Re: Furry Discussion Topic (Split)

[Bla]

can someone please explain to me why sexual/romantic relations with animals is such bad thing in the first place (minus the "god doesnt like it" BS)

It is a very bad thing. Animals can't consent so it's basically rape.

Edit: This topic has been split from the furry discussion topic (click quote link above to go there)

[Gordon Freeman]

While I can mostly agree with that, dolphins are capable of consensual sex and even attempt to seduce humans themselves.

Personally, *PERSONALLY*, I don't see rape as rape until the "victim" is uncomfortable. (And yes, Mikkel, I am aware that the definition of rape is generally any type of unconsensual sex)

While zoophilia can be difficult to justify, zooromance doesn't really have any kinks that I know of.

[Gordon Freeman]

It is a very bad thing. Animals can't consent so it's basically rape.

bap.

One of the main attacks against bestiality/zoophilia is the issue of consent. These arguments take shape into something like this: "having sex with a dog is wrong because the dog can't say no". Through logic I will show that these arguments by anti-zoos hold no logical reasoning at all, and in fact the consent issue is generally a smoke screen for the icky factor. I will show here that animals can, and do show sexual consent with a human.

Before I can effectively show that animals do have the ability to consent for sex, I need to define exactly how I am using consent:

–verb (used without object)
1.   to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2.   Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.


Animals are sentient beings just like humans, that is they have the power of perception and a consciousness. An animal experiences pleasure and pain. A person who owns a dog knows if what they do causes pleasure or pain. When we scratch a dogs head we can tell the dog enjoys this, he may roll on his back and let you rub his stomach. Likewise, hitting the dog in the head with a shoe causes pain and the dog will shy away and be fearful in the future.

Animals can not verbally say yes or no to sex in our human languages but they have other ways to show how they feel. Surely a dog who has mounted, say his human lover, experiences pleasure. This is evident because of his orgasm. Female dogs have orgasms too. Once a dog for example realizes you as a sexual being, they show sexual desire quite often: females will sway their tales revealing their swollen vagina's and dry hump the air in front of you, males will become erect and try to mount.

Anyone who is zoo will be aware of when their animals want sex. More importantly, they will respect their animal partner when they do not want sex. Sometimes when you rub your partner down there they will pull away and sit elsewhere. That is how animals show they are either interested or not.

If an animal does not enjoy what is happening to them they will show bodily signs of this: they will tense up, their eyes and ears will move, tails might jitter, and they will pull away. If you continue it could bring painful results: Dogs have powerful teeth and will bite you! Horses can break bones (or worse) with a single kick. Quite simply, it is obvious to see what causes pleasure and pain.

As I said before, the consent issue is really a smoke screen for the icky factor. By and large people are disgusted about the idea so they claim consent is a big issue when in fact it is not. People do many awful things to animals who do not consent to what is being done:

(1) Do animals consent to locking them in a cage?
(2) Do animals consent to being slaughtered and killed in the millions every year for food?
(3) Do animals consent to being tested on by chemicals?
(4) Do animals consent to being 'fixed'?

If you did any of those four things to a human you would be thrown in jail for life (possibly killed in many US states). Not so ironically though, doing those things to animals is okay. It is accepted and happens everyday.

But as soon as you have loving sex with your dog who you care for more than anything in the world, somehow you are a sick and awful human being.

Ironic?

In short, certain animals CAN give consent, but not in a way that is typically understandable by humans. Attacking zoophilia is hypocritical for the above stated reasons.

And while it's not an official definition, bestiality has recently come to mean something closer to zoosadism than zoophilia

[atomic7732]

so if you rape someone and they orgasm is that consent?

also

Let's not mix bestiality and furry

[Bla]

Before I can effectively show that animals do have the ability to consent for sex, I need to define exactly how I am using consent:

–verb (used without object)
1.   to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2.   Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.

Ok. By sexual consent I just don't mean what that person means. I don't think it's ok to stick genitals into someone and then see if the person is ok with that. The same applies to animals. So by consent I mean agreeing to the activities through clear communication. A tiny minority of animals might be capable of it, I'm open to that and if the animals and who they had sex with did actually enjoy it, I don't see it as morally wrong.

Most of the text you copied depends on this view of consent which would allow you to go out and initiate sex with other humans and then wait for their reaction to see if they're ok with it, if applied to humans, so I'll cut that out.

As I said before, the consent issue is really a smoke screen for the icky factor. By and large people are disgusted about the idea so they claim consent is a big issue when in fact it is not. People do many awful things to animals who do not consent to what is being done:

(1) Do animals consent to locking them in a cage?
(2) Do animals consent to being slaughtered and killed in the millions every year for food?
(3) Do animals consent to being tested on by chemicals?
(4) Do animals consent to being 'fixed'?

I'm disgusted by that kind of sex but I completely agree being disgusted by it isn't a valid argument against it. Just getting that out of the way. It really has zero to do with the consent argument at least in this case.

Mentioning 4 other cases which can be immoral just isn't a good excuse to allow a fifth case.
1: No they don't, and it is generally immoral to lock them up unless there's a good reason for it.
2: No they don't, and it is generally immoral to slaughter them for food. But we also rely on food to live. We don't rely on zoophilia. In short I think we should minimize our use of animals for food as much as possible and use plants (or maybe "lab"-grown meat in the future) instead.
3: No, animals don't consent to that. But testing chemicals on them is done so we don't need to do it on humans and to develop medicine etc. we can use to cure humans. I think such testing can be morally justifyable without consent, as medicine tested on one person/animal can be used to cure millions of people. You cannot use a reason like that for why zoophilia requires consent.
4: No they don't, and it is generally immoral. It's because the way our meat production is organized is very immoral, taking into account the animals at least. It's not because fixing them is moral.

In short, certain animals CAN give consent, but not in a way that is typically understandable by humans. Attacking zoophilia is hypocritical for the above stated reasons.

No. If we take away their consent the thing is we need a valid reason. That is all. Making medicine that can save many more than those who are affected by the testing is a valid reason. Sexual pleasure is nothing compared to that.

Also I'm just saying that I'm not really interested in arguing with a search engine for opposing views.

[Haxor1337]

wait, why is this a new topic?

[vh]

because bla split it off because it was going off on a tangent i guess

[Gordon Freeman]

so if you rape someone and they orgasm is that consent?

Heavens no. I'm saying that if the creature in question is evidently uncomfortable with what you're doing then stop.

also

Let's not mix bestiality and furry

god almighty please read

sure anyone who has an atypical non-domestic animal as a pet and goes to furry conventions is automatically registered as a beast molester

discussing a blind stereotype as a side note does not mean I think furries are beasters. sheesh.

I'm disgusted by that kind of sex

Why? Knowing you, it can't be religious reasons, and medical reasons can be disregarded as cleansing exists. Does it morally disgust you or are you just uncomfortable about the idea?

I used to think that homo sex was disgusting when I realized that I didn't have a valid reason for disgust and basically gave into anything sexually "new" or "deviant".

Mentioning 4 other cases which can be immoral just isn't a good excuse to allow a fifth case.

I think that was a note of federal hypocrisy rather than a justification.

[Bla]

Vh is correct

I'm disgusted by that kind of sex

Why? Knowing you, it can't be religious reasons, and medical reasons can be disregarded as cleansing exists. Does it morally disgust you or are you just uncomfortable about the idea?

I'm disgusted by that kind of sex but I completely agree being disgusted by it isn't a valid argument against it. Just getting that out of the way. It really has zero to do with the consent argument at least in this case.

It wasn't moral disgust I meant. It was a side comment irrelevant to the discussion so just abandon it. I don't care if people do things I find disgusting like picking nose in private if they don't harm anyone.

Mentioning 4 other cases which can be immoral just isn't a good excuse to allow a fifth case.

I think that was a note of federal hypocrisy rather than a justification.

Ok. It doesn't help to justify zoophilia in any case.

[atomic7732]

Heavens no. I'm saying that if the creature in question is evidently uncomfortable with what you're doing then stop.

that's literally what your quote said

god almighty please read

you put it in the furry discussion topic, what do you expect

[Gordon Freeman]

if you read the whole quote you'd notice from context that my statement was scarcastic:

gg anti-furries, hating on domestic fox vlog entries because the author has a fursona
sure anyone who has an atypical non-domestic animal as a pet and goes to furry conventions is automatically registered as a beast molester

when I don't use grammar I'm using sarcasm

[atomic7732]

it has nothing to do with your quote

you literally started discussing bestiality in the "furry discussion topic"

[matty406]

pls

[Gordon Freeman]

discussing a blind stereotype as a side note does not mean I think furries are beasters.