Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Monday, February 27, 2006

Question of the Day #29: Sheep

Image hosting by PhotobucketOkay, you probably knew this was coming.

Is sex with animals immoral, and why?

[Franc's note : Stop fucking talking about consent. We don't acknowledge the consent of other species in any other matter, that's just a red herring used by liberal crazies.]

Post a Comment


19 Comments:

At 2/27/2006 1:09 AM, Blogger UberKuh declaimed...

I see this as a question of sexual attraction, and I see no reason for anyone to be sexually attracted to animals. If there is evidence to show that sexual attraction between humans and animals is possible, then the question becomes, is it safe? Safety concerns include disease and lynching.

 
At 2/27/2006 6:39 AM, Blogger Mike declaimed...

Uberjuh, it would take 30 seconds of google searching to discover that certain animals are more than willing to copulate with humans, and vice versa. Interspecies sexual attraction obviously exists.

Your two safety concerns also apply to human sex.

 
At 2/27/2006 8:16 AM, Blogger Vic declaimed...

What determines the moral status of sex between humans is the issue of consent of both parties. Can an animal consent? If so, how can you communicate with it to know whether or not it does?

 
At 2/27/2006 8:23 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

There's also a bit of a sliding scale, depending on how closely related the animal is to humans. Although I can't think of anyone trying to have sex with a slug, I also can't imagine anyone having a big problem with it. Mostly because of anatomical compatibility, the animals are usually higher veterbrates.

I think that coerced sex with animals is equivalent to torture. Unecessary torture of any living creature is immoral.

I also think that, aside from the morality of the act, it's also just damn weird, and I think that's what most people react to the most.

 
At 2/27/2006 8:24 AM, Blogger Spud declaimed...

I agree with Zachary Moore: I think probably the weirdness quotient is what does it for most. But then again, weirdness is relative: if you take the alien's eye view much of what humanity gets up to is pretty damned weird, from drilling holes in your earlobes and hanging things off them to slicing bits off newborn babies. It's all weird: in that case it's less weirdness per se than familiarity. When a weird thing happens often enough long enough to become familiar, it's not so weird. I'm not suggesting that this is about to happen any time soon regarding sex with animals however!

 
At 2/27/2006 8:32 AM, Blogger t.f. declaimed...

Sex is about mutual pleasure and/or the purpose of reproduction. We can count out the latter. As was pointed out, we cannot know an animal gives consent, nor that it isn't in pain and experiencing no pleasure. Causing the animal potential pain is enough of a deterrent for a moral person to stick with having sex with mutually consenting (human), and hopefully, mutually pleasured, partners.

 
At 2/27/2006 10:28 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

vic: "What determines the moral status of sex between humans is the issue of consent of both parties. Can an animal consent?"

Hmmmm.... Does a chicken consent to becoming our dinner?

 
At 2/27/2006 1:28 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Yea, Bahnsen pretty much nailed it. Everyone's yapping about consent when it's obviously a non-issue.

 
At 2/27/2006 1:32 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Actually, we CAN know if an animal gives consent, because animals have in many occasions attempted to fuck humans without the HUMANS consent! Seriously.

I think it boils down to consent. Most humans restrict their beastiality practices to other mammals, and mammals at least can make it very clear if they want to have sex or not with any other entity.

Beastiality isnt confined to human/nonhuman varieties. Animals sometimes attempt to have sex with animals of different species (non-human) as well.

But I am curious as to what we can find in the Bible or Quran that forbids animal sex. Consider too that the Bible says that God gave all the plants and animals to humans for their use.

 
At 2/27/2006 5:30 PM, Blogger strangely rouge declaimed...

Consent, for the same reason sex with kids is wrong.Sure they can't say 'I've got a headache' or 'get your coat you've pulled' any animal capable penetration of the human body or being penetrated are large mammals. As far as I can think, all large mammals are capable of being traumatised by being hurt or being forced into doing something.

Also, 'Butter dogs' (use google) suffer from shorter lifespans than non butter dogs or 'margarine dogs' as they're called.

 
At 2/27/2006 6:44 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

The Bible forbids bestiality in Leviticus 18, right after incest, sex during menstruation, and homosexuality.

 
At 2/27/2006 7:53 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Once again I repeat, consent has NOTHING TO DO with the issue.

To quote Bahnsen again :
"Does a chicken consent to becoming our dinner?"

 
At 2/28/2006 9:29 AM, Blogger t.f. declaimed...

Eating is necessary. Sex is not. Having dinner is a "do or die" kind of issue -- having sex is, ethically, a "does this action give us both pleasure, or hurt one/both of us" issue.

I suppose if one knew an animal was experiencing no pain and only pleasure (not traumatized), the ethical reasoning against man-animal relations is out the window.

The other reasoning, "that's just f-in gross," still stands, of course.

 
At 2/28/2006 12:20 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Yes, but killing a chicken for food and engaging in sexual activities with it are two different things.

 
At 2/28/2006 12:51 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

I agree, consent is not the issue. Animals do not consent to be killed. The issue is unecessary suffering- even an animal destined for the slaughterhouse deserves as quick and as humane a death as possible. Torturing an chicken to death is morally distinct from cutting off its head, especially if the end result is a chicken dinner.

 
At 2/28/2006 2:05 PM, Blogger Vic declaimed...

Well, seeing as it caused unnecessary irritation, I apologize for bringing up the consent issue. My ONLY reason for doing so was an error in my initial thoughts on the matter, likening sex between an animal and human to sex between two humans - after all, aren't we animals? Of course, those aren't parallels - all that would answer would be the question "is sex between animal and human rape or not?", which isn't the same question.

I can go 'ick, gross', but I guess I just can't come up with a real answer to the MORAL question of it, though Zachary seems to have come up with the right playing field for the answer to come out on - the issue of suffering. The best I can do, though, is just cop out - whether it's moral or immoral, there's no fucking way in hell I'd ever fuck anything but a human female.

 
At 2/28/2006 2:09 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Consent has nothing to do with the issue. If you want to involve the pain issue, sure, you'd have at least a popular case for that (although I think it's bunk).

 
At 2/28/2006 10:18 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

You fellers never been on a farm, I betcha. When a female animal is in heat, she is looking for RELIEF! If you are of a mind to oblige, please wash up before you shake my hand. Consent is a non-issue, as has been said. So is morality. Blame it on pheromones if you're self-conscious, but don't let the lying monkeys lay a guilt trip on you and don't tell me about it, I don't want to know.

 
At 3/01/2006 8:08 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

That's an interesting point. Looking back at the passage of the Bible that condemns bestiality, I can't help but see that the other three sexual condemnations would not be considered immoral in a secular context... so why would bestiality be?

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home