Bestiality

-First, Wikipedia is wrong,....The claim that there is a flying spaghetti monster is without support.

I don't agree: ancient Egypt, classical Greece, or a period in India during which a temple depicting bestiality was constructed... but then again education isn't great so you might claim those aren't well known cultures.

You seem to assume that I would consider this scenario morally different from a sniper taking out a hostage taking bank robber, but I don't.

RM caused you to make a post about how it's not wrong to fuck dogs? How's that exactly?

The only epistemologically sound way to define a concept like "burden of proof" is to consult established reference material for the commonly agreed meaning and function of that concept.  While we can agree that there are sources superior to Wikipedia, we must also conclude that you are not one of those superior sources. 

If you don't like Wikipedia's definition of Proof of Concept, you can try another well-sourced definition but you can't simply insert your personal, blinkered notions of how burden of proof works and expect anybody's respect.

Depictions in art aren't reliable evidence for legal status.

Therefore, you HAD to make a thread to justify why it's okay to have sex with dogs?

I didn't say I have sex with non-humans, let us say hypothetically that I have in some jurisdiction where it would be legal to do so. I could in that case know that I had the animal's consent by applying an inductive argument to their behavior (including vocalizations) in the context of my knowledge of their personality and history. That description technically describes the assessment of consent from humans as well, it is never known with 100% certainty; one simply must eliminate the absurd in order to live.

Understanding exactly what I am doing to them (or in my case what they are doing to me) is a different matter entirely. We both know that bit is going in that hole. We both know that the other endorses this procedure. The animal may understand fluid is being transferred. The animal definitely doesn't understand that the fluid contains tiny machines called cells. There is no doubt something I don't understand about it as well, I can't tell you what that is but if I had lived 200 years ago I would not know about the cells.

If Cathy Newman was doing it honestly there wouldn't be a problem.

I believe not all bestiality is rape, but some bestiality is rape. It is rape when it is not consensual. I find that unacceptable, however regardless of whether I found it acceptable or not it would be rape given the definition of rape I gave.

A legal definition of rape might not hold non-consenting bestiality to be rape because animals aren't persons under the law. That is why I am very careful about definitions, words serve a purpose and when a word has moral connotations like "rape" its definition must be carefully tailored to reflect the morally relevant concept, in this case consent regardless of some legal notion of personhood.

Just because worse things are "legally" allowed to be done to animals, I feel like that isn't a good argument for partaking in something especially if you feel it is wrong.

That is essentially correct and I am total agreement. Even a perfect liberal set of laws allows plenty of room for vice. However in this case this isn't something "worse" it's something considerably better than average.

I agree that it is unlikely that beef or pork eating will end anytime soon. It is far more likely that that meat will become lab-grown before people give it up. I would caution against believing everything vegan activists say. I have been to many local farms and there is very little in the way of torture (especially for dairy). I know there are mega-corp farms where the vegans get their shock-footage but I would be wary of their statistical math.

If you do believe there is an intractable moral problem in the production of a product then I would agree with the vegans that you are part of the problem if you consume it. In your case however the problem could equally be said to be a lack of transparency in allowing you to choose to buy "humane" beef.

It's not mostly legal in most places in the west. The legality has no bearing on the actual reality of harm or non-harm. I know there is no harm by observation and inference in the context of all my knowledge. That's the only way to know anything.

My values are liberty, knowledge/truth/reason, life, prosperity, beauty, and pleasure more or less in that order.

I don't always pursue my values to the best of my ability, if I did that would mean I was perfectly virtuous and nobody is perfect.

If I were to make a list of disappointing or frustrating elements where the correct course of action isn't obvious bestiality would not make the top 50. Why? It's actually very simple and straightforward concept. Above polytheist was talking about BSDM and safewords. That's a human making things as complicated as possible. A dog doesn't make things complicated they make things simple. They want food, they want to explore, they want to play, and they want what feels good to them.

It's not rocket science and there is not that much room for error. Communicating future intention is hard. Communicating current opinion [good or bad] is very easy. Anyone who has interacted with domestic animals can attest to this.

There is no tradeoff, there is no "greater good" or "lesser evil" it's just good. There is no contradiction on the horizon so if you thinking of one you're going to have to say it.

If you had thought critically about it yourself you could be the source. There is no other rational possibility besides what I have described and I will entertain no alternatives.

I didn't say I have sex with non-humans, let us say hypothetically that I have in some jurisdiction where it would be legal to do so. I could in that case know that I had the animal's consent by applying an inductive argument to their behavior (including vocalizations) in the context of my knowledge of their personality and history. That description technically describes the assessment of consent from humans as well, it is never known with 100% certainty; one simply must eliminate the absurd in order to live.

I mean this argument generally doesn't hold up for humans either though.

"S/He seemed into it to me" Is not always substantiative agreement for sexual engagement. Consider many variables: 

1. A human may have said no, but because the sexual aggressor's own perceptive decided that the victim was into it, they may look past such a dis-agreement. The "No means no" thing is even harder for a household pet because they literally don't have the ability to say no. In the case of a dog, they may have expressed dis-interest at one point and then become amenable to it knowing that you are the one in control and ultimately decide things for them, just as you might with giving a dog a bath or feeding them. They are used to being submissive to you and having to learn to like it. In this sense it's almost impossible for a Dog to "consent". It's more proportionate to "Okay this is happening whether I like it or not, so I might as well try and enjoy it", which is probably the case with humans who have said no as well in many situations they feel powerless in. They also don't know what your capable of upon rejection, threat of physical harm might make both an animal or a human more amenable to "just going along with it".

They also don't know what your capable of upon rejection, threat of physical harm might make both an animal or a human more amenable to "just going along with it".

2. The type of consent you are implying you think is obvious from this animal can be distorted  by the horniness factor of the aggressor. Let's face it, when you are in the mood, you don't always think clearly. Add alcohol or drugs into the mix, and your judgement further goes out the window. It's simple biology, but when some people have that urge, they may be willing to pursue that urge. If you haven't seen the movie "The last duel" (you should it's really good), the entire theme of this movie hinges on this principle of perceived consent. The aggressor(Jacques De LeGris) is shown to have a sexual background where playfulness and escape attempt are a normal part of sexual activity and fun. When he engages in this with the victim Marguerite, they show from his perspective a distorted view of her enjoyment. The movie then shows the same scene from her perspective, where their is no playfulness whatsoever, and the fear and horror is real. The aggressor of sexual assault can't always identify the difference however. This problem can be amplified when you factor in that an animal can't physically speak.

This problem can be amplified when you factor in that an animal can't physically speak. Those "barks" or "groans" you think are enjoyment could just as easily be protest or discomfort. Its ultimately entirely in your jurisdiction to decide that.

And ultimately the argument of "we do worse things to animals for food" isn't a good enough argument to make up for the fact that you believe rape is bad, but agree with practicing it against animals is okay. If you have the power to control your behavior that directly prevents rape it becomes a question of whether you should act on that practice or not. 

Well that certainly goes a long way towards explaining why your conclusions are so whack. Making up your own definitions for things is certainly an easy way of refuting counterarguments but you won't win many debates that way.

Why are you so keen to argue in favor of beastiality? 

Consider the full implications of your example. If the individual is willing to object strenuously to a bath to the point of holding onto door frames (google it), where is their fear of physical harm? Where is their despairing acceptance?

If it only comes out for bath time, but not sex time; one can only reasonably conclude that sex is a lesser imposition than a bath in their mind (if it is an imposition at all).

If you never punish a dog ever for any expression or decision they make with regards to sex, they will not transplant the same concern they have about peeing the carpet over to sex. They will learn (quickly) that "no" is an option. They will only use the bare minimum of communication that is required, escalating only if necessary.

Consider a cat who does not like how it is being pet. A cat who is used to humans who pay careful attention to their body language and vocalizations will tail flick, then moan (like a meow of a certain pitch), then try to get away, then scratch and bite. That is escalating levels of communication, they go through them sequentially because the less violent and obvious signals have worked before. A cat who is constantly assaulted by petting from people who don't pay attention at all will quickly resort to scratching and biting first thing. They have learned that it is the only thing a human understands.

But this response feels like it's essentially admitting that lack of complete consent is okay as long as its a lesser imposition than a bath. Lack of consent for a bath is one thing; If your dog played in the mud, you don't want it tracking that around your house. The dog doesn't understand the implications of tracking mud through. You gain nothing from the exchange of a bath other than a normalcy; Your dog lives there and therefore gets to be cleaned. Other than that you are not gaining anything really from putting your animal through the misery of a bath, and the bath is necessary. Sex is not necessary for the dog, and it benefits you. In the case where the dog doesn't like it that much but is simply "putting up with it", this seems to meet your definition of rape, and violate your own moral standard of what should be allowed to be done to the dog. 

In the case where the dog doesn't like it that much but is simply "putting up with it", this seems to meet your definition of rape, and violate your own moral standard of what should be allowed to be done to the dog. 

A really loyal loving dog might be more okay with whatever is being done to them because they love their humans and want to make them happy even at their own dis-advantage. You see this type of behavior in dogs who get groomed all the time, where groomers are constantly invading space they may not like being invaded. Just as with above you can make an argument that grooming can be neccesary. But I have to ask is putting an animal through discomfort they tolerate because they love not abuse?

There is a TikToker I always see in my feed that I feel the exact same way about. Her handle is "Don'tStopMeowing", and she has a very sweet cat that can be pretty talkative when irritated. She constantly puts the animal in uncomfortable situations, invades it's space, and generally annoys it just so she can make amusing tiktok videos for her subscribers. I find this behavior extremely obnoxious and unnecessary, and think it will probably generate problematic behaviors between her and her cat's at some point. I also consider this abuse, but I doubt animal control will be barging in and taking her pets away anytime soon because of this since it's not like she's actually hurting the cat, just being extremely invasive for no reason. 

How I feel this example is relevant is because annoying your animal for sex feels completely necessary, and breeds like dogs who are more submissive, and willing to satisfy their humans may take and tolerate this abuse much more than neccesary. So it becomes a question of "should" you do this thing, not "how much is this thing damaging my pet".

For all I know you could be lying to me about how much the animal enjoys this, or their enjoyment can be completely up to your interpretation when in reality the whole experience could be terrible and horrifying for them.

but in a lot of ways I don't see a difference between a human child and a dog.

As an owner of three cats, I can relate to warning signals of cats pretty well. While bestiality/zoophilia may apply to multiple species, it's easier for me to wrap my head around you doing this with a species that has learned behaviors of submissivity, like horses and dogs however. Which is why it's also important that I mention different breeds. I feel like a rottweiler is more likely to snap at you for crossing a line than a golden retriever might for example, even if both animals felt the exact  same way about it. You might interpret the lack of growling and submissivity (im making that word up, I don't care, you know what I mean) as a sign that this is okay where as with the rottweiler it would be more obvious if it wasn't.

Leaving work now, will have to respond to the rest later.

The example was to disprove the proposition that they won't object out of fear.

From a utilitarian angle this talk about what I gain or don't gain is totally irrelevant. The earnestness of the objection is the best measure of the degree of trauma. You may say a bath is necessary, but if the bath is more traumatic than sex then either sex is not very traumatic at all or baths are so traumatic that as one user suggested someone needs to get shot.

The bath is not necessary, dogs indoors are not necessary, pets are not necessary. People would not have pets unless they got something out of it, and they're willing to put those animals through discomfort (baths, vets) to keep them inside. You could say they would be worse off if they weren't in a human home, but then that can always be said.

It also goes without saying that some animals will consent to a bath.

I don't want a debate on a utilitarian angle though

But I don't like the idea of being silenced for an opinion, so I want to get to the core of why I think people are truly offended by this opinion.

Ultimately, on trauma, I feel like without being a pet psychologist, it would be hard for either of us to really determine what causes "traumatizes" an animal and how to accurately tell.

to use them for a practice in which you get pleasure and they may not necessarily like it in every situation feels utterly wrong to me.

The fact that they often can lack the ability to understand why what is happening to them is the ultimate barrier for me, and I am assuming the vast majority of people who take this view.

Even if they are "okay" with it, it feels like such an arbitrary way to determine that they are okay with it by just assuming the sounds they make are consensual. 

Anyways I don't usually like to cut conversations short but I am admittedly losing interest in the discussion. Ultimately I think this is an agree to dis-agree thing, and so much of it is based on subjective morality, and personal belief and ideal that I can't really pack a punch with any of my arguments other than to try show that your own moral philosophy and values seem to contradict themselves to me. 

I don't know. In my moral framework there is a recognition of an abstract alternative to might-makes-right. Certainly at some point in advancing rational faculty a non-human must be included. I thus proceed on fuzzy logic.

This statement is enough for me to be okay with ending the conversation on really. It's not exactly a concession, but to me shows that there is at least some arbitrary justification being used to explain the deviancy.

(Ah dude I remember you. It's been like 6 or 7 years since you dropped off the radar from DDO and when you joined this site you picked the exact same username? Anyways, welcome back I guess.)

While it's true that animals have sexual drives like humans do (though generally with different triggers), they lack adult human intelligence, the adult human grasp of the full implications of sexual acts

and the adult human ability to take full agency over the question of when they ought to be having sex and with whom.

This is why it's not acceptable to, say, have sex with a horny 13 year old boy.

In other words, consent isn't just mutual desire to have sex but mutually informed sex, or at least reasonable ability on both sides to become informed.

Let me stop you right there, what are the full implications of sexual acts between a human and a non-human?

It was actually on DDO that I realized that is false. It is obvious in retrospect. A 13 year old boy can be horny, and they can do calculus (well some of them can). Informed consent arguments fail completely. 

It is the complexity of the human mind that makes it more vulnerable and the fact that it is not fully developed that allows an adult human to look back at the age of 13 and say "I wasn't ready to make that decision and everyone should have known it".

But I don't like the idea of being silenced for an opinion, so I want to get to the core of why I think people are truly offended by this opinion.

It would be nice to know, for homosexuality as well.

Ultimately, on trauma, I feel like without being a pet psychologist, it would be hard for either of us to really determine what causes "traumatizes" an animal and how to accurately tell.

Heh, I don't even trust human psychologists. It is a pseudoscience. If someone won't engage in scientific thought they shouldn't participate questions of scientific authority because the former renders them utterly incapable of evaluating the later.

to use them for a practice in which you get pleasure and they may not necessarily like it in every situation feels utterly wrong to me.

Technically that sentence describes human sex too. Some things feel better for one partner than the other. Words like "use" here are for emotional impact. We "use" our spouses but we don't use that word. The only reason someone would use "use" is to imply disregard and less than mutual utility.

The fact that they often can lack the ability to understand why what is happening to them is the ultimate barrier for me, and I am assuming the vast majority of people who take this view.

But when pressed for details that notion means nothing. I need only ask you what is happening to them? Do you know? Which part can't they understand? Is it part they must understand for some reason?

Even if they are "okay" with it, it feels like such an arbitrary way to determine that they are okay with it by just assuming the sounds they make are consensual. 

Sounds, body language, and actions. It is no more of an assumption than the method by which you determined that a dog doesn't like a groomer doing something or how you determined that a cat on tiktok is asking someone to stop.

Anyways I don't usually like to cut conversations short but I am admittedly losing interest in the discussion. Ultimately I think this is an agree to dis-agree thing, and so much of it is based on subjective morality, and personal belief and ideal that I can't really pack a punch with any of my arguments other than to try show that your own moral philosophy and values seem to contradict themselves to me. 

To me it seems like you haven't even come close to showing a contradiction. I said I value mutual pleasure and liberty and you said basically said "but what if discomfort and fearful silence".

You haven't shown a contradiction until you can establish discomfort and fearful silence as a rule or unavoidable peril. It's all been "maybe", but my answer is a firm "not maybe, look at the facts you already take for granted".

I don't know. In my moral framework there is a recognition of an abstract alternative to might-makes-right. Certainly at some point in advancing rational faculty a non-human must be included. I thus proceed on fuzzy logic.

This statement is enough for me to be okay with ending the conversation on really. It's not exactly a concession, but to me shows that there is at least some arbitrary justification being used to explain the deviancy.

I am not following you on that, that statement was about what I could prove to be universal and what I couldn't. It has nothing to do with explaining deviancy.

Most intelligent life forms will take the sexual anatomy of another species to be disgusting.

You: While it's true that animals have sexual drives like humans do (though generally with different triggers), they [non-human animals] lack adult human intelligence, the adult human grasp of the full implications of sexual acts

Me: Let me stop you right there, what are the full implications of sexual acts between a human and a non-human?

You: First, it can elicit incredible feelings of disgust.

And if they're mentally developed enough to have a self-image, that image can be disrupted by internalizing feelings of disgust.

This can cause psychological issues that human experts are unable to account for, since psychology is still "primitive" in that it only lends understanding to the human mind.

Second, the mismatch in size between human and animal anatomy can cause physical damage to one party.

From graphic accounts that I've heard, young children who were, depending on gender, *n*lly or v*g*n*lly penetrated suffered non-negligible tissue damage given the comparably great endowment of the other person. And when done to babies, they died shortly afterward.

There's simply no way to communicate this risk to an animal.

Third, the mismatch in strength between human and animal parties.

Rape is commonplace in the animal kingdom, and so far as I can tell, female animals are accustomed to accept the circumstances and not resist once the act has proceeded to a certain stage. Therefore, the mere fact that the animal doesn't seem to resist isn't proof of consent, assuming that the human initiated.

Even if the animal does somewhat consent, if the human party is dramatically stronger then that can make the experience traumatic. There's no way to account for this possibility.

It was actually on DDO that I realized that is false. It is obvious in retrospect. A 13 year old boy can be horny, and they can do calculus (well some of them can). Informed consent arguments fail completely. 

Calculus is one measure of proficiency, or even a proxy for measuring intelligence, sure. But there multiple kinds of "intelligence", including emotional intelligence and simple life experience.

Quite simply, adolescent children might end up having sex with strangers who, if they were adults, they wouldn't agree to have sex with. They're not well grounded enough to avoid being manipulated into doing something that they'll regret, since people do in fact regret having sex with the wrong people.

It is the complexity of the human mind that makes it more vulnerable and the fact that it is not fully developed that allows an adult human to look back at the age of 13 and say "I wasn't ready to make that decision and everyone should have known it".

I think I understand the argument you're making here. No right to abstain from making a decision until a future point when they're able to exercise the highest potential of informed-ness is denied because the animal's incapable of ever reaching said point.

And the solution is not to deny the animal's capacity to have sex altogether, as we accept that they do among their own kind.

But I don't like the idea of being silenced for an opinion, so I want to get to the core of why I think people are truly offended by this opinion.

It would be nice to know, for homosexuality as well.

This implies they are the same; They are not.

Animals cannot consent unless they have specifically instigated the exchange. 

So in even a best case scenario this means we are just trusting the judgement of the sexual instigator of the animal and hoping they aren't being traumatized because they perceive them not to be. Probably another big reason the idea is so opposed.

to use them for a practice in which you get pleasure and they may not necessarily like it in every situation feels utterly wrong to me.

Technically that sentence describes human sex too. Some things feel better for one partner than the other. Words like "use" here are for emotional impact. We "use" our spouses but we don't use that word. The only reason someone would use "use" is to imply disregard and less than mutual utility.

No, no, no. I am using the words "use" here in the case of the non consenting pet, not the pet that chooses to hump your leg. It would be just as wrong to have sex with your partner if they did not want to according  to both our understanding of rape.

The fact that they often can lack the ability to understand why what is happening to them is the ultimate barrier for me, and I am assuming the vast majority of people who take this view.

But when pressed for details that notion means nothing. I need only ask you what is happening to them? Do you know? Which part can't they understand? Is it part they must understand for some reason?

Use these same questions for a child, and see if the impact of your question changes.

Children do not always understand rape and sexual assault either, but often receive great mental trauma from it, and are effected greatly later on.

A person with full capability to understand and act against something that has minimal understanding; It's just taking advantage. Whether or not you want to think your harming the animal or not, or justify the action not harming the animal, the plain and simple fact is if you go an masterbate into a sock or other inaminate object your 100% less likely to harm something innocent, so why keep rationalizing something immoral just to satisfy an urge?

Or just find one of millions of consenting adults to help satisfy you if the sock doesn't do it.

Even if they are "okay" with it, it feels like such an arbitrary way to determine that they are okay with it by just assuming the sounds they make are consensual. 

Sounds, body language, and actions. It is no more of an assumption than the method by which you determined that a dog doesn't like a groomer doing something or how you determined that a cat on tiktok is asking someone to stop.

These can be mis-interpreted in place of sexual pleasure though. Like I pointed out in the "last duel" example. If someone is horny enough, drunk enough, high enough, or even just one of those enough, it can be easy to mis-construe pain for pleasure if it helps your rationalize it until you can release.

My point about the cat on tiktok though, was mostly to point out that what is considered abuse by me, isn't considered abuse society to the point where action will always be taken. It was to emphasize a difference between what is legally allowed and what should be allowed. I can't make an argument that people who engage in this behavior should be locked up, because there are far worse societal things that get passes. That's all that argument is.

...You admit that the grounds for how pets should be treated are shaky at the same time...

But proceeding on fuzzy grounds is enough proof for me to see that this isn't exactly as ethically secure as you try to make it seem to be.

Most intelligent lifeforms will take the sexual anatomy of another species to be disgusting.