Sex with animals

[LogicalPimp]

Your thoughts?

Edit: Hope this is the right forum. I wrote it here because I hope we can approach this philosophically.

[RedAnarchist]

Are you sre this is in the right subforum?


I don't believe that it is wrong for anyone to have sex with animals, so long as they aren't putting themselves or the animal in danger. Its actually quite a natural thing for some animals to interbreed - ever heard of a liger? or a tion? And humans have the added bonus of not being able to reproduce with other animals AFAIK.

[Dr Mindbender]

s' been talked about.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...&hl=beastiality (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55446&hl=beastiality)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...&hl=beastiality (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58123&hl=beastiality)

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 06:10 pm
s' been talked about.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...&hl=beastiality (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58123&hl=beastiality)
Ah, I hate making threads that have already existed.

For the record, I did use the search feature, but spelled "beastiality" correctly...which is why I didn't find the thread by CompañeroDeLibertad :P

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:59 pm
Are you sre this is in the right subforum?


I don't believe that it is wrong for anyone to have sex with animals, so long as they aren't putting themselves or the animal in danger. Its actually quite a natural thing for some animals to interbreed - ever heard of a liger? or a tion? And humans have the added bonus of not being able to reproduce with other animals AFAIK.
..or maybe no-ones ever been successful because of the amount of stigma and taboos with in human society?
:blink:

[LogicalPimp]

If no harm is caused, I see it as another great form of sexuality that open-minded humans should embrace.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:16 pm
If no harm is caused, I see it as another great form of sexuality that open-minded humans should embrace.
something tells me youre going to get quite a bit of flack... :blink:

[Dimentio]

I have moved it to discrimination.

Maybe a bad alternative, but it could be moved to chit-chat or merged with one of the earlier threads.

[guerilla E]

I have no problem with people fucking animals as long as they don't touch my pets in special places - or as long as they dont rape animals.

Remember, "No" means No, and something "Bark!" also means No.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:49 pm
I have moved it to discrimination.

Maybe a bad alternative, but it could be moved to chit-chat or merged with one of the earlier threads.
there should be a sexuality forum anyway. Now that i think about it, its a good idea because it would be appropriate for LGBT discussion, as well as for all the perverts starting shock threads like this one!
:P

[Dimentio]

Very good idea, and accidentally a very bad one as well. It will draw pervs. :D

[bootleg42]

How do we know the animal wants to have the relation with the human??? I would say it's not fair to the animal.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:24 pm
How do we know the animal wants to have the relation with the human??? I would say it's not fair to the animal.
i suppose that argument could swing either way. :blink:

How do we know that some animals arent genuinely attracted to humans?

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 15, 2007 07:27 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 15, 2007 07:27 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 07:24 pm
How do we know the animal wants to have the relation with the human??? I would say it's not fair to the animal.
i suppose that argument could swing either way. :blink:

How do we know that some animals arent genuinely attracted to humans? [/b]
True......but probably to make sure, we shouldn't be fucking animals nor should we support others that do.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by bootleg42+October 15, 2007 08:02 pm--> (bootleg42 @ October 15, 2007 08:02 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 07:27 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 07:24 pm
How do we know the animal wants to have the relation with the human??? I would say it's not fair to the animal.
i suppose that argument could swing either way. :blink:

How do we know that some animals arent genuinely attracted to humans?
True......but probably to make sure, we shouldn't be fucking animals nor should we support others that do. [/b]
...told the OP he'd be in for some flack. :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Welcome back, Mare...

Can someone thrash this thread?

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

Not to be overtly yiffy, but animals could actually take initiative to (attempting) intercourse with a human being or other animal species. The most typical form of zoophilic sex is actually females who are licked by dogs.

I do not like zoophilia, but the idea about the animal as an innocent, child-like entity is another post-christian construct without basis in reality.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 15, 2007 08:24 pm
Welcome back, Mare...

Can someone thrash this thread?

Luís Henrique
I could move it to chit-chat if you like it. ^^

[Great Helmsman]

Animals, like children, can't give consent and therefore it will always be wrong.

[Dimentio]

So a dog which is willingly trying to make intercourse with a human being has not given any consent? Come on!

I dislike zoophilia not because of any rational foundation, but because my entire being is revolting against the thought of it. But I am not trying to hide it behind platitudes.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 15, 2007 09:24 pm
Welcome back, Mare...

Can someone thrash this thread?

Luís Henrique

Can you provide proof that its Mare? I dont see any connection bar the zopphilia

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:34 pm
So a dog which is willingly trying to make intercourse with a human being has not given any consent? Come on!
No, consent still can't be determined. If an inebriated woman stumbles over to you at a party and performs a suggestive action that could be interpreted for you to have sexual intercourse on her, that doesn't give you the go ahead to take liberties with her.

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 15, 2007 08:31 pm
Animals, like children, can't give consent and therefore it will always be wrong.
Relating a sexually mature dog to a child is an absurd argument. Nice try though.

[LogicalPimp]

No, consent still can't be determined.

Do animals consent for you to neuter or spay them or eat them?



If an inebriated woman stumbles over to you at a party and performs a suggestive action that could be interpreted for you to have sexual intercourse on her, that doesn't give you the go ahead to take liberties with her.

Nice try. A sexually mature dog is not an "inehriated woman", is it?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Electronic Light+October 15, 2007 08:40 pm--> (Electronic Light @ October 15, 2007 08:40 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 08:34 pm
So a dog which is willingly trying to make intercourse with a human being has not given any consent? Come on!
No, consent still can't be determined. If an inebriated woman stumbles over to you at a party and performs a suggestive action that could be interpreted for you to have sexual intercourse on her, that doesn't give you the go ahead to take liberties with her. [/b]
If a dog starts to hump over my leg and making intercourse with it, I do not take it as it has accidentally moved into me. Other animals are not as discrete as us, mate!

[Great Helmsman]

Relating a sexually mature dog to a child is an absurd argument. Nice try though.

Only in the head of dog-fucker.



Do animals consent for you to neuter or spay them or eat them?

Is that a serious question? Of course not.


Nice try. A sexually mature dog is not an "inehriated woman"[sic], is it?
No, a woman has the capacity for consensual sexual intercourse; dogs don't.



If a dog starts to hump over my leg and making intercourse with it, I do not take it as it has accidentally moved into me. Other animals are not as discrete as us, mate!
This is absolutely ridiculous. Dogs can't exactly masturbate themselves, so its absurd to suggest that any action like that means they desire giving or receiving a good reaming.

I know you dolts are trying to be radical for the sake of shocking people, but could you at least think of something that isn't so obviously stupid.

[Cult of Reason]

If people can pleasure themselves with vibrators then why not animals?

[LogicalPimp]

And this has to be the most hilarious thing I have read so far on RL:


Originally posted by you said
Dogs can't exactly masturbate themselves, so its absurd to suggest that any action like that means they desire giving or receiving a good reaming.

Brilliant logic!

BTW -- Maybe you ought to spend more time around dogs. I have seen many dogs lick themselves towards orgasm, as I'm sure any dog owner can attest to if their animal isn't "fixed".

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:49 pm
I have moved it to discrimination.

Maybe a bad alternative, but it could be moved to chit-chat or merged with one of the earlier threads.
Why don't you just trash it?

Putting it in 'Discrimination' is an insult to all the truly oppressed groups who should be given consideration in this sub-forum.

These threads are fucking embarrassing and completely irrelevant to revolutionary politics or human liberation.

[LogicalPimp]

These threads are fucking embarrassing and completely irrelevant to revolutionary politics or human liberation.

How is it irrelevant to the people who are attracted to animals and feel suppressed in society (because of people like you) who do need to be liberated from the oppressors?


Next time read carefully what a particular forum is about before saying something doesn't belong there:


Forum to address issues of social discrimination; especially those related to gender, sexuality, race, and identity.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:42 pm

These threads are fucking embarrassing and completely irrelevant to revolutionary politics or human liberation.

How is it irrelevant to the people who are attracted to animals and feel suppressed in society (because of people like you) who do need to be liberated from the oppressors?


Next time read carefully what a particular forum is about before saying something doesn't belong there:


Forum to address issues of social discrimination; especially those related to gender, sexuality, race, and identity.
So are you taking a principled stand against this particular form of discrimination and leading your union or party branch to adopt a campaign for the liberation of animal fuckers?

Of course you're not.

Then perhaps you're just posting mischievous bullshit threads on a leftist website to make us look bad?

Of course you are.

Animal molesters are not oppressed, they're just not allowed to rape animals.

And even if, by some individualistic libertarian formulation, they were oppressed, they're never going to form a special detachment of the revolutionary movement, so I really can't see the point of discussing it on this website.

[TC]

Some points:

1. Regardless of your position on the status of sex with animals and whether consensual sex is possible or whatever, its utterly moronic to argue that its wrong to "rape" animals but acceptable to kill and eat them. Whatever violation of their bodily integrity sex with them might constitute, its clearly lesser than that from butchering them. No one who eats meat should be engaging in the anti-animal-sex side of the debate.

2. Rape isn't horrifying because of a simple absence of consent, but because it constitutes a violation of the victim's will. Active verbal consent is only relevant among those who are capable of both offering or withholding it because only in those circumstances is its presence or absence an absolute indication of whether something happens against their will or according to their will. When its questionable as to whether or not something has a complicated will to be violated or respected (such as an inanimate object or in some arguments some animals) then consent is a non-issue.

3. Lets face it, consent isn't the issue, people are just using that to justify their totally irrational if understandable ITS SO GROSS reactions. Animals have sex, animals refuse to have sex, animals initiate sex, clearly some sex with animals is 'consensual', its possibly to express consent without verbalizing it. If actually saying "I hereby consent to sex" was a requirement for sex to be considered consensual than we'd all be rapists and rape victims.


4. I don't like the idea of having sex with animals, i think it sounds utterly gross. I also don't feel any particular need to justify my aesthetic judgements and personal tastes by claiming that those who disagree with me are 'immoral' or 'unnatural'and I wouldn't want to impose my preferences on others or legislate based on what grosses me out. Thats what conservatives do.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:02 pm
Some points:

1. Regardless of your position on the status of sex with animals and whether consensual sex is possible or whatever, its utterly moronic to argue that its wrong to "rape" animals but acceptable to kill and eat them. Whatever violation of their bodily integrity sex with them might constitute, its clearly lesser than that from butchering them. No one who eats meat should be engaging in the anti-animal-sex side of the debate.

2. Rape isn't horrifying because of a simple absence of consent, but because it constitutes a violation of the victim's will. Active verbal consent is only relevant among those who are capable of both offering or withholding it because only in those circumstances is its presence or absence an absolute indication of whether something happens against their will or according to their will. When its questionable as to whether or not something has a complicated will to be violated or respected (such as an inanimate object or in some arguments some animals) then consent is a non-issue.

3. Lets face it, consent isn't the issue, people are just using that to justify their totally irrational if understandable ITS SO GROSS reactions. Animals have sex, animals refuse to have sex, animals initiate sex, clearly some sex with animals is 'consensual', its possibly to express consent without verbalizing it. If actually saying "I hereby consent to sex" was a requirement for sex to be considered consensual than we'd all be rapists and rape victims.


4. I don't like the idea of having sex with animals, i think it sounds utterly gross. I also don't feel any particular need to justify my aesthetic judgements and personal tastes by claiming that those who disagree with me are 'immoral' or 'unnatural'and I wouldn't want to impose my preferences on others or legislate based on what grosses me out. Thats what conservatives do.
genuine post made of WIN :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by LogicalPimp+October 15, 2007 06:13 pm--> (LogicalPimp @ October 15, 2007 06:13 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 06:10 pm
s' been talked about.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...&hl=beastiality (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58123&hl=beastiality)
Ah, I hate making threads that have already existed.

For the record, I did use the search feature, but spelled "beastiality" correctly...which is why I didn't find the thread by CompañeroDeLibertad :P [/b]
It's spelled correctly in the title, there's just that one typo in the thread itself.. It still should have come up in a thread.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:55 pm
Your thoughts?

Edit: Hope this is the right forum. I wrote it here because I hope we can approach this philosophically.
My thoughts, it&#39;s sick-period. <_<

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 15, 2007 11:44 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 15, 2007 11:44 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:55 pm
Your thoughts?

Edit: Hope this is the right forum. I wrote it here because I hope we can approach this philosophically.
My thoughts, it&#39;s sick-period. <_< [/b]
Thank you for your thoughts.

Thankfully logic escaped your argument.

More to come, a deep analysis, perfect in form, impossible to argue against: by LogicalPimp soon to come :wub:

[Faux Real]

If people want to screw cows/baboons/goatse let them as long as they don&#39;t intentionally hurt the poor things.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by LogicalPimp+October 15, 2007 06:50 pm--> (LogicalPimp &#064; October 15, 2007 06:50 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 15, 2007 11:44 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM &#064; October 15, 2007 11:44 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:55 pm
Your thoughts?

Edit: Hope this is the right forum. I wrote it here because I hope we can approach this philosophically.
My thoughts, it&#39;s sick-period. <_< [/b]
Thank you for your thoughts.

Thankfully logic escaped your argument.

More to come, a deep analysis, perfect in form, impossible to argue against: by LogicalPimp soon to come :wub: [/b]
Will you have time, considering that you&#39;ll be defending all those rednecks raping animals?


rev0lt
If people want to screw cows/baboons/goatse let them as long as they don&#39;t intentionally hurt the poor things.

Screw goatse?&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:26 pm
I could move it to chit-chat if you like it.
Whatever. In "Discrimination" it belongs not. :angry:

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:02 pm
Some points:

1. Regardless of your position on the status of sex with animals and whether consensual sex is possible or whatever, its utterly moronic to argue that its wrong to "rape" animals but acceptable to kill and eat them. Whatever violation of their bodily integrity sex with them might constitute, its clearly lesser than that from butchering them. No one who eats meat should be engaging in the anti-animal-sex side of the debate.
Frankly...

So I cannot eat meat unless I favour torturing cats for the sake of fun?

What more liberal nonsence are we going to start promoting, now?

Luís Henrique

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 16, 2007 01:02 am--> (Luís Henrique @ October 16, 2007 01:02 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 08:26 pm
I could move it to chit-chat if you like it.
Whatever. In "Discrimination" it belongs not. :angry:

Luís Henrique [/b]
I fully agree.

[TC]

I&#39;ve moved this to science and environment, it could really go here or philosophy, discrimination seems like a stretch.

Jazzratt, you can&#39;t censure a topic unilaterally, many people including commie club members have contributed to this thread from both sides of the argument.

Let me ask, what is it about this subject matter that drives some people so crazy? I don&#39;t want to have sex with animals (or, women, old people, blondes, blow up dolls, plush stuffed animals, red heads, fat people etc) , but I don&#39;t see why I should care if someone else does, and I really don&#39;t understand why some seem to care SO much that they want it to be an area where no one can question or debate their feelings about it.

So why the strong emotions?

[Guerrilla22]

I&#39;m not sure what to think about these people. Are they committing a horrible crime? No of course not. However, I don&#39;t think through the evlutionary process that humans were ever meant to compulate with animals, just my opinion.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:32 pm
I&#39;m not sure what to think about these people. Are they committing a horrible crime? No of course not. However, I don&#39;t think through the evlutionary process that humans were ever meant to compulate with animals, just my opinion.
..or masturbate, there&#39;s no evolutionary reason why we do. We do it because it&#39;s fun.

Thats why people have sex with animals. Problem?

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:32 pm
I&#39;m not sure what to think about these people. Are they committing a horrible crime? No of course not. However, I don&#39;t think through the evlutionary process that humans were ever meant to compulate with animals, just my opinion.
evolution doesn&#39;t contain "meaning" or purpose, gene survival is complex and non-deliberate and contains seemingly random affects.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 17, 2007 11:34 am--> (William Everard @ October 17, 2007 11:34 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:32 pm
I&#39;m not sure what to think about these people. Are they committing a horrible crime? No of course not. However, I don&#39;t think through the evlutionary process that humans were ever meant to compulate with animals, just my opinion.
..or masturbate, there&#39;s no evolutionary reason why we do. We do it because it&#39;s fun.

Thats why people have sex with animals. Problem? [/b]
Animals dont give consent (in most cases) for sex with humans, whereas your brain gives you consent to masturbate.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Organic Revolution+October 17, 2007 06:05 pm--> (Organic Revolution @ October 17, 2007 06:05 pm)
Originally posted by William [email protected] 17, 2007 11:34 am

[email protected] 17, 2007 05:32 pm
I&#39;m not sure what to think about these people. Are they committing a horrible crime? No of course not. However, I don&#39;t think through the evlutionary process that humans were ever meant to compulate with animals, just my opinion.
..or masturbate, there&#39;s no evolutionary reason why we do. We do it because it&#39;s fun.

Thats why people have sex with animals. Problem?
Animals dont give consent (in most cases) for sex with humans, whereas your brain gives you consent to masturbate. [/b]
they dont give us consent to kill and eat them either. Which is the lesser of 2 evils?

[Cult of Reason]

Animals can&#39;t give consent? Does it matter? If fucking a goat gives someone pleasure that is fine. It is analogous to using a vibrator or some other method of pleasure that does no involve another person.

I know I will piss people off with this, but, fundamentally from the point of view of human society and particularly extreme anthropocentrist thought that I subscribe to, animals are THINGS. Want to cut them up for food? Fine. Make them fight each other in a ring and bet on them? Fine. Plesure yourself with them? Fine.

Non-sapients don&#39;t matter.

[Luís Henrique]

Let&#39;s try to bring this down to common practice, since some people seem to be lost within their own ivory towers.

If I invite a friend to my home, and such friend asks me if s/he can bring "someone special" along, and I agree -

Then if s/he brings someone of his/her same sex, or twice or half his/her age/height/weight, or of a different ethnicity, nationality or religion, I absolutely must not bat an eyelid, and if I do I am just plainly simply a bigot.

But if s/he brings along, as that "someone special" a chicken or a baboon, or a corpse, or a eight-year old, I&#39;ll slam the door on their face - and in the two latter cases, will also ring the police.

And, no, that is not bigotry.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Nadezhda]

is it wrong? harmful to the animal? a crime? no, I don&#39;t consider it to be, but I will say that it&#39;s not something that can be consented to- not tha tit matters, but it can&#39;t be understood in the same way of two human beings involving themselves in a sexual act.

[Eleftherios]

If you have sex with a (non-human) animal, there is something wrong with you. I am not saying that having sex with animals is always morally wrong, but that does not mean it is not a sign of a serious mental disturbance in the individual violating the animal.

By the way, have any of you ever seen the movie Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask? Its a funny movie. Here&#39;s a short clip from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGMYNAabs1s

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Alcaeos
If you have sex with a (non-human) animal, there is something wrong with you Why though? the response &#39;&#39;eew i find this icky&#39;&#39; is a personal opinion, it isnt a material argument against zoophilia.
Are you a vegetarian? I hope so, for fear of being a hypocrite because the practice of killing and eating animals is arguably worse than [consensually]fucking/raping them. Thats precisely why i dont criticise those who do either.

[Ismail]

Animals rely on instinct. They lack reason, which is what separates us from them. This sort of ultra-liberal thought is what&#39;s killing the left. When they have sex, they do it for the intention of reproduction. When you see bunnies reproducing like crazy, it isn&#39;t because they enjoy it. The "enjoyment" bit is just further encouragement. Want to debate whether fucking animals or not should be legal? Well, great, I&#39;ll take the side of making it illegal and not much else can be done, but claiming that they have "sexual feelings" akin to humans is absurd. When a dog humps someones leg, it is due to an urge to reproduce. It isn&#39;t because they want to enjoy having sex, at least not primarily.

When a cat hunts a bird, it won&#39;t logically decide if it is right or wrong to do so. It has to be taught that it is wrong. It needs to understand that it will be punished for doing so by its master. At no point will a cat say "Wait, let me think, is it REALLY right to kill a bird?" Its reluctance is solely based on chance of survival.

The practice of killing and eating animals with fucking them cannot be compared. Thing is, people should be encouraged to fuck human beings, not animals. Those who would rather spend their life "married" to an animal should be viewed as those who dislike the human race and are to be viewed with caution.

I wonder if the original poster also holds Primitivist views...

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:34 am

Those who would rather spend their life "married" to an animal should be viewed as those who dislike the human race and are to be viewed with caution.
...so a gay man who would rather live with a man should be regarded as a mysoginist?
:huh:

Thats what your logic seems to suggest.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 15, 2007 08:58 pm


If a dog starts to hump over my leg and making intercourse with it, I do not take it as it has accidentally moved into me. Other animals are not as discrete as us, mate&#33;
This is absolutely ridiculous. Dogs can&#39;t exactly masturbate themselves, so its absurd to suggest that any action like that means they desire giving or receiving a good reaming.
My dog use to masturbate all the time. Damnest thing I had ever seen.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:34 am
Animals rely on instinct. They lack reason, which is what separates us from them.



Those who would rather spend their life "married" to an animal should be viewed as those who dislike the human race and are to be viewed with caution.

I wonder if the original poster also holds Primitivist views...
LOL or rather what you would like to believe separates us from them for neat conventional social reasons.

Vertebrate behavior including human behavior isn&#39;t automatic or communtational, it involves making judgments and decisions based on the environment. Other animals might like the linguistic ability to articulate their reasoning but they still have reason.


This sort of ultra-liberal thought is what&#39;s killing the left.

yah poor organisation and economic trends have *nothing* to do with it.


When they have sex, they do it for the intention of reproduction. When you see bunnies reproducing like crazy, it isn&#39;t because they enjoy it.

LOL yah right. You really believe that when animals have sex its because they &#39;intend&#39; to reproduce?? I&#39;m sorry but bunnies haven&#39;t taken sex-ed, the connection between sex and reproduction is not obvious (certaintly not the first time&#33;). Sexual behavior is deliberate, the pysiological aspects of reproduction that happen after sex are not.

No, the reverse is true, humans are the only mammals who sometimes have sex to reproduce in addition for entertainment and social reasons, all other mammals do it just for entertaintment and social reasons. Everyone knows that pet dogs *masturbate*, they literally *lick themselves* and hump inanimate objects (and huuman legs). Clearly sex feels good for them the same way it feels good for humans, but unlikely humans, they probably don&#39;t figure out the causal connection between sex and reproduction. I mean, how would they?

You are making the common error of attaching purpose to evolution and *intent* to behavior that has as a consequence genetic fitness.


Want to debate whether fucking animals or not should be legal? Well, great, I&#39;ll take the side of making it illegal and not much else can be done,

Why? You need a good reason to treat something with intolerance, the neutral position is tolerating it.


Want to debate whether fucking animals or not should be legal? Well, great, I&#39;ll take the side of making it illegal and not much else can be done, but claiming that they have "sexual feelings" akin to humans is absurd. When a dog humps someones leg, it is due to an urge to reproduce.

Sure. Explain please? You think that they think that if they hump a peron&#39;s leg then puppies are gonna come out of them or that person in a couple of months? Uh, *maybe* but much more likely it just feels good to them.

Want to debate whether fucking animals or not should be legal? Well, great, I&#39;ll take the side of making it illegal and not much else can be done,


It has to be taught that it is wrong. It needs to understand that it will be punished for doing so by its master.

thats more or less how humans behave as well, so whats your point?


At no point will a cat say "Wait, let me think, is it REALLY right to kill a bird?" Its reluctance is solely based on chance of survival.


same again with most humans, the only difference is that with humans we can appreciate more complicated sets of conflicting interests due to language whereas animals cannot since they can&#39;t communicate on that level.


The practice of killing and eating animals with fucking them cannot be compared.

why not?


Thing is, people should be encouraged to fuck human beings, not animals.

Why?


Those who would rather spend their life "married" to an animal should be viewed as those who dislike the human race and are to be viewed with caution.


Those who would rather spend their life married to an animal clearly have an idiot for a spouse and can be condemned for bad taste in partners...but this subject is sex with animals not monogamous relationships with animals.

[Ismail]

Ulster Socialist:

...so a gay man who would rather live with a man should be regarded as a mysoginist?What the fuck? No. A gay man is a human being, and is just as capable of doing the same things as a women is, or a straight man, or a lesbian women, etc. In short, you&#39;re talking about the human race, I&#39;m talking about those below us, in this case animals.

Nekhludoff:

And, normally, legalistion or state repression wouldn&#39;t solve the problem of zoophilia.Does it make it go away? Of course not, but that doesn&#39;t make it right.

And now, TragicClown:


LOL or rather what you would like to believe separates us from them for neat conventional social reasons.Sorry nature-goddess, but human beings are the rulers of the earth. We have overcome other animal types to become the leaders of nature. We modify DNA, we selectively breed different types of animals, etc. Whether you view these things wrong or not is irrelevant, humans can still easily do them.


Vertebrate behavior including human behavior isn&#39;t automatic or communtational, it involves making judgments and decisions based on the environment. Other animals might like the linguistic ability to articulate their reasoning but they still have reason.To what extent? If they are on top of a building and look below while chasing a squirrel that has gotten on top of an electric wire or some such, they&#39;ll either decide to jump, look where the squirrel is going before making any other actions, or be afraid of the height and go away from the ledge. Now that we&#39;ve essentially wrapped up the reasoning abilities of a dog, welcome to human reasoning&#33;


yah poor organisation and economic trends have *nothing* to do with it.Helping to kill the left*

Is that better? Because I really don&#39;t think the workers will react very well when they hear their organization is fighting for the right to have sex with animals.


LOL yah right. You really believe that when animals have sex its because they &#39;intend&#39; to reproduce?? I&#39;m sorry but bunnies haven&#39;t taken sex-ed, the connection between sex and reproduction is not obvious (certaintly not the first time&#33;). Sexual behavior is deliberate, the pysiological aspects of reproduction that happen after sex are not.

No, the reverse is true, humans are the only mammals who sometimes have sex to reproduce in addition for entertainment and social reasons, all other mammals do it just for entertaintment and social reasons. Everyone knows that pet dogs *masturbate*, they literally *lick themselves* and hump inanimate objects (and huuman legs). Clearly sex feels good for them the same way it feels good for humans, but unlikely humans, they probably don&#39;t figure out the causal connection between sex and reproduction. I mean, how would they?

You are making the common error of attaching purpose to evolution and *intent* to behavior that has as a consequence genetic fitness.1. All things considered, I am pretty sure animals reproduce more than they just want to have sex. Can you back up your claim?

2. A dog licking itself is a single activity, as in there is no one else. The thing is, the dog does not treat this as special, just something that is enjoyable. When people have sex, it is usually a special experience, something that having sex with an animal cannot be. (At least, not on the animals side)

3. So when a dog who has already had offspring, they don&#39;t actually want them again and will only have sex in mind when, well, having sex?


Why? You need a good reason to treat something with intolerance, the neutral position is tolerating it.Because animals cannot comprehend sex as a special act. They only think it feels good, that&#39;s the only thing in their mind.


thats more or less how humans behave as well, so whats your point?

same again with most humans, the only difference is that with humans we can appreciate more complicated sets of conflicting interests due to language whereas animals cannot since they can&#39;t communicate on that level.Uh, no, a human feels emotions much more easily than an animal does unless they&#39;re raised in the wilderness with animals themselves. The community will soon make them understand that they do not need a "If you don&#39;t do this, I&#39;ll beat you up" attitude as being the only reason not to do something.


why not?

Why?1. Circle of life, you know of it yes? We eat an animal that has already been dead. Whether it is necessary in todays day to do it or not is the debate. As for why it is not the same as fucking an animal, we move onto 2; because human beings, able to understand the concept of sex in their own separate way, benefit more by engaging in it with human beings whereas a dog by comparison does not understand sex any further than "it feels good". There is no "cheating" on other dogs/lifeforms or anything like that by a dog since animals/lifeforms do not take sex seriously like human beings do.


Those who would rather spend their life married to an animal clearly have an idiot for a spouse and can be condemned for bad taste in partners...but this subject is sex with animals not monogamous relationships with animals.I was talking about those who literally marry their pets in a way that later they use it to convince themselves that they can fuck them.

[crimsonzephyr]

i find it disgusting personally...

but i guess it could be looked at as natural. i mean we are animals too, we just have bigger brains

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Animals rely on instinct. They lack reason, which is what separates us from them. This sort of ultra-liberal thought is what's killing the left. When they have sex, they do it for the intention of reproduction. When you see bunnies reproducing like crazy, it isn't because they enjoy it. The "enjoyment" bit is just further encouragement. Want to debate whether fucking animals or not should be legal? Well, great, I'll take the side of making it illegal and not much else can be done, but claiming that they have "sexual feelings" akin to humans is absurd. When a dog humps someones leg, it is due to an urge to reproduce. It isn't because they want to enjoy having sex, at least not primarily.

When a cat hunts a bird, it won't logically decide if it is right or wrong to do so. It has to be taught that it is wrong. It needs to understand that it will be punished for doing so by its master. At no point will a cat say "Wait, let me think, is it REALLY right to kill a bird?" Its reluctance is solely based on chance of survival.

The practice of killing and eating animals with fucking them cannot be compared. Thing is, people should be encouraged to fuck human beings, not animals. Those who would rather spend their life "married" to an animal should be viewed as those who dislike the human race and are to be viewed with caution.

I wonder if the original poster also holds Primitivist views...
Why would you make zoophilia illegal? I find nothing in any of your posts to justify your stance. I agree with you that we are the dominant species, and I personally don't believe animals have rights (at least not in the same way humans do). But how does this mean that we should lock up human beings for having sex with animals? Should we also lock up people for using vibrators?


but i guess it could be looked at as natural. i mean we are animals too, we just have bigger brains
It's not about whether or not it's "natural". Something being "unnatural" does not justify its prohibition.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I dislike zoophilia not because of any rational foundation, but because my entire being is revolting against the thought of it. But I am not trying to hide it behind platitudes.

Bestiality is a biological deviance from the natural order of intra-species sexual relations.

And I'm with Luis and Mrdie here: this is bourgeois social liberalism gone too far (I guess this is a HUGE leftover from my Stalinist days, in terms of sympathizing with certain aspects of a typical worker's social conservatism :) ).



Morally speaking, this is on the same level as hunting animals for sport, cockfighting, and hunting sharks for their fins (leaving them to die slowly without their fins). TragicClown: at least killing animals for food right there and then minimizes to the utmost the cruelty inflicted upon them.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Bestiality is a biological deviance from the natural order of intra-species sexual relations.

And I'm with Luis and Mrdie here: this is bourgeois social liberalism gone too far (I guess this is a HUGE leftover from my Stalinist days, in terms of sympathizing with certain aspects of a typical worker's social conservatism http://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/smilies/smile.gif ).
Social conservatism? Are you homophobic too?

And how is intra-species sexual relations the "natural order"? And how is this relevant to legality, should only "natural" things be legal?



Morally speaking, this is on the same level as hunting animals for sport, cockfighting, and hunting sharks for their fins (leaving them to die slowly without their fins). TragicClown: at least killing animals for food right there and then minimizes to the utmost the cruelty inflicted upon them.
How is it the same as any of those things? Assuming sex does not inherently cause the animals severe physical pain (which I doubt it does) how can you call sex with animals "cruel"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm NOT homophobic, obviously. Homosexuality falls within the natural order of intra-species sexual relations.


And how is intra-species sexual relations the "natural order"?

Animals have sex with others of their own species in order to: reproduce and continue the existence of their species, or strengthen the bond between the sex partners (chimps having sex all the time within their group, regardless of the gender of their sex partners).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm NOT homophobic, obviously. Homosexuality falls within the natural order of intra-species sexual relations.



Animals have sex with others of their own species in order to: reproduce and continue the existence of their species, or strengthen the bond between the sex partners (chimps having sex all the time, regardless of the gender of their sex partners).
Right, so one night stands should be illegal too then? And the use of vibrators or dildos? And masturbation? They don't fit either of those criteria (assuming protection was used during the one night stand) and thus fall outside the "natural order of intra-species sexual relations".

Again, what makes you think this "natural order" is a suitable test for determining whether or not something should be illegal?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Humans are a rather "peculiar" species when it comes to sex. They can have sex with others of their own species for reasons other than the two I cited. One-night stands do have an equivalent in animalia - in those species where only the mother takes care of the offspring (while the father "moves on") - and the usage of "protection" in our species is due to our having intellect (something lacking in pretty much the rest of animalia).

As for self-stimulation, I did say "with others of their own species" and "intra-species sexual relations"; self-stimulation may be sex, but it isn't a "sexual relation" (I'm really picky with semantics here).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

^^^ Humans are a rather "peculiar" species when it comes to sex. They can have sex with others of their own species for reasons other than the two I cited. One-night stands do have an equivalent in animalia - in those species where only the mother takes care of the offspring (while the father "moves on") - and the usage of "protection" in our species is due to our having intellect (something lacking in pretty much the rest of animalia).

As for self-stimulation, I did say "with others of their own species" and "intra-species sexual relations"; self-stimulation may be sex, but it isn't a "sexual relation" (I'm really picky with semantics here).
Okay, so now you're saying that we don't have to limit ourselves to those two criteria. So this "natural order" thing doesn't really mean all that much anymore.

You still haven't justified the stance that only "intra-species" sexual relations should be legal. Are you saying that, because animals don't do it, we should prohibit people from doing it as well? This seems to be what you're getting at; you try to support the existence of a "natural order of intra-species sexual relations" by saying that "[a]nimals have sex with others of their own species in order to...[and so forth]". But coming back then to protected one night stands, animals don't have those either. You claim that they have an equivalent in animalia, but surely the thing that distinguishes a one night stand from any other sexual act is that it is done purely for the fun of it, without a view to reproduction or strengthening any bond? You endorsed the view of Mrdie, who claimed that animals don't have sex for enjoyment. So how can you compare these cases in animalia to one night stands, which are done purely for enjoyment?

You also failed to address my point about vibrators or dildos. You make a fair distinction between a sexual relation and self stimulation (masturbation). But by using a vibrator you are self-stimulating by external means. It may seem absurd on the surface to say that this is essentially the same thing as having "sex" with an animal, but legally that's what animals are: objects, property. So where is the distinction here?

To those of you who disagree with the premises of this post (TC et al), I am arguing on Jacob Richter's premises, not my own.

[Luís Henrique]

It seems most people classify sexual acts into two categories:

1. Things that we think are OK; and
2. Things that should be declared illegal.

Obviously it isn't like that.

Zoophilia should not be illegal; there is no reason to make it illegal. Animals have no rights, so their "raping" is immaterial from a criminological point of view.

Which doesn't mean, on the other hand, that we should celebrate interspecies "weddings", or that it is possible for interspecies "couples" to engage in social life as human couples do. I don't want to send anyone to jail for fucking mares, but I also don't want anyone to bring a "marefriend" to my parties. And no, that's not bigotry.

And that last part is what is irritating with people's obsession about zoophilia. It is not a political issue. "Discrimination" against zoophiles is not something of the same kind as discrimination against homosexuals or bisexuals (or polyamorous or promiscuous people, or celibataries, for what it matters). Zoophilia is a weird and gross mental disorder, not a sexual orientation. It cannot be given the "citizenship rights" that homosexuality or promiscuity deserve. Why do we have to pretend that it is a political issue, why do we have to pretend that there should be a "zoophiles liberation movement", why do we have to adhere to such political correctness gone mad?

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

Animals have no rights

This isn't true for many countries. Animal abuse is often a punishable crime.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This isn't true for many countries. Animal abuse is often a punishable crime.
As is defilement of property, but the property doesn't have rights.

Animals are, however, granted certain protections. These are not the same as rights.

[chimx]

Well you can argue over the semantics all you want. Whether animals are protected from abuse, or have some sort of rights to live free from abuse, the point is that we have decided it improper to physically abuse animals.

I'm not a legal expert, but I imagine that sticking your dong into an unwilling animal anus could possibly be construed as such.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well you can argue over the semantics all you want. Whether animals are protected from abuse, or have some sort of rights to live free from abuse, the point is that we have decided it improper to physically abuse animals.

I'm not a legal expert, but I imagine that sticking your dong into an unwilling animal anus could possibly be construed as such.
Only if it causes the animal severe physical pain, which I highly doubt it would (considering animals stick their "dongs" into each other's anuses all the time). Animals have been granted protection against severe physical pain and torture by humans. They have not been granted a protection against violation of their bodily integrity; we choose what animals in our possession eat all the time, without any form of consent from the animal. We also neuter them and give them vaccinations at will, again, no consent from the animal. It is clear that bodily integrity is not one of the "rights" we have granted to animals (and rightly so, in my opinion, as most animals clearly lack the capacity to give a shit when their bodily integrity is violated, so long as they'r enot harmed).

[chimx]

Only if it causes the animal severe physical pain

Perhaps I have just been witness to more of the darker sides of the internet than some. It often doesn't always look pleasant for the animals (i.e.: blood).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Perhaps I have just been witness to more of the darker sides of the internet than some. It often doesn't always look pleasant for the animals (i.e.: blood).
Well obviously if, while having sex with an animal, you manage to cause it severe physical pain/injury then you would be liable for cruelty to animals. But not all sex has to be like that. What I'm saying is that fucking an animal should not be a crime in itself.

[Luís Henrique]

Well obviously if, while having sex with an animal, you manage to cause it severe physical pain/injury then you would be liable for cruelty to animals. But not all sex has to be like that. What I'm saying is that fucking an animal should not be a crime in itself.

It shouldn't (and probably isn't under most jurisdictions, at least in the normal, ie, non-Anglo-Saxon, world). Drinking pee shouldn't be illegal too, and probably isn't. It isn't a political issue, and piss-drinkers aren't an oppressed minority. That's all.

Luís Henrique

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It shouldn't (and probably isn't under most jurisdictions, at least in the normal, ie, non-Anglo-Saxon, world). Drinking pee shouldn't be illegal too, and probably isn't. It isn't a political issue, and piss-drinkers aren't an oppressed minority. That's all.

Luís Henrique
Is that really all, or are you going to come back in another five minutes and tell us again about how you don't care about this issue? Honestly, if you think this is a non-issue and you don't care then why do you still post here? Please, leave the discussion to those who wish to discuss.

[chimx]

Well obviously if, while having sex with an animal, you manage to cause it severe physical pain/injury then you would be liable for cruelty to animals. But not all sex has to be like that. What I'm saying is that fucking an animal should not be a crime in itself.

I just wanted to clarify that there are protections we have granted animals that are relevant to the bestiality.


Drinking pee shouldn't be illegal too

I see you have been visiting the same websites that I have.

[Luís Henrique]

Is that really all, or are you going to come back in another five minutes and tell us again about how you don't care about this issue? Honestly, if you think this is a non-issue and you don't care then why do you still post here? Please, leave the discussion to those who wish to discuss.

I don't care about zoophilia; I certainly care about such an issue being debated in a "discrimination" forum in a "revolutionary left" message board.

Luís Henrique

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't care about zoophilia; I certainly care about such an issue being debated in a "discrimination" forum in a "revolutionary left" message board.

Luís Henrique
It's in the Science and Environment section.

[Luís Henrique]

I see you have been visiting the same websites that I have.

Do you visit the American Psychiatric Association website?! ;)

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

It's in the Science and Environment section.

Oh, that's true, gee. And it should be in Chit Chat.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

In my opinion, if there is one thing that's sillier than a person who shags animals, it's a person who opposes the shagging of animals on the grounds that it's 'cruel' and the animal can't 'consent'. Animals are not conscious beings, they don't have wills, and they don't have the ability to consent, or to not consent, to anything.

[Xiao Banfa]

Of course animals can't consent or not consent to anything, they are completely ambivalent about what happens to them.

They are neither for or against. Whether they find a nice patch of grass to eat or get electrocuted, it's all the same to them.

I think the reall issue at stake here is the fact that not having sex with animals is inhumane and should be bitterly fought against.

[chimx]

Animals are not conscious beings

Are you serious? Are you suggesting that animals are unconscious?

[Xiao Banfa]

Are you suggesting that animals are unconscious?


Marx did.

[apathy maybe]

Ah, but Marx lived a long time ago and wasn't a biologist or psychologist or similar.

Would you also believe Marx if he said that nothing is smaller then an atom?

Or what about if he had said that Leo's are more prone to violent outbursts...

[chimx]

wtf? being unconscious means the inability to respond to sensory stimuli. e.g.: being asleep or dead.

Why do so many people here use words incorrectly?

[Xiao Banfa]

wtf? being unconscious means the inability to respond to sensory stimuli. e.g.: being asleep or dead.


I think Marx was using the term in it's philosophical capacity.

Marx said what distinguishes humans from (other) animals is labour.

While animals go about their daily business without any aspiration for change or betterment, humans stand back and consciously evaluate then work to improve things.

[chimx]

None of that has to do with consciousness.

You are referring to sapiency, which is in itself a vague term with no real measure.