Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not? Watch

This discussion is closed.
im so academic
Badges: 13
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by LethalBizzle)
It's not normal. 15 year olds maybe, but as they get younger it becomes more and more condemned, right? You've got to draw a line somewhere, it happens to be at 16 for the lawbooks, which is incidentally far above the line for horse-****ing.
I find it hypocritical that people have lost have virginities on her at around 14/15, yet THEY condemn sex at 9/10.
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by im so academic)
Yet underage sex exists. :lolwut:
Hence 'according to law'. The idea is to give a single blanket age where the vast majority are capable of giving consent but people do develop at different age. Some develop much faster than others. :sexface:
0
canimakeit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by im so academic)
What about a pubescent child? (Like me).
WAIT? your not even 13 yet? you have been strutting around like your in oxford already. :cool:

Also once again


Animals cannot express informed consent in the eyes of the law

Prepubescent children cannot express informed consent in the eyes of the law

Someone passed out cannot express informed consent in the eyes of the law

A dead person cannot express informed consent in the eyes of the law

Mental disability is where it gets iffy depends on the severity of their condition and the situation.
1
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by im so academic)
Yet underage sex exists. :lolwut:
Lots of things exist. Doesn't make them right though.

Personally I think underage sex is a difficult issue.
I think there should be something like the "romeo and juliet" laws used in other countries.
0
diamonddust
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
Because an animal can't give consent. :/
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by im so academic)
Then what's the ****ing point of the age of consent then?

You're essentially saying that it's acceptable for a 15 year old to have sex, but not a 5 year old. Same thing.
It's not 'acceptable' but it is done.

Every fight that happens in school (if we are talking about pure law) could be taken in to court, batter, assault and ABH etc etc. But it isn't, it just isn't worth the time. Just like trying to 'punish' these kids isn't.

I doubt anyone below the age of.. say 10? Have the mental capacity to recognize and carry out full on sexual intercourse. Of course young children are promiscuous and often 'play around' or whatever, but full on sex? Probably not.
0
maturestudy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
Anyone else Google this subject then accidentally click on a link to /b/ ? :afraid:
1
im so academic
Badges: 13
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Fusilero)
Hence 'according to law'. The idea is to give a single blanket age where the vast majority are capable of giving consent but people do develop at different age. Some develop much faster than others. :sexface:
But what's the point of the law, if technically it's "OK" to break it?
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by im so academic)
I find it hypocritical that people have lost have virginities on her at around 14/15, yet THEY condemn sex at 9/10.
While I realise that setting a firm age is difficult, I fail to see how you cannot see the difference between a 15 year old and a 9 year old.

(Original post by im so academic)
Then what's the ****ing point of the age of consent then?

You're essentially saying that it's acceptable for a 15 year old to have sex, but not a 5 year old. Same thing.
Because you have to have some cut off point, otherwise children will get taken advantage of.

And no. A 5 year old is not the same as a 15 year old.
For one a 5 year old will not know what sex is. A 15 year old will.
Secondly, a 5 year old will not have developed sex organs. A 15 year old will.
0
LethalBizzle
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
(Original post by im so academic)
I find it hypocritical that people have lost have virginities on her at around 14/15, yet THEY condemn sex at 9/10.
It's not hypocritical if they happen to think the age of consent should be 14/15. What a ridiculous thing to say.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#71
(Original post by im so academic)
Then what's the ****ing point of the age of consent then?

You're essentially saying that it's acceptable for a 15 year old to have sex, but not a 5 year old. Same thing.
Basically, if the age of consent was at 13 then people would say it's okay to have sex with 12 year olds because they're nearly there.

So it's at 16 to stop people having sex with 12 year olds.

Although I do think it's far worse for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old than it is for two 15 year olds who are experimenting to have sex.
0
Einheri
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
(Original post by Tefhel)
Animals can't consent, the end.
You can't ask an animal "Can I have sex with you?" and for them to understand what that means and entails and say Yes. The same reason paedophilia isn't accepted, because pre-pubescent children cannot consent to sex either.
I think this is a bad argument; the animal can't voice it's consent but it can show whether it objects to the situation, is in pain or distressed. If you do something to an animal that it doesn't like it'll tell you about it - if, for example, you stood behind a horse and tried to penetrate it and it objected to that it would responded by kicking your ribcage into mush. Also, the fact is sex really isn't a big deal to most species and so neither is the issue of consent. I used to live on a farm and have several times seen animals mount other animals of the same or different species without any kind of reaction - sexual consent is really a human issue, saying it is required of an animal is really just anthropomorphism. And the argument is even more ridiculous when the law allows animals to be killed and eaten by humans without their consent (something animals woud naturally object to).

Personally, as long as the animal isn't in distress or pain then I've no problem with bestiality. Making it illegal is just moralising by an unaffected third party. Personally, as an heterosexual male, I find the idea of two men screwing to be just as naturally repulsive as interspecies sex but as long as it isn't hurting anyone, human or otherwise, then I say they should be allowed to do what they want without the law intervening.
2
username457532
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
(Original post by im so academic)
So at 15, it's OK
At 14, it's OK
At 13, it's OK
At 12, it's OK
At 11, it's not

Why isn't the age of consent 12 then?
Legally. It's not ok if either partner is under 16. Most of the time both are under 16 and no-one is being forced so that's considered acceptable but you could still legally be arrested for it. The law is there to protect younger teenagers from making decisions they don't have the maturity to make and to protect teenagers from adults who could 'persuade' them into a physical relationship because the adults are manipulative or powerful or whatever...

Most 15 year olds are not mature enough to be having sex. Christ, most 18 year olds aren't.
0
101flyboy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
(Original post by lightburns)
Rape is rife in the animal kingdom. I read about an orangutan who tried to rape a woman. It is possible for the animal to initiate sex, and it is possible for the animal to want sex with another species.
This is about a human raping an animal, though. Also, an animal initiating a sexual situation with a human, which is not "rife" whatsoever, and animals having sex with other species, which is also not common, is not "rape." An animal is not processing the situation thinking of abusing a human, unlike the other way around.
0
101flyboy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
There is no such thing as a natural negative reaction towards homosexuality. That is not in nature and therefore unnatural, especially since many heterosexuals do not have this reaction. It's a disorder of the mind.
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
Most 15 year olds are not mature enough to be having sex. Christ, most 18 year olds aren't.
To expand a little on this. A lot of teenagers (especially girls) are very self conscious and so there is the risk of an older person to take advantage of that to get some action.

ISA mentioned earlier about an older person who she likes. I wonder if this has anything to do with the self confidence issues she also has (which she expressed in a different thread).
0
101flyboy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
(Original post by imperial maniac)
It's not offensive to discuss these issues rationally, as I am attempting to, if you are offended by this, then that is your issue, not mine. I'm not saying that there is a parallel between the two sexualities, I'm asking why you think that there isn't.
Do you think there is a parallel between zoophilia and heterosexuality?
0
lightburns
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
(Original post by 101flyboy)
This is about a human raping an animal, though. Also, an animal initiating a sexual situation with a human, which is not "rife" whatsoever, and animals having sex with other species, which is also not common, is not "rape." An animal is not processing the situation thinking of abusing a human, unlike the other way around.
I know that an animal initiating sex with a human is not rife, although it is not unheard of.

Animals can rape eachother - if one wants to get away, and the other forces sex, that is rape. And imo rape is wrong, obviously, including a human raping an animal.
0
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
(Original post by 101flyboy)
There is no such thing as a natural negative reaction towards homosexuality. That is not in nature and therefore unnatural, especially since many heterosexuals do not have this reaction. It's a disorder of the mind.
The fact you're alive today is, statistically, unnatural. Modern science has, statistically, saved your life beyond what nature intended. Nature is irrelevant in ethics, **** nature.

Which I suppose is the entire point of this thread. :holmes:
0
Tefhel
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
(Original post by Einheri)
I think this is a bad argument; the animal can't voice it's consent but it can show whether it objects to the situation, is in pain or distressed. If you do something to an animal that it doesn't like it'll tell you about it - if, for example, you stood behind a horse and tried to penetrate it and it objected to that it would responded by kicking your ribcage into mush. Also, the fact is sex really isn't a big deal to most species and so neither is the issue of consent. I used to live on a farm and have several times seen animals mount other animals of the same or different species without any kind of reaction - sexual consent is really a human issue, saying it is required of an animal is really just anthropomorphism. And the argument is even more ridiculous when the law allows animals to be killed and eaten by humans without their consent (something animals woud naturally object to).

Personally, as long as the animal isn't in distress or pain then I've no problem with bestiality. Making it illegal is just moralising by an unaffected third party. Personally, as an heterosexual male, I find the idea of two men screwing to be just as naturally repulsive as interspecies sex but as long as it isn't hurting anyone, human or otherwise, then I say they should be allowed to do what they want without the law intervening.
How do you know that an animal isn't in pain or in distress? You can't know. They can't tell you, and they won't sit there and cry. Having lived on a farm you will know that sometimes they will react, sometimes they won't.

And why not apply the same standard to people then? If someone has sex with a child and they don't object (perhaps because they're confused and terrified) then by your logic they've consented?
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! (266)
38.61%
No - but I will (46)
6.68%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.4%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (326)
47.31%

Watched Threads

View All