This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not?

Scroll to see replies

Homosexuality has never been wrong, and never will be, men have always had sex with other men, zoophilia is completely different, there is no other way I can say it.

Not according to society. Homosexuality did used to be wrong.
As for the last part, while obviously I don't know, I'd hedge a bet on humans having sex with animals is not a new thing either.
Doesn't make it right, but the same seems to be the case here as in the Incest thread. A lot of the arguments being made are very contradictory and hypocritical.

Reply 181

Lukedavidhopkins1

Original post by imperial maniac

Really? I'm pretty sure my dog can communicate quite effectively that he is enjoying himself when I stroke him, wagging his tale etc.

"Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way. It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia)

Some people like animals, just in the same way some guys like other guys.

does that not answer why they asked this?

Reply 182

username549578

Original post by Jordenfruitbat

From a biological perspective I guess it is natural for men to have sex with other men and be attracted to them, it happens in the animal kingdom, and just because interspecies sex happens in the animal kingdom doesn't mean completely different types of animals are at it.

Yes! Different species do initiate sex with each other! Perhaps you should read up on animal sexual practices before expressing your opinion on the matter.
There is neither a biological nor evolutionary function to homosexuality. There is neither a biological nor evolutionary function to inter species sex. Yet both occur, in the animal world and among humans. You can't use the 'it occurs in nature argument' for one type of behaviour and not for another. This is why the OP was talking about double standards, which you are clearly showing here.

You don't see cows going for shags with dogs do you?

No, but interspecies sex is much more common than you think, and I suggest you read up on it before responding to this post.

I might be going round in circles but you don't seem to understand men having sex with other men is consensual, people having sex with animals is called taking advantage, even if the animal does initiate it it's still wrong and we are still taking advantage of the animal,

I have shown you several times that the consent argument cannot be used with animals. This is exactly the type of double standards OP was talking about. I fully understand that homosexual sex is consensual. But if a dog mounts a woman (which does occasionaly happen) and she lets it have sex with her, then there is obviously no problem there, other than your (and my) disgust.

You have said it is wrong many times, yet you have not once given a valid argument for why it is wrong. Until you do you are unable to argue your point.

like I said earlier you if a minor initiated sex with an adult it is wrong and the adult should'nt allowed it to proceed, same with animals.

A minor (that is a pre pubescent child)will never initiate sex with a adult. The moment they do initiate sex with an adult they have reached puberty and are now biologically ready for sex. The age of puberty is around 13. It seems disgusting to us that a 13 year old can have sex with an adult, but that is purely due to societies values. In societies all around the earth (both large and small societies) adolescents engage in sexual acts. The age of consent in spain is 13!

There is no other way to say it, we are going round in circles I agree, just because the same thing has been said about homosexuality doesn't mean we should accept zoophilia into society. Homosexuality has never been wrong, and never will be = zoophilia is completely different, there is no other way I can say it.

This is a matter of morals. In todays society we have no problems with homosexuality. Go back 200 years and they will give the exact same reasons against homosexuality as you are giving now. Just because you dislike the act, doesn't mean it should be prohibited.

I see no reason in us continuing this argument as you are repeating yourself even though I have refuted your argument several times. The only reason you are against this act is because you dislike the act. I also dislike the act, however I am able to see how it could possibly work within society.

This thread is riddled with double standards.

Reply 183

Arekkusu

We have all these hoity-toity ideas about consent, which are perfectly valid for a cognisant animal such as a human that can imagine hypothetical states of mind (also known as "emotions"). But it simply doesn't apply in the animal world, where 90% of sex will probably be rape. There's really no reason I can see for condemning zoophilia; it's simply a double standard of our time. Thankfully because animals can't exactly complain of rape nobody is really going to know.

The only issue that might justify banning it is that people might spread around weird animal STDs, but to be honest I should hope no-one's sticking their dick in a sheep's mucky orifices without wrapping up.

Reply 184

username549578

Original post by WelshBluebird

A lot of the arguments being made are very contradictory and hypocritical.

This. I am yet to see a valid argument against it to be honest and people continue to say the exact same things which were said about homosexuality 100 years ago.

Reply 185

jimcatinnes

OP's excuse: "My dog asked me to do it. I swear..."

Reply 186

CD2112

For some reason this thread reminds me of a story my old History teacher told me in which he spotted a beautiful blonde woman queuing in a shop. When he crossed the street to approach her it turned out to be a golden retriever.

Reply 187

Tommyjw

Original post by Lewroll

Just to say that girls have gave birth, let alone just had sex, at 13 and below :rolleyes:

Even 5 and 6 years old apparently 0.0

Reply 188

Pindar

Original post by Fusilero

Animals don't have the intellectual capacity to give consent, same with children.

Yes, animals aren't clever enough to decide whether they want sex or not. :rolleyes:

Reply 189

Pindar

Original post by SmallTownGirl

I can consent to having sex with another woman. If I were a sheep I could not consent because I could not understand what I was agreeing to. Deal with it.

This is a classic example of how humans trying to supplant how they see the world onto things where it doesn't apply.

An animal like a sheep isn't so touchy about sex, if you try and have sex with it and it doesn't like it, it will either fight back or move away. If it doesn't, it obviously doesn't mind what's being done to it.

Reply 190

Pindar

Original post by Tommyjw

Ye, a forum with an above-average intelligence compared to the rest due to it's nature (a forum for students) has no logic. Quite clear your a bit of a hypocrite here..

Say what?... Sorry but I severely doubt that most people here are of "above-average" intelligence. How is that being a hypocrite? I think you need to look up what it actually means.

Original post by Tommyjw

Trying to back up your own ridiculous opinion by making completely false assumptions based on the complete opposite of what people say.. good job.. didn't realize anyone was this self indulged.

Yet again, showing lack of intelligence. Ethics has nothing do when we are talking about purely an animals mind. Ethics is a topic based upon the understandings of any species that is intelligent enough to form these ethical reasonings. Humans are the only species to do so in such a way.

Animals cannot consent to sex with humans. They 'consent' to sex with their own species (to which it is raw primal instinct, there is little relative thought process's going on such as in a human's mind). The mere word consent means you must be fully aware of what is going on and fully informed about it. An animal cannot be fully informed as to what is going on, it lacks the base intelligence to do so. Your an idiot if you think otherwise.

I'm going to try and refrain from expressing how thick I think you are and talk rationally for a moment. But I am literally facepalming.

So animals CAN consent with animals of the same species.

But they CAN'T consent with humans.

You are telling me animals are completely oblivious to the fact they are having sex? How exactly more informed do they need to be? They are stimulating sexual organs for pleasure. That's all there is to it.

How exactly are they "informed" when they are having sex with their own species, but not "informed" enough when they choose to have sex with humans?

That doesn't make logical sense. You can't have one and not the other.

If it is your opinion that apparently animals aren't intelligent enough to make a choice about whether to have sex with a human, why can they consent with their own species?

Original post by Tommyjw

Continuing to prove your stupidity. No-one stated they do not have the intelligence to have sex, well done for making that point up.

Original post by Tommyjw

The mere word consent means you must be fully aware of what is going on and fully informed about it. An animal cannot be fully informed as to what is going on, it lacks the base intelligence to do so. Your an idiot if you think otherwise.

Contradicting yourself IN THE SAME POST? This is exactly the kind of stupidity on this forum that I'm talking about.

THINK RATIONALLY

Original post by Tommyjw

Perfect logical sense actually. Obviously you cannot see that for whatever reason. One animal having sex with another in it';s own species is dignified by certain emotional and physical signs, the animals have developed through nature to mating with each other.

You have just a warped and limited knowledge of simple biology and animal psychology it is unbelievable.

Many animals are perfectly capable of communicating with humans, I need water, I need food, I need sex.

Original post by Tommyjw

The animal does not go around thinking 'i'm gonna have sex because it feels good and cuz i'm bored' it is just pure instinct that makes them do it .

That is EXACTLY how animals think. What are you talking about 'pure instinct' as if that's a completely different thing?

Reply 191

Pindar

Original post by Jordenfruitbat

The whole animal initating sex onto the human, if it did actually happen the human should have the deceny to not let it go any further, if a minor came onto an adult you would expect the same.

Why is it any less decent for you to reciprocate? The animal wants it, a zoophiliac wants it. I still don't see the problem...

Also to people making ridiculous slippery slope statements that if zoophillia was legalised we'd all be running around having sex with chimps and society would collapse in a day, I have this to say: :lol:

Reply 192

Pindar

Original post by Jordenfruitbat

Two human being's having sex can not be compared to an animal and a human having sex it's not on the same scale. I don't agree in zoo's nor killing animals so that argument kind of fails. There might be arguments for zoophilia but in the end it is wrong and very very disgusting.

Disgusting =/= wrong

Disgusting = subjective

Please give a reason why it can't be compared and why apparently it's on "different scales"

Reply 193

hunagdi

"In the Hindu tradition, having sex with a sacred cow is believed to bring good fortune"

Wikipedia LOL

Reply 194

Baula

Original post by imperial maniac

Why is this?

I am not talking about animals being forced to mate with humans, rather an intimate sexual relationship between both partners, to which both have consented in their own way and in which neither party is harmed.

It just seems like a double standard to me, I don't understand either zoophilia or homosexuality. The arguments for homosexuality and the arguments for zoophilia appear to be fairly similar. Yet one is outright condemned and the other is accepted as normal behaviour.

1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.

2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.

3. Both involve an intimate relationship.

4. Both occur in nature.

5. Neither can result in offspring.

Thoughts? I don't even know why this came across my mind, I guess this is what happens when I do too much procrastinating.

Please note: I am not a troll, BNP supporter, a homophobe or a Zoophile, I am a student trying to have a sensible discussion and understand the logic behind people's opinions.

Besides it being odd, if I remember rightly when two species mate their off-spring is infertile. So, I'm guessing that's why.

(When I talk about species I'm generally meaning totally different ones, not wolves and dogs for example - although mules are supposedly infertile so yeah :P)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 195

Surreality

Original post by Stefan1991

That is EXACTLY how animals think. What are you talking about 'pure instinct' as if that's a completely different thing?

Or just dolphins...I think I read somewhere that it's only dolphins and humans who have sex for pleasure as opposed to just following instinct.

Reply 196

hunagdi

Thg great moralist Peter Singer is for it. So . . . Yeah! **** an animal!

Reply 197

j.alexanderh

Original post by Lewroll

This. I am yet to see a valid argument against it to be honest and people continue to say the exact same things which were said about homosexuality 100 years ago.

I believe that at least part of the reason for its current illegality in many countries is animal rights abuse. There is simply no way to police it; if someone keeps a pet for the purpose of having sex with it every day, the animal has no way of expressing its discontent to anyone other than its owner, who may not care. Other than this, I agree that there is no problem with it; people keep supplying hypocritical arguments. I also think that the current UK law prohibiting faked images of human/animal pornography is ridiculous, and probably justified along the lines of 'I don't like it, so it's wrong'.

Reply 198

Pindar

Original post by Surreality

Or just dolphins...I think I read somewhere that it's only dolphins and humans who have sex for pleasure as opposed to just following instinct.

I've got to say I've always disagreed with the notion that animals don't have sex for pleasure. I don't see why this would be the case.

Are we humans not following our own instinct in seeking pleasure through sex?

Reply 199

Cornish student

What about equating zoophilia with heterosexuals having consensual protected sex or sex where one of the parties is infertile/incapable of bearing children. That meets your "criteria" for being on the same moral level.
If the point of this troll-post is to argue that homosexuality is "immoral" then you must accept that protected sex between heterosexual couples and those who are infertile is also "immoral".