Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 24 of 170 (415004)
08-07-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
08-06-2007 3:36 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
Rationally I agree with what you say. Feeling wise it still seems more 'wrong' somehow.
....
Is there a line?
If so where is it?
Is the process of setting a boundary one that depends wholly on reason? Do feelings have a say?
If so, what is their rightful role?
If not, why do we so often give them one?
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 3:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 2:06 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 2:23 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 58 of 170 (415194)
08-08-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
08-08-2007 5:20 PM


What could be more rational?
Stile:
With bestiality, the rational thing is to not treat it any differently than human-human sex.
Very rational indeed. Anyone can see it's no different than any garden variety human-to-human sex with a partner

--who operates at a nonverbal level of intelligence
--can be bought, owned and sold like furniture
--whose environment, including contact with other members of its species, can be completely controlled by you
--whose patterns you can predict based on your species' accumulated research
--who lacks any similar access to knowledge about you
--who lacks any knowledge that you have the research knowledge
--who depends on you completely for feeding and care
--who is incapable, by definition, of providing genuine human companionship.
Really. What rational person would entertain a doubt?
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 5:20 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:23 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 70 of 170 (415235)
08-08-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:23 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
I'm flattered by your curiosity, Straggler.
I'm getting to your question.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:23 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 72 of 170 (415237)
08-08-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
08-08-2007 6:29 PM


Re: rationality, morality
NJ:
In moral terms, the argument seems to be on the end of the animal rather than the human-- i.e., that its immoral to put an animal through that because it cannot consent.
It isn't really correct to say the moral argument so far is 'on the end of the animal.'
Your word 'immoral' describes which party? The human, yes?
Human morality is the only morality that has ever been under discussion.
But just so it's clear: my Message 58, posted just before this observation of yours, did not address morals. Some points could well have had moral implications for some readers. But the subject was reason.
Stile had said it was rational to view bestiality the same way we would view a human sexual relationships. He was careful, too, to distinguish this perceived 'rationality' from moral approval.
I challenged his statement by showing that it is not very rational at all to assume equivalence. The activities proceed on very different bases. If we saw a human coupling operating on the same bases a bestial coupling does, we would find the arrangement very strange indeed.
Someone could still make a case that bestiality is 'rational.' But that case has to be made on grounds other than an assumed analogy with human sex. The social structures are different. The analogy is flawed.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 6:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 10:27 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 82 of 170 (415261)
08-09-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:23 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
Archer where exactly do you stand on this issue?
Pardon the length. You asked.
1. Amoral Morality
First, I'm not much interested in 'morality.' I rarely find it productive, or even interesting, to get into rulings (rule manufacture) the way so many discussions here seem to ask us to do. I find it much more useful in life to ask what is healthy or unhealthy, appropriate or inappropriate, fair or unfair, realistic or unrealistic. In relationships I ask what contracts exist between people and whether those contracts are being met. Funny thing is, I find that when I ask these questions instead, the 'moral' issues tend to tidy themselves up rather well by the end of the day.
Second, I'm fine with knowledge that reaches me by means other than reason. If a conviction springs from intuition or emotion or sensation rather than reason (more often, in tandem with it), it's still information. These are functions of mind that yield valid ways of knowing. You still have to test them against each other. All forms of knowledge have limits. Sometimes reason needs some time to catch up to what the intuition senses at once. Sometimes emotions have to catch up to sensation, and so on.
Life is jazz. You have to think with your heart and feel with your brain. You do your best.
Let me walk you through a scenario. The 'you' in this story is not you personally, or anyone else here. I'm just asking you, the reader, to view events through the eyes of one character.
2. One Day at the Office
You work in an office. You get on the elevator one Monday, the door closes, the elevator starts rising. You notice your colleague Bob standing next to you. Bob is wearing a crisp grey suit and a white shirt and a blue tie, with black wingtip shoes.
Bob is also wearing his underwear on the outside. It's inside-out. It's dirty.
Your first reaction is "WTF?!" You want to get away from this guy. This is wrong. It's disgusting. It's crazy.
But you can't, for the moment. So, between floors 3 and 9, you get to think a little longer. You start to question your first reaction.
You ask if it is really rational for you to have such an intense aversion to Bob's choice of wardrobe. After all, no one is being hurt by this. Isn't it just a matter of taste? Doesn't society shape what we view as 'normal' and what we view as 'abnormal' in the workplace? Aren't many of society's rules arbitrary, and don't they change? And what about the problems that occur when people accept society's traditions blindly? Isn't that what you were doing in your first reaction? Isn't Bob's choice about how to wear his underwear no different, really, than the choice you made this morning about how to wear your hair?
By the time you get to floor 7, you feel rather ashamed of your first reaction. Bob is doing you a favour, really. By standing next to you with his underwear on the outside, he is giving you a chance to grow out of your little box of prejudices. He is giving you a chance to transform your beliefs and widen your circle of acceptance. He is giving you the invitation, and the challenge, to accept him without judging him.
By the time you step out on the ninth floor, this is a challenge you feel ready to meet.
As you take your seat at your desk your thoughts turn to the health risks of Bob's choice... but you catch yourself. Truth to tell, your own collar isn't that clean today, either. Anyway, you have no plans to sit in the same chair Bob uses--and how would even that be different than the risks you take every time you use a public restroom? And it's not as if the air in this building is so great. You allow yourself to breathe that crud in and out of your lungs for hours at a stretch. Who are you to raise health issues now? No, you decide, you will not blow health concerns out of proportion to justify your irrational prejudice against Bob's wardrobe. You will overcome your initial reaction. You will accept Bob as he is.
Bob walks around the floor, talking to co-workers. They notice the underwear, of course, and when he leaves the area they talk. Some are instantly disgusted, some laugh, but as they talk to you and to each other they begin to see things in a new light.
One of your colleagues, Dave, works on a volunteer basis at an AIDs hospice. This guy knows a few things about the challenge of overcoming prejudice. He doesn't want to be like some of the people he has seen, struggling to muster even a hug for suffering sons and daughters. He wants to be inclusive. He refuses to judge Bob for being different. He accepts Bob for how he is.
Another of your colleagues, Sarah, is a born-again. She searched her NIV Bible this morning and assures everyone that no commandment exists against wearing your underwear on the outside. Bob is morally in the clear. In the absence of a "Thus saith the Lord" on the subject she will not judge. We are all God's children.
The mailroom guy thinks the situation is weird, but has trouble explaining why. He delivers the mail in a hurry and heads back downstairs.
Another of your colleagues, Darci, is a Pentecostal. She thinks Bob has a gift. He is giving all of you a sign: though we all have our dirty linen, one day our garments will be made white as snow. His underwear is a living testimony, to be received with humility and thanksgiving.
Bob continues to walk around the floor. People smile, talk with him, inwardly monitor their sense of revulsion and congratulate themselves if they feel it fading. All is well.
Except for one thing.
This is crazy.
Showing up to work wearing underwear on the outside is crazy. It is a cry for help.
And no one is helping.
Your first reaction was sound. You sensed something wasn't right. You thought 'This is crazy.' You couldn't produce, on the spot, a list of itemized reasons for this response. But no matter. The thing to have done, as soon as you got off the elevator, was pull Bob aside and help him contact a professional psychologist--then see that he ran, not walked, to his appointment.
It didn't happen because everyone around Bob ignored the information their first reactions gave them. They decided they weren't entitled to the reaction. Each of them kidded themselves that they knew everything they needed to know about human behaviour. They assumed any problems to be in their own minds and not in Bob's. No one considered that, because of lack of training, they might be in over their heads with the whole situation and that it might be a good idea to call an expert.
And that trained professional could tell you plenty. She could tell you about the research that has been done on Bob's problem, about the frequency of inside-out clothing as a distress signal among the mentally disturbed, about the name given to his disorder in the DSM, and about the effectiveness of some new meds. She can tell you all the reasons you couldn't think of why your first reaction was a sound one. That professional can do more for Bob in 8 minutes than you and all his co-workers did for him in 8 hours. And why not? It's her field of expertise, not yours. All you had to do was get him there.
Bob's problem--and it was always a problem--never had anything to do with making Dave a better liberal or Sarah a better evangelical or you a more non-judgemental person. It was not a moral test. Bob needed prompt, capable, professional help. What he got was... naive.
Which brings us to the topic.
3. What If
If I'm the father of a teenager, and I learn the teenager is having sex with a Great Dane, I'm not wasting a second pondering moral questions and my own capacity for acceptance.
I'm calling a professional and we're going to find out what's going on. Pronto.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair, clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by anastasia, posted 08-09-2007 2:38 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 10:07 AM Archer Opteryx has replied
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 3:09 PM Archer Opteryx has replied
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 08-10-2007 8:30 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 100 of 170 (415347)
08-09-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taz
08-09-2007 3:09 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
Taz:
I don't think your analogy really matches up with what we are talking about here. If anything, it looks more like an emotive argument dressed in clever and humorous wordings.
I'm genuinely glad you enjoyed the story, Taz. And I'm always happy to read the opinion of Warner Brothers cartoon characters I meet on message boards.
I would still call a professional for the teenager.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 3:09 PM Taz has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 112 of 170 (415501)
08-10-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Stile
08-09-2007 10:07 AM


Re: where is the actual license to practice?
Stile:
And what if the professional's opinion was simply that nothing was going on, nothing was wrong, and your teenager only enjoyed having sex with a Great Dane?
Is that your professional opinion?
But you haven't even interviewed the teenager!
Your procedure is highly unprofessional, doctor. A professional psychologist would insist on conducting at least one personal interview before issuing a pronouncement of any kind. It's unethical to do otherwise.
But wait--maybe you're not a professional. Your profile identifies you as a 'controls engineer.'
Do you help people write their wills, too?
Lots of things seem "abnormal". Yes, some are from crazy folk. But plenty are not. That's the whole problem, isn't it? Figuring out if bestiality is a part of "crazy folk" or just something some people do differently than others.
It can be difficult for us amateurs, yes. That's why, in real life, I don't expect amateurs to figure it out. This is a complex area of human behaviour. I call someone with expertise.
You are entitled to your unprofessional opinion, though, of course.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 10:07 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Stile, posted 08-10-2007 2:43 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 115 of 170 (415546)
08-10-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Stile
08-10-2007 2:43 PM


Stile:
it's not an opinion.
Very well.
Now, again, what's your objection?
I never made an objection.
If I had, you would hardly have to ask for one, would you?
I have discussed what I would do in a real life situation.
If you actually have a rational reason why negative results are unavoidable when engaging in bestiality, I'd like to know about them.
Invalid premise. I never said negative results are unavoidable when engaging in bestiality.
No one (including you) has been able to identify any, yet.
Invalid conclusion. I offered no defence of an assertion I never made. A conclusion about my 'ability' on that basis is irrational.
Until then, I'm going to assume that you don't have a rational reason, and you're just making this up because you find it "gross".
You might want to go easy on those sweeping dismissals. You've done plenty of assuming already, and 'rational reasons' are lacking in more areas than you've considered.
In the case of the teen, I would still contact a professional.
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Stile, posted 08-10-2007 2:43 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Stile, posted 08-13-2007 9:00 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 126 of 170 (415752)
08-11-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Straggler
08-10-2007 8:30 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
Straggler:
When does abnormality become a psychosis of some sort? Who decides?
Professionals in the field of abnormal psychology.
There was a time not all that long ago where unmarried mothers and gay men would have met with exactly the sort of treatment you are espousing for bestialists.
An interview with a professional psychologist if the person was a minor?
Isn't that which is considered mad and that which is considered acceptable deviation from the norm wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of the time and place?
Circular question. Take away the passive voice (which obscures the subject of the sentence) and you can see.
You've asked this:
Isn't that which society considers mad and that which society considers acceptable deviation from the norm dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?
The answer is yes. But that tells us nothing about mental illness. It's a tautology. We've said society is as society does.
What society 'considers' anything to be is dependent on the prevailing culture of that society. It defines that culture.
You can do this with anything. You might as well ask:
Isn't that which society considers a brain tumour and that which society considers an acceptable deviation from the norm wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?
Or this:
Isn't that which society considers a tornado and that which society considers an acceptable deviation from the norm wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?
Or this:
Isn't that which society considers a rational number and that which society considers an irrational number wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?
Or this:
Isn't that which society considers an element and that which society considers a compound wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?
The answer to all these questions (if anyone was wondering) is yes.
Society is always the expert on what society thinks. If you want to know what it 'considers' something, ask it.
To the extent, though, that a society's 'prevailing culture' values empirical inquiry, research data, and clear categories with established criteria, it will look for its final decisions to something other than popular hearsay. It will look to specialists who have regular access to relevant data and who understand better than most people how to interpret it.
That's why, in our society, you don't survey ballet dancers and systems engineers to interpret a brain X-ray. You talk to a neurologist.
If you need to know why the sky looks different today, you ask a meteorologist.
If you need a functioning definition of rational numbers, you ask a mathematician.
If you need a functioning definition of a chemical element, you ask a chemist.
And if you need a functioning definition of psychological disorder, you ask a psychologist.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 08-10-2007 8:30 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 138 of 170 (416072)
08-13-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Stile
08-13-2007 9:00 AM


Calling a Pro - why not?
I have said that I would call a psychology professional in the case of a minor.
It's obvious, Stile, that this choice bothers you. You have been eager to challenge me ever since over statements you imagined me making, or wish me to make, rather than thoughts I have actually shared. This is disappointing, as I took some time and trouble to share them, and many address issues in the fights you seem eager to pick.
What you have not done is explain to all of us on this board why, in the case of a minor in our care, you think seeking the advice of a professional is a bad idea.
Please do so. Provide rational support for your objection.
If you actually have no objection to the idea, please say as much for the sake of clarity.
In the absence of a rationally supported objection, I have no cause to question the belief underlying my action. That belief is this: It is at least as rational, caring, and responsible for a person to seek the advice of an expert, who has access to relevant research, as it is to accept the opinion of a lay person with no little or no training.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Stile, posted 08-13-2007 9:00 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:20 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 166 of 170 (416596)
08-16-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Stile
08-14-2007 9:20 AM


Nothing wrong with a check-up
I didn't bother to offer a direct response to your hypothetical question because all hypotheticals about 'what the professional might say' were addressed in my statement. I said I would not hesitate to take a teen in my care to see a professional at my own expense. My respect for the opinion of a professional psychologist is thus a matter of record.
Beyond that it is useless to speculate about particulars--to play the game of 'What if the professional says this? What if that?' The game cannot be played realistically in the abstract because human behaviour is complex. In real life a professional won't venture an opinion without first gathering data. Who is the teen? Who are the teen's parents, siblings, and friends? What are those relationships like? What is the teen's history? What other behaviours are in the picture? And what part of the world are we in while all this happening, anyway?
These things, and more, enter the picture in real life.
In contrast to this, you pose a comically limited pair of choices. Either the psychologist will declare the client 'all clear' or 'insane.'
This cartoonish choice is not realistic. Human behaviour is complex, as I said. People do what they do for a variety of reasons. Context is everything. Psychology professionals know this better than anyone.
You earlier rushed to a conclusion, since retracted, that bestiality should be viewed as analogous to consensual sex between human adults. You retracted this statement when your attention was called to some obvious differences. Bestiality, unlike human sex between consenting adults, involves sex with a creature that (1) operates at a nonverbal level of intelligence, (2) has no rights under law, (3) is bought and sold as property, and (4) cannot (by definition) offer human companionship.
After making your retraction, though, you showed no interest in the implications of these differences. But they are not trivial. They establish that bestiality proceeds from fundamentally different premises than sex between consenting human adults.
What is the biggest difference, besides the obvious one of species?
Many observers would say power.
On this basis an intelligent observer might reasonably ask whether power issues are involved in the case of a teen that seeks sex with Great Danes.
If this proves to be the case, it might be useful to ask how those issues came to be linked with sex in the life of the teen and to ask what other behaviours, if any, might spring from the same issues.
Your posts give no evidence that you have considered any of this or that you wish to. But many people would find the linkage of sex with disproportionate power relationships on the part of an active teen to be... well, at least worth exploring.
Some of those people, as it happens, are experts in the field of psychology.
I don't see how finding animals sexually attractive jumps from "one more thing some people like different then others" right into "we better question their sanity".
It is you who are making jumps--by insisting a jump is necessary.
You insist that we assume a minor in our care to be 'normal' or 'crazy' before daring to get an opinion from someone who knows more about these things than we do.
This attitude is neither necessary nor helpful.
I say let's acknowledge the complexity of human behaviour and admit our limitations. Let's jump to no conclusions at all. Let's ask.
I think that questioning someone's sanity should be based on their sanity, not on their personal preferences.
Irrational. To demand that someone be demonstrably insane before 'questioning' their psychological health is like demanding that water be at a rolling boil before we ask whether the water is hot. By that stage no question exists.
Besides the flawed argument, though, you display some common prejudices and misunderstandings about psychological health. This is obvious in the cartoonish choice you assumed earlier between 'perfectly normal' and 'clinically insane.' It is even more obvious in the stigma you attach to the idea of seeing a professional in the first place.
You do not say why you attach this stigma. You simply do it, and assume others do. To see a professional is to wear a label, or at least an indictment, of 'insane'--a label that in your view clearly carries some shame.
The irrationality of your position is apparent at once if we apply it to the subject of physical health.
When your neighbours take their 10-year-old to a dentist for a checkup, you don't upbraid them for their inability to 'accept' their child. You don't insist that, unless the child's teeth are falling out, no need exists for them to question the child's dental health. You don't characterize the decision of whether to see the dentist as demanding an a priori diagnosis on the part of the parents that the child is either cavity-free or dying of throat cancer. You don't attach shame to the child or the family on the basis of the visit. If the dentist decides the child needs braces, you don't assume the child has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.
You don't do any of these things. On the contrary: you view your neighbours actions as responsible and caring. You view the visit as a good idea even if the child's teeth turn out to be fine. You know it's never a bad idea to get a check-up.
Just as physical health is not a cartoonish either-or proposition between perfect health and dying, psychological health is not a matter of perfect health and 'insanity.' I do not share the prejudices you ask me to assume.
I think counseling is a good idea for everybody. If I were actually a parent to teens, God forbid, they would be seeing counselors on a regular basis anyway because I would arrange it. As far as my resources allowed, I'd arrange regular visits with a family counselor for the whole clan.
It's never a bad idea to get a check-up. If anything unusual comes up, we look at it. If nothing is wrong, great. It's still time and money well spent.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:20 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 08-17-2007 2:06 PM Archer Opteryx 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