Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#361
Report 7 years ago
#361
(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
Basically forbidding sex with minors and young children keeps our society in a certain shape that we like, that's all. It's not inherently wrong (nothing is...), and the psychological harm exists only because the child has been taught that what happened to them is wrong/bad/sick/etc.
These things vary between cultures and different times in history.

Let's face it, ****ing off onto a baby actually harms no one at all, but we just find it so extremely unusual that we are moved to outlaw it and probably beat to death anyone known to do it.
The guy didn't even read the first post where it was declared for the animal to be sexually mature/adult.

hence his argument is refuted anyway.
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#362
Report 7 years ago
#362
(Original post by Mr Disco)
The evidence that it causes the animal pain and suffering exists, it just isn't tangible. You could no more prove an animal is enduring pain whilst being kicked than ****ed.
You think an animal doesn't show pain when it's kicked? :lolwut:

(Original post by Mr Disco)
That the animal has not expressed discomfort shouldn't stop us from considering whether the act was likely to cause it suffering.
Of course. You consider it, decide that the animal that usually shows discomfort in certain ways isn't showing any and carry on.

(Original post by Mr Disco)
People who who engage in such practices are prosecuted under the category of "abuse."
Sorry, what practices? Anyway, we're talking about what should be here and not what the law is.

(Original post by Mr Disco)
Your argument concerning tacit consent is too simplistic. An animal might be large enough to resist amorous advances, but might have a learned (and justified) fear of human beings.
Yes, probably because the issue is quite simplistic to animals. Why are you making it complicated for them? They don't put this much thought into sex.
Same with all those examples I mentioned. Perhaps those doggies have a learned fear of Paris Hilton types and obey out of fear. Why is keeping pets not illegal?

(Original post by Mr Disco)
To turn the issue on its head: If you can justify sex with an animal, what arguments are there against sex with a baby?
The baby is a human and humans tend to grow to be physically ready for sex and able to consent. Animals have sex without any of them ever developing the need to bring ethics, morality, consent, any of those human concepts into it.
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#363
Report 7 years ago
#363
(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
Maybe, but if neanderthals were around the world would be completely different.

Anyway, as for your original comparison, sexual attraction towards others of our being is innate. Even if you weren't to see another woman (or man if you're gay/bi) throughout your whole life you'd still have the intrinsic desire to reproduce, so upon seeing another man/woman for the first time, you potentially could be sexually attracted to them.

Upon seeing a horse or dog for the first time, you could not feel sexually attracted to them as it is not in our genes to have an incentive to reproduce with a horse or dog. Zoophilia and bestial attraction is a learned quality that can only be acquired through nurture/experience. It doesn't make biological sense for it to be naturally ingrained within us.
And only things that are biologically ingrained in us should be allowed? :eyebrow:
0
TurkeyProphet
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#364
Report 7 years ago
#364
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned (and I'm not going through 11 pages to find out) but clearly an animal can consent to sex. Especially with a woman. Although unlikely to happen without a little bit of coaxing, I imagine it's not all that difficult to get a dog to have intercourse with a woman. And if a man decided to cover his genitals in a desirable marinade and have an animal perform fellatio on him, is that not consent?

I think much like any other commonly hated sexual preferences (such as incest and paedophilia) it is generally held that it's not possible to have intercourse in these situations without some kind of abuse. And that even if in a rare instance it is possible to perform them without harm, in the majority of cases it is harmful. Therefore criminalising and loathing the acts appears to be acceptable.

I personally can't help holding a little disgust at the idea but I don't really care what people are attracted to.

Also. There may be issues with diseases being passed on to humans that there would otherwise not be an issue of. Better to stop people spreading some crazy new feline AIDS than allowing people to have sex with badgers or whatever.
0
Mr Disco
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#365
Report 7 years ago
#365
(Original post by Stratos)


The animal is sexually mature...

Spoiler:
Show
No offence but I'm surprised at the lack of grey matter in this thread, how stupid can people get?
Fine.

Now explain why that makes sex with animals justifiable and sex with infants unjustifiable given that neither would interpret the acts as sexual.
0
mevidek
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#366
Report 7 years ago
#366
(Original post by imperial maniac)
So? I does not mean I approve of what they do, I would rather that they didn't, but I would rather homosexuals weren't homosexuals, but I respect that they have a different sexuality that I do not personally approve of, and do not believe that they should be criminalised.
But zoophilia is immoral, and the animal obviously doesn't want it, so it goes against animal rights. Homosexuality needs the two persons' consent. Plus zoophilia is perverse. However I am not saying homosexuality isn't, because I think that homosexuality is not normal, but I wouldn't say it's up to us to judge whether it is wrong.
0
Mr Disco
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#367
Report 7 years ago
#367
(Original post by cttp_ngaf)
Basically forbidding sex with minors and young children keeps our society in a certain shape that we like, that's all. It's not inherently wrong (nothing is...), and the psychological harm exists only because the child has been taught that what happened to them is wrong/bad/sick/etc.
These things vary between cultures and different times in history.

Let's face it, ****ing off onto a baby actually harms no one at all, but we just find it so extremely unusual that we are moved to outlaw it and probably beat to death anyone known to do it.
But nobody was talking about ****ing off to a baby, or indeed an animal. The debate was about penetrative sex. The experience would be painful to both parties.
0
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#368
Report 7 years ago
#368
(Original post by Tommyjw)
I have said it before, i will say it again.
Zoophilia has been known to involve the abuse of the animal, i have stated this before with reference to a researcher who stated this. Not all 'zoophiles' abust the animal, but it happens. Abusing animals is harmful to society, is it not?
Is it? It's certainly unpleasant but I can't think of a single negative affect it will have on society? You sound pretty convinced it is, so can you name some?

I actually think having dogs has more of an negative affect than this. People not cleaning up after them on the pavement/park, little children getting scared by some dogs not kept on the lead, dogs attacking people etc.

(I'm not advocating banning pets by the way - I have a dog and wouldn't allow it to be taken away from me without a struggle...).
0
PurpleMonkeyDishwasher
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#369
Report 7 years ago
#369
(Original post by EskimoJo)
And only things that are biologically ingrained in us should be allowed? :eyebrow:
With regards to sexing animals/children, yeah.

That was just my view on why zoophilia is frowned upon.
0
Mr Disco
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#370
Report 7 years ago
#370
(Original post by EskimoJo)
You think an animal doesn't show pain when it's kicked? :lolwut:
The way an animal expresses pain might not be clear to us.


(Original post by EskimoJo)
Of course. You consider it, decide that the animal that usually shows discomfort in certain ways isn't showing any and carry on.
What an extraordinarily odd approach. Surely you think about whether an action is likely to cause harm before carrying it out.

Furthermore your approach is unreliable, you may be uneducated, or at least unsure about the ways an animal might express pain. Some indicators are universal, some are not.

(Original post by EskimoJo)
Sorry, what practices? Anyway, we're talking about what should be here and not what the law is.
Point being that the best available evidence suggests that ****ing animals causes them distress and constitutes abuse.

(Original post by EskimoJo)
Yes, probably because the issue is quite simplistic to animals. Why are you making it complicated for them? They don't put this much thought into sex.
Same with all those examples I mentioned. Perhaps those doggies have a learned fear of Paris Hilton types and obey out of fear. Why is keeping pets not illegal?
You have, I believe, misunderstood my point. My argument was a counter to the idea that animals are capable of tacit consent.

We are not entitled to say that animals are capable of consent for the reasons that I outlined.

(Original post by EskimoJo)
The baby is a human and humans tend to grow to be physically ready for sex and able to consent. Animals have sex without any of them ever developing the need to bring ethics, morality, consent, any of those human concepts into it.
I have no memories from when I was a young infant.

It is still unclear to me why sex with animals is appropriate whilst sex with infants is not.
0
MelonFroot
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#371
Report 7 years ago
#371
(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.

Maybe not, but you are a ****.
0
Baula
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#372
Report 7 years ago
#372
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Exactly!

The only reason it is condemned by society is because society doesn't like the idea of it, there's no rational reason to condemn it, as it doesn't cause harm to society or the individuals involved.

I'm not a zoophile, but I don't think zoophiles should be condemned as criminals because they have a different sexuality, which I do not personally see the attraction in.

I'm not a homosexual, but I don't think homosexuals should be condemned as criminals because they have a different sexuality, which I do not personally see the attraction in.

You see? People who are for homosexuality but against zoophilia obviously are maintaining a double standard, as they are willing to accept one sexuality but not the other, and neither sexuality causes any harm to anyone.
I think you've misunderstood my point. There's a huge difference between homosexuals and zoophiles. My point was that althought homosexuals can't reproduce (in the traditional sense) they are the same species and are fully consenting adults.

Zoophiles, on the other hand, can not get the full consent of the animal and it's pretty deviant behaviour. . .

Also (the point of my previous post) if you mate with an animal, you can't protect from pregnancy (assuming you're male and the animal is female) This is pretty dangerous because our genetics are not the same. When animals of different species have successfully created a new life, the offspring is infertile. As I said before, I'm assuming besides the weirdness of it all, the reason it is probably illegal is because of this.

In summary: Homosexuality is not dangerous but zoophilia has he potential to be, both psychologically and biologically.
0
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#373
Report 7 years ago
#373
(Original post by Mr Disco)
Fine.

Now explain why that makes sex with animals justifiable and sex with infants unjustifiable given that neither would interpret the acts as sexual.
It's not a matter of consent but of sexual maturity as consent is a grey area. Personally I couldn't care less about paedophilia if all we cared about was consent whereas the law is based on sexual maturity hence it does seem absurd to make zoophilia illegal for the animal is sexually mature and doesn't seem to be complaining, whereas if a human had sex with a baby/child it often either results in damage to other family members and the child is psychologically traumatised. Whereas this doesn't seem to be so with animals.

However it's not like we can observe psychological changes in animals or whether they consent or dissent the sex, but what we can say is that it doesn't cause physical harm/fear as those are physical stimuli which can be observed empirically.

(Original post by Baula)
I think you've misunderstood my point. There's a huge difference between homosexuals and zoophiles. My point was that althought homosexuals can't reproduce (in the traditional sense) they are the same species and are fully consenting adults.

Zoophiles, on the other hand, can not get the full consent of the animal and it's pretty deviant behaviour. . .

Also (the point of my previous post) if you mate with an animal, you can't protect from pregnancy (assuming you're male and the animal is female) This is pretty dangerous because our genetics are not the same. When animals of different species have successfully created a new life, the offspring is infertile. As I said before, I'm assuming besides the weirdness of it all, the reason it is probably illegal is because of this.

In summary: Homosexuality is not dangerous but zoophilia has he potential to be, both psychologically and biologically.
Dumstruck.

How did you even manage to come up to such conclusion without any knowledge of genetics? animals of different species have different number of chromosomes hence they don't just produce infertile offspring, they simply don't produce offspring... Unless it's two different kinds of wheat which are very likely, or a horse and a donkey however this doesn't occur between a human and a sheep...

Even if we produced such chimeras wouldn't it be interesting to study them, why is it morally wrong?
0
Baula
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#374
Report 7 years ago
#374
(Original post by Stratos)
It's not a matter of consent but of sexual maturity as consent is a grey area. Personally I couldn't care less about paedophilia if all we cared about was consent whereas the law is based on sexual maturity hence it does seem absurd to make zoophilia illegal for the animal is sexually mature and doesn't seem to be complaining, whereas if a human had sex with a baby/child it often either results in damage to other family members and the child is psychologically traumatised. Whereas this doesn't seem to be so with animals.

However it's not like we can observe psychological changes in animals or whether they consent or dissent the sex, but what we can say is that it doesn't cause physical harm/fear as those are physical stimuli which can be observed empirically.



Dumstruck.

How did you even manage to come up to such conclusion without any knowledge of genetics? animals of different species have different number of chromosomes hence they don't just produce infertile offspring, they simply don't produce offspring... Unless it's two different kinds of wheat which are very likely, or a horse and a donkey however this doesn't occur between a human and a sheep...

Even if we produced such chimeras wouldn't it be interesting to study them, why is it morally wrong?
Because it's animal cruelty.

As for the whole thing about genetics... That's what I'm meaning - It's really weird on that level.

In relation to this, you need to see the film "Splice" An impossible film but creepy none the less.
0
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#375
Report 7 years ago
#375
(Original post by Baula)
Because it's animal cruelty.

As for the whole thing about genetics... That's what I'm meaning - It's really weird on that level.

In relation to this, you need to see the film "Splice" An impossible film but creepy none the less.
I don't like scary movies. :eek:
0
Baula
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#376
Report 7 years ago
#376
(Original post by Stratos)
I don't like scary movies. :eek:
To be honest, it's not that scary, just REALLY weird in places
0
Varciani
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#377
Report 7 years ago
#377
(Original post by Stratos)
surprise, surprise humans are animals...
I'm aware of this, seeing as I take Zoology. There is a difference between humans and animals, namely higher level intelligence and the ability to reason, meaning that having sex with another human is completely different in every way (apart from that fact that you're sticking something in/they're sticking something in) to having sex with an animal.

Pointless thing to say, it proves/disproves nothing.
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#378
Report 7 years ago
#378
(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
With regards to sexing animals/children, yeah.

That was just my view on why zoophilia is frowned upon.
Only with sex! Nothing else is as important as sex! Lets kill animals for food or take them to war, but God forbid we ever gain sexual pleasure from them! :rolleyes:
0
ct2710
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#379
Report 7 years ago
#379
because homosexuality is not cross species intimacy. I think it is ludicrous to even consider the two in the same context.
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#380
Report 7 years ago
#380
(Original post by Mr Disco)
The way an animal expresses pain might not be clear to us.
Then we shouldn't have anything to do with animals.


(Original post by Mr Disco)
What an extraordinarily odd approach. Surely you think about whether an action is likely to cause harm before carrying it out.
Yes. And after thinking about it, I don't think it's likely to cause harm.

(Original post by Mr Disco)
Furthermore your approach is unreliable, you may be uneducated, or at least unsure about the ways an animal might express pain. Some indicators are universal, some are not.
Again, we should keep well away then.


(Original post by Mr Disco)
Point being that the best available evidence suggests that ****ing animals causes them distress and constitutes abuse.
What evidence?


(Original post by Mr Disco)
You have, I believe, misunderstood my point. My argument was a counter to the idea that animals are capable of tacit consent.
Again, we shouldn't do anything to them then.

(Original post by Mr Disco)
We are not entitled to say that animals are capable of consent for the reasons that I outlined.
See above.

(Original post by Mr Disco)
I have no memories from when I was a young infant.
Good for you... :lolwut:

(Original post by Mr Disco)
It is still unclear to me why sex with animals is appropriate whilst sex with infants is not.
I worry about you then. Which part is unclear to you?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (377)
37.29%
No - but I will (77)
7.62%
No - I don't want to (71)
7.02%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (486)
48.07%

Watched Threads

View All