal would ensure that both are relatively clean to start off with. Heck, even horse breeders are scrupulous (to the point of overkill) about the hygiene of their animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonoses
Also, the chance of uncleanliness goes both ways. Diseases, illnesses, dirt, etc. All of these can come from the act of having sex with animals.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that animals suffer the same mental effects of "sexual deprivation" that we do. They don't. Where are you getting this "weeks of deprivation" bullshit? Animals that are willing to have sex with humans, and that wouldn't be all that uncommon, wouldn't have to be TRAINED to do it. Animals that were unwilling would necessarily use their teeth to make that point clear - and that has happened, as well.

You are retarded. Seriously.
Either that or you're in a serious relationship with an animal.

First of all, how does it involve "sustained sexual deprivation"? Are you saying that between human sex, "sustained sexual deprivation" during foreplay is akin to torture?

Kind of funny how on your last point you say "First of all", and don't follow it up with anything. Quite redundant, just like your entire existence.
And if you consider weeks of sexual deprivation to be foreplay, you're more sick and demented than I thought.

 

[KFunk]

Why value life and not non-life?

I love lamp.

 

[Iron]

The black hole of the medical profession
The world will hold its breath!

 

[Kwayera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonoses
Also, the chance of uncleanliness goes both ways. Diseases, illnesses, dirt, etc. All of these can come from the act of having sex with animals.

And humans.

In fact, you may not know this, but GPs encourage women to pee after sex to void the bacteria that has been pushed into their urethra by male thrusting. TMI, but true. Sex isn't particularly hygenic with humans either, especially by your standards.

You are retarded. Seriously.
Either that or you're in a serious relationship with an animal.

You are possibly the most immature debater on this forum.

And, as I have said, while I don't view it as inherently cruel, nor do I explicitly condone it such that I would participate. I like my own species, thank you.

Kind of funny how on your last point you say "First of all", and don't follow it up with anything. Quite redundant, just like your entire existence.
And if you consider weeks of sexual deprivation to be foreplay, you're more sick and demented than I thought.

I did follow up, and you didn't answer the question. Where are you getting this "weeks of sexual deprivation" bullshit?

 

[sam04u]

I did follow up, and you didn't answer the question. Where are you getting this "weeks of sexual deprivation" bullshit?

I stumbled upon a website once, and let's just say some people are disgusting and one guy in particular made video guides on how he conditioned his dog to perform intercourse on his wife. It was both disgusting and cruel. It takes weeks of deprivation before the dog is remotely interested, and even then the dog is generally in a sexual stupor, attempting even to masturbate with inanimate objects due to sexual tension.

*pukes a little in mouth*

 

[KFunk]

Hahahaha, stop seeing through my word plays. I understand entirely why it makes you uneasy as I can understand the reasoning behind it but I cannot fully abstract myself away from the logic of the situation so much so as to deny my own innate humanity. I think it's far too intellectually compromising to assert you have such a position as to be species-neutral. For example, is there any point at which animal testing would have an outcome which you would not support.

I feel that my stance on the situation is that it is necessary in our current situation but the moment we develop technology that makes it unnecessary it becomes a needless and cruel thing.

It's a 'necessary' evil to benefit humankind in the long term. I understand the flaws in the argument, and I can see that it isn't optimal from a pure 'holistic reduction of suffering' viewpoint, but I do think at this stage a moratorium on animal testing would be crippling humanity unnecessarily.

To be a real bastard, were you in a situation where you were able to save from x tragedy only a human being or let's say, a chimpanzee, which would you save. You must choose one and you can't save both.

Your use of 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' seems unnecessarily vague. 'Necessary' seems to be a stand in for both (a) an unarticulated moral argument and (b) an as yet unfounded empirical argument (why can't we just push for research via human cell cultures or tissue models in the appropriate areas?).

Are animals required for certain types of research (asuming we won't use humans)? Sure, probably. But if reduction of suffering is the goal, why not take the money from this type of research and put it towards alleviating starvation in the developing world? You'll likely get more bang for your buck, and you will save a few animals to boot.

And human or chimp? I don't know. It depends on age, context and so forth. There certainly exists a subset of cases where, for me, the chimp would win. The overall set will be characterised by human-bias - but at least I try.

 

[Kwayera]

Edit:
Too easy to guess.

*pukes a little in mouth*

lets just say some people like to make guides... fucking disgusting and cruel

What, they tie them up and strap a vibrator to their arse? Shit like that?

I think that'd be cruel on a human, not just an animal.

 

[sam04u]

What, they tie them up and strap a vibrator to their arse? Shit like that?

I think that'd be cruel on a human, not just an animal.

I can't even begin to understand how they might condition an animal to be anally penetrated by a fully erect male penis. But I did once stumble upon a video guide to the disgusting act. And how a man conditioned the animal to perform it on his wife. It required weeks of sexual deprivation.

 

[KFunk]

The black hole of the medical profession
The world will hold its breath!

I'll likely implode when they fire up the LHC.

 

[Kwayera]

I can't even begin to understand how they might condition an animal to be anally penetrated. But I did once stumble upon a video guide to the disgusting acts. And how a man conditioned the animal to perform it on his wife. It required weeks of sexual deprivation.

Well THAT I would call cruel, indeed.

 

[sam04u]

Well THAT I would call cruel, indeed.

Well maybe I misjudged you Kwayera. I'm sorry if I did. And I take back any immature comments I made in regards to you. You seem like a reasonable person, and I was too quick to rush to judgement.

 

[Kwayera]

Well maybe I misjudged you Kwayera. I'm sorry if I did. And I take back any immature comments I made in regards to you. You seem like a reasonable person, and I was too quick to rush to judgement.

While I don't regard sex with an animal - that would not otherwise physically harm it - as inherently cruel, it doesn't mean that I don't regard things like sexual torture on an animal as such.

You're talking to the person who believes keeping cetaceans and other large, intelligent predators such as tigers captive as abhorrently cruel.

 

[HNAKXR]

conclusions of the day, there is nothing wrong with:

*Homosexuality
*Sadomasochism
*Bestiality
*sexually abusing the mentally handicapped

wow...

 

[spicypeanut]

OK, first and foremost, i should say that i read the first part of this thread, and not the rest, so if some of it seems a little "allready been there" then i apologise

The first point i feel i need to raise is the idea of consent, or lack there of in an animal. when a Human female and a Human Male come together for sexual relations, they do no begin my stating "I give you permission to have sexual intercourse with me" if your doing things right, it's a feeling, a mutual unspoken agreement, and i think most people would agree, that how it usualy goes. The Fact that and animal doesn;t turn around and say "NO" doesn't mean that they saying yes. the lack of a negative response doesn't confirm the presence of a positive one. but the fact that it is aknowledged that some animals do 'consent' (via body language and the lack of attempt at escape). wile this has been discussed here allready, i wonder how this applies to physically or mentally disabled persons. one of the many places i have worked was at a care facility for mentaly handicaped people. and i saw people whom had massive disabilities (ie impared mental ability, equal to a 10 year old) who had a girlfriend, (admittadly she wasn't particuarly impressive) his brain was damaged in one particular part that stoped him being able to talk properly, he could produce simple single words, but no sentances, in leu of those he only made a moaning grunting type noise. based on most of the opinions in this debate, how could you consider him to be capable of making the right decision in relation to his sexuality, i mean, he wasn't allowed to make a sandwich because he used too much butter all the time. how can we justify that. to that end, how can we justify NOT letting him express himself physically? he has the body of a 34 yr old man, he has the same urges, how can we deny him that right? again this argument is based on the arguments against Zoophilia.

The Arguments on diseases are vaild, while there are many diseases that crossed the species barrier, there are still some that havn't, to that, thats not to say they won't or havn't allready, we simply haven't found them yet, so with that in mind, banning zoophilia works for the health of the populus, but we can rarely justify a law based on a possibility, (ie new terrorism laws havn't gone down so well eh?).


I should probably say now that, in my opinion, if asked on the street, i would say that bestiality is disgusting, i find it inappropriate and wrong, and cannot understand the want people may have to do these things. but again, this mindset was the norm when the gay movement was starting, and now they are accepted as a normal part of the social network, i don't see that happening in this case, but you never know.

that my 2 cents....

Actually based on how much i wrote, that more like 20 bucks, sorry about the essay, when i write about these sorta things it's just straight out of my head and onto the screen, so it might be a bit allover the place, and long. apologies.

Dale.

 

[bigboyjames]

conclusions of the day, there is nothing wrong with:

*Homosexuality
*Sadomasochism
*Bestiality
*sexually abusing the mentally handicapped

wow...

progress. modernization. 21st century. freedom.