Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 39 of 170 (415098)
08-08-2007 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


Genetics make no difference. We already know that people are strongly genetically influenced to commit crimes such as murder and rape - we don't, and shouldn't, consider these to be mitigating factors.
In my opinion Bestiality should be considered purely a animal welfare and public health and safety issue. Someone humping a chicken, for example, will demonstrate pretty clear evidence of harm - a women getting it on with a dog on the other hand? Well, the big issues are disease transfer and issues of human-dog hierarchy and the resulting canine control issues.
As for bestial porn, no reason it shouldn't be treated similarly to other forms of pornography provided it meets suitable levels of animal welfare standards.
Regarding animal welfare: I take the view that many of the ways animals are treated in our society are obscene and should be dealt with. And, frankly, I'm speaking specifically of farming.
Consent is bordering on a non-sequitur when it comes to animals.

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 42 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:27 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 51 of 170 (415136)
08-08-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Straggler
08-08-2007 9:27 AM


Re: Morally
I don't consider bestiality to have any special moral status; it is simply a matter of animal welfare and public health.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:27 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 63 of 170 (415209)
08-08-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
08-08-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Dealing with our own problems
With bestiality, the rational thing is to not treat it any differently than human-human sex.
I disagree, for similar reasons to Archer Optrix.
Instead, I'd argue, the rational thing to do is not treat it any differently than any other use of animals by humans - it should not endager other people, and it should not cause undue levels of harm to the animal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 5:20 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 10:15 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 64 of 170 (415210)
08-08-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Er... I don't find bestiality disgusting.
Historically, it's also not considered disgusting - more than a few religious ceremonies or rituals have involved human-animal sexual contact.
However, we all hail from a broadly similar society, which itself springs from the medieval traditions of the Catholic Church - a church that was always big on sexual repression. The revulsion of bestiality, like that of many other sexual practices, lies in these historical routes more than inate nature of humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:27 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 84 of 170 (415281)
08-09-2007 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:27 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Er, no. Not my bag baby.
I have seen bestial pornography though; I can't say that it disgusted me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:27 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 105 of 170 (415449)
08-10-2007 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2007 6:49 PM


Re: Rat is right
I think what we tend to do is look at morality from an objective, far off stance, which, in and of itself is not a terrible thing to do. But when you place the proponent in a personal situation, you tend to see those supposed amoralities becoming more and more relevant to them.
No, what you see is your own ingrained prejudices, and those of those around you brought to the fore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2007 6:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 11:59 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 110 of 170 (415495)
08-10-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Overcoming cultural norms
What difference does it make that I wouldn't or wouldn't? All that would tell you is whether or not I'm prejudiced.
As it happens, my girlfriend does engage in sexual practices I find pretty disgusting (not bestiality!). But she does so with the informed consent of all involved, enjoys it and no one gets harmed. Why would whether I am disgusted by it or not be a relevant factor?
So, once again, Bestiality is an issue of animal welfare and public health - nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 11:59 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 1:16 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 129 of 170 (415866)
08-12-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2007 1:16 PM


Re: Overcoming cultural norms
Or you refuse to answer the question because you understand fully the implications involved. Why not just answer the question, instead of answering a question with a question, which is no answer at all?
Because I'm arguing that my answer is irrelevant. Whether I, personally, would be disgusted by my (hypothetical) wife, son or daughter getting it on with an animal is entirely irrelevant to the morality of the act. My position is that personal disgust is an unsound basis for moral judgement.
I noticed you stated this emphatically and with an exclamation point, no less. You seemed to make a point of letting us all know that your illustration was not about beastiality. What are you concerned about if it is not immoral?
My girlfriends feeling on the matter?
Ever seen a dog humping a persons leg? Suppose a female human allows for a male dog to copulate with her. Is the issue really about the welfare of the animal, since he seems more than willing, of his own volition, to do so?
I agree. As I said it is an animal welfare and public health issue - if no harm is done on these grounds then it is not immoral. I'd still be concerned about someone getting it on with the family dog though because of the links in dog society between sex and dominance.
Do you acquire consent from an animal right before you eat it? Do you acquire consent from a cow before you drink her milk? Do acquire consent from her when you wear leather?
I've already stated my position that consent is irrelevant with respect to human-animal sexual relations. For the reasons you state.
Probably not. Therefore, the issue is not with the well-being of the animal.
Wrong. The issue of consent does not come into issues of animal welfare. You can still expect standards of care without expecting consent. This is, in fact, how are animal welfare laws (as weak as they are) are drafted. You have a duty of care; not a duty to obtain consent.
There is something inherent in man that says such practices are taboo. I never learned that through prejudice, because no one ever had to inform me that beastiality is squalid. I figured that out without any help from anyone else.
There's no evidence for that, in fact the reverse is true: disgust seems very much to be learned reaction (with exceptions - humans do seem have an inate disgust for parasites, puss and deformation). I see no reason to believe that disgust of bestiality is not culturally acquired.
Why then is it so universally unaccepted?
It isn't. There are cultures in which human-animal sexual contact was normal; even religious or ceremonial in nature. Your apparent 'universality' is simply an result of the fact that we all live in a broadly similar culture - one which has had two thousand years of Christian teaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 11:46 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 131 of 170 (415869)
08-12-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by anastasia
04-16-2003 6:36 PM


Poor terminology
I tend to think the absolute/relative distinction is actual quite poor. While there are true moral relativists and moral absolutionists out there the majority of discussions are actually between camps that might be better described as moral objectivists and moral subjectivists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 04-16-2003 6:36 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 133 of 170 (415958)
08-13-2007 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
08-12-2007 11:46 PM


Re: Overcoming cultural norms
Then what is your answer despite the supposed irrelevancy?
For the last time: it's irrelevant so I'm not giving an answer.
Then you have effectively emasculated yourself as a husband and a father. If you can't voice your opinion to your own family for fear of unsound basis for moral judgements, then when can you?
If I wasn't worried about the soundness of any moral judgement I make then I'd be a very poor moral teacher on any subject. I didn't say I couldn't voice my opinion. What I said is that disgust is not a good basis for moral judgement.
More yours than hers, being that we already know her feeling on the hypothetical situation.
Really? Do you? And how exactly do you know that? Where do you get off telling me how someone you've never met feels? Go back and read the thread of questions and answers that led to my response and reconsider because, frankly, your response is remarkably rude.
Why would sex with an animal be any more dangerous to public health than humans having sex with other humans?
Because of the increased risks of facilitating the cross species transfer of new diseases. I don't know how big a risk that is.
[qs]Are you aware that you are making definitive moral statements about the welfare of the animal, all the while denying another? You're running in to the same problem.[/quote]
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, please elaborate.
Show me specific cultures that embrace zoophilia en masse for me to even begin to entertain the notion.
I refer you to this article from Wikipedia.
Some exerts:
quote:
The Sagaholm is a Swedish barrow with zoosexual carvings that dates to the early Nordic Bronze Age.
Plutarch and Virgil state of Greece, that: "it commits very frequently and in many places great outrages, disorders and scandals against nature, in the matter of this pleasure of love; for there are men who have loved she-goats, sows and mares," (Discourse on the Reason of Beasts, xvii) Pliny states that Semiramis prostituted herself to her horse, and Venette says that "there is nothing more common in Egypt than that young women have intercourse with bucks."
Among the Maasai, it was customary for older boys to have sexual relations with she-asses. Young Riffian boys (a Morrocan tribe) also had sexual liaisons with female asses (Ford and Beach, 1951, pp. 147-148).
Your culture is not all cultures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 11:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 143 of 170 (416182)
08-14-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Stile
08-14-2007 9:45 AM


Re: Wrong motives
What he said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:45 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 153 of 170 (416434)
08-15-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Omnivorous
08-15-2007 5:53 PM


Re: Inconsistency does not cancel out.
So a carnivore must grant moral carte blanche to any treatment of animals? All life feeds on life: it is the great necessary contract of our being, vegan, carnivore, and omnivore alike. That necessity does not blot out all other moral concerns.
Absolutely not.
But it does blot out 'consent' as a concern. If you don't ask consent to kill something, how can you ask consent to fuck it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Omnivorous, posted 08-15-2007 5:53 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Omnivorous, posted 08-15-2007 7:56 PM Dr Jack 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