AronRa: "healthy sex should be between equals". Discuss.

[*SD*]

Pooks, do you have me on your "ignore" list or something? You don't seem to be addressing much of what I've said.

 

[Frenger]

I imagine it's related to my biological programming, required for the continuation of the species. As a result, I would pay money rather than be forced to watch gay porn. Of course I would not seek to impose my personal preferences in this regard on anybody else.

I would rather not watch pornography of any kind, mainly because the story lines are flimsy at best. Plus the plot holes are gaping. (Eh?)

But that has no relevance as to why you see gay relationships as abhorrent. As Inferno has said, your "biological programming" doesn't answer this particular disposition. So what is it? What is about a relationship between two men (as Rizla has said, this doesn't extend to relations between two women) that you find abhorrent?

 

[pookylies]

I imagine it's related to my biological programming, required for the continuation of the species. As a result, I would pay money rather than be forced to watch gay porn. Of course I would not seek to impose my personal preferences in this regard on anybody else.

I would rather not watch pornography of any kind, mainly because the story lines are flimsy at best. Plus the plot holes are gaping. (Eh?)

But that has no relevance as to why you see gay relationships as abhorrent. As Inferno has said, your "biological programming" doesn't answer this particular disposition. So what is it? What is about a relationship between two men (as Rizla has said, this doesn't extend to relations between two women) that you find abhorrent?

STRAWMAN ALERT. I have not said I find a relationship between two men abhorrent. I don't. I find the thought of witnessing homosexual sex abhorrent. And I don't think this is unusual for straight (anti-homophobic) men. Anyway, this is getting off topic because there is no disagreement about whether sex between men should be illegal (I'm assuming).

 

[australopithecus]

I find the thought of witnessing homosexual sex abhorrent.

I find the thought of eating Stilton abhorrent. So I don't eat it. Is anyone forcing you to watch men go at it like rabbits? No? Thought not. You started this tangent, you don't get to complain and cry "stop" when you're questioned about it.

Also, a gay relationship and gay sex are pretty much mutually inclusive and so are synonymous as far as I can see. Sure, there may be gay men is celibate relationships, but that's about as likely as a heterosexual celibate relationship.

 

[pookylies]

Pooks, do you have me on your "ignore" list or something? You don't seem to be addressing much of what I've said.

Sorry *SD*, I'm struggling to keep up. Hopefully your 'consent' concern has been addressed in other posts. The strongest argument i've seen is that we don't require an animal's consent before we stick a bolt through its brain so why should a sheep-shagger needs to get consent? Also, somebody mentioned that consent is not required for most sex between established human couples. One party tends to initiate (without asking) and if the other party hasn't got a headache, you're away. 'Consent' is not requested or given.

 

[australopithecus]

Also, somebody mentioned that consent is not required for most sex between established human couples. One party tends to initiate (without asking) and if the other party hasn't got a headache, you're away. 'Consent' is not requested or given.

This is a joke, surely? You can't seriously be using this as a valid argument. Generally (or always), non consensual sex between couples is called rape.

 

[Vivre]

HELP - oh dear I wished I could respond to you but every time I'm kind of ready with translating / backchecking / consolidating my own stuff the whole flow of discussion has moved so quickly and far that it doesn't make near to no sense for me to add what I wanted to.


Still I would like to thank Nemesiah and Visaki for bringing up a lot of decent arguments.

I too consider any living being on this planet (including bacterias and single cells) to have the freedom of a free and unharmed life as far as possible. I am aware that killing is an inevitable fact of live itself if self-preservation shall be fullfilled.

As humans we have the choise to be either bestial cruel or follow along the self knowledge that good arised from good and therefore rather omit any additional harm.


Besides a small 'gender' note: seems to me that sex with animals is more a male issue. When I read the examples of cows, elefant and chickens I simply cannot imagine a woman to even assume to want to have sex with e.g a heated bull. - just saying

 

[*SD*]

Also, somebody mentioned that consent is not required for most sex between established human couples. One party tends to initiate (without asking) and if the other party hasn't got a headache, you're away. 'Consent' is not requested or given.

Consent doesn't have to be verbal, there are other ways, body language and reciprocation of actions etc. You mentioned that you don't think it would be impossible to prove an animal was enjoying it, and maybe you'd be right. But... any sauce for that claim or is it just speculation? As mentioned, I'm no expert in bestiality. My contention that consent is required stands as far as I can see. The argument that we don't (usually) ask permission to whack it up our willing partners is flimsy.

 

[pookylies]

I find the thought of witnessing homosexual sex abhorrent.

I find the thought of eating Stilton abhorrent. So I don't eat it. Is anyone forcing you to watch men go at it like rabbits? No? Thought not. You started this tangent, you don't get to complain and cry "stop" when you're questioned about it.

Also, a gay relationship and gay sex are pretty much mutually inclusive and so are synonymous as far as I can see. Sure, there may be gay men is celibate relationships, but that's about as likely as a heterosexual celibate relationship.

What have you got against strong smelling cheese?

My initial analogy was not tangential because it's my suspicion that the reason many people think bestiality should be illegal is because they personally find the idea abhorrent (as I do). I then went on to ask whether this is a good enough reason for society to stop people engaging in the act. I mentioned that there are other forms of sex that I find abhorrent but wouldn't seek to limit other people's freedom to engage in. Maybe I should have used the example of sex between my aging parents.

Btw, when I see a homosexual couple walking along hand in hand, I don't automatically think of them 'at it'. I guess I'm funny like that.

 

[Nemesiah]

HELP - oh dear I wished I could respond to you but every time I'm kind of ready with translating / backchecking / consolidating my own stuff the whole flow of discussion has moved so quickly and far that it doesn't make near to no sense for me to add what I wanted to.


Still I would like to thank Nemesiah and Visaki for bringing up a lot of decent arguments.

I too consider any living being on this planet (including bacterias and single cells) to have the freedom of a free and unharmed life as far as possible. I am aware that killing is an inevitable fact of live itself if self-preservation shall be fullfilled.

As humans we have the choise to be either bestial cruel or follow along the self knowledge that good arised from good and therefore rather omit any additional harm.


Besides a small 'gender' note: seems to me that sex with animals is more a male issue. When I read the examples of cows, elefant and chickens I simply cannot imagine a woman to even assume to want to have sex with e.g a heated bull. - just saying

Besides a small 'gender' note: seems to me that sex with animals is more a male issue. When I read the examples of cows, elefant and chickens I simply cannot imagine a woman to even assume to want to have sex with e.g a heated bull. - just saying

If it weren't for the strict rule against posting pornography I could blow away this idea very quicly, however I will concede that most female - animal pornography is geared torwards sickos that get off watching women "degrade" themselves while having sex with animals.

 

[pookylies]

Also, somebody mentioned that consent is not required for most sex between established human couples. One party tends to initiate (without asking) and if the other party hasn't got a headache, you're away. 'Consent' is not requested or given.

Consent doesn't have to be verbal, there are other ways, body language and reciprocation of actions etc. You mentioned that you don't think it would be impossible to prove an animal was enjoying it, and maybe you'd be right. But... any sauce for that claim or is it just speculation? As mentioned, I'm no expert in bestiality. My contention that consent is required stands as far as I can see. The argument that we don't (usually) ask permission to whack it up our willing partners is flimsy.

Of course I was talking about verbal consent. I forget the person who initially raised this point but in an established relationship, you don't ask to have sex every time you want it. You typically give non verbal signals which are either reciprocated or not. I'm going to assume astra understands this point (although I think he may send his girlfriend a memo every time he wants sex which she has to sign in triplicate). In some cases, animals would be able to give non-verbal signs. For instance, does it run away when Farmer Giles comes into the field with a spare pair of wellies? In any case, It still hasn't been shown that consent is the issue (given the carnivorous argument).

 

[Nemesiah]

I was reminded of this





I'd like to point out that this is NOT pornographic

 

[*SD*]

Of course I was talking about verbal consent. I forget the person who initially raised this point but in an established relationship, you don't ask to have sex every time you want it. You typically give non verbal signals which are either reciprocated or not. I'm going to assume astra understands this point (although I think he may send his girlfriend a memo every time he wants sex which she has to sign in triplicate). In some cases, animals would be able to give non-verbal signs. For instance, does it run away when Farmer Giles comes into the field with a spare pair of wellies? In any case, It still hasn't been shown that consent is the issue (given the carnivorous argument).

Well, since you are by your own admission talking about verbal consent, animals can't give that on account of the fact they can't speak our language (please don't bring parrots into this). If your argument is that animals could give non-verbal consent in the same way consenting humans can, you need to show that this is actually the case. Can you do this, yes or no?

 

[*SD*]

It still hasn't been shown that consent is the issue (given the carnivorous argument).

Actually I think it has. On account of the distinction drawn, which you and some others agreed was valid, between killing it to eat it and getting your rocks off with it.

 

[pookylies]

Of course I was talking about verbal consent. I forget the person who initially raised this point but in an established relationship, you don't ask to have sex every time you want it. You typically give non verbal signals which are either reciprocated or not. I'm going to assume astra understands this point (although I think he may send his girlfriend a memo every time he wants sex which she has to sign in triplicate). In some cases, animals would be able to give non-verbal signs. For instance, does it run away when Farmer Giles comes into the field with a spare pair of wellies? In any case, It still hasn't been shown that consent is the issue (given the carnivorous argument).

Well, since you are by your own admission talking about verbal consent, animals can't give that on account of the fact they can't speak our language (please don't bring parrots into this). If your argument is that animals could give non-verbal consent in the same way consenting humans can, you need to show that this is actually the case. Can you do this, yes or no?

The point being made is that you shouldn't require verbal consent from animals because it's not always required from humans. So can animals give non-verbal consent? Well, if an animal initiates sex (not unheard of) this would qualify. And theoretically, at least, you could wire up its brain to see if it's experiencing pleasure. Does the animal run towards, or away from, a regular perpetrator? There's always Jason's favourite: Is the Donkey smiling? And if the animal is clearly indifferent e.g. it continues to chew the cud, would this be sufficient?
Ultimately though, its hard to be certain, hence the question of whether consent is required given our penchant for slaughtering them at a whim.

 

[Vivre]

If it weren't for the strict rule against posting pornography I could blow away this idea very quicly, ...

Your hint is enough for me to take into account there's also an area of reality for females to have sex with animals ... but that's beyond me and of no investigative interest while this planet needs support on other topics

greets ~ V

 

[Engelbert]

There are issues of health for both the human and animal participants. Various issues of health, including mental, physical and sexual would need to be considered. Cross species infection or illnesses can become very serious. An animal that is too small for a human might suffer physical harm and a prolonged non-consensual relationship would amount to prolonged torture. Torture is not an idea that sits well with most people, either for humans or for animals.


However, if reliable tests could be done that demonstrate that the animal is willing and happy, then live and let live.

There would be certain issues or barriers that would need to be satisfactorily settled, but given acceptable answers to these and happy and willing participants, then people should probably be allowed to carry on.

 

[*SD*]

However, if reliable tests could be done that demonstrate that the animal is willing and happy, then live and let live.

Yah. This is what I'm trying to squeeze pooks on. I'm not aware of any such tests, so I'm asking him if he can offer some up. But then I wouldn't be aware of them because I'm not well researched in this topic. My contentions are of a personal nature, and I'm not pretending I can support them in any sense other than from a personal standpoint.
If it can be shown that an animal is enjoying, or effectively consenting, my argument goes away provided, as you rightly mentioned, no harm is being done to either participant.

 

[pookylies]

It still hasn't been shown that consent is the issue (given the carnivorous argument).

Actually I think it has. On account of the distinction drawn, which you and some others agreed was valid, between killing it to eat it and getting your rocks off with it.

So if consent is the main issue, what's your position on incest?

 

[*SD*]

So if consent is the main issue, what's your position on incest?

Please elaborate before I respond. Are we talking about the acts of incest or the potential consequences of it? i.e children born of incest?