Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is Zoophillia acceptable? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In previous times cannibalism and human sacrifice have been acceptable in some societies. Murder and rape is part of the coming of age process for certain tribes. The ancient Greeks had lots of stories about bestialty, although I don't know if it was socially acceptable as sexual behaviour in normal life. Homosexuality was also once frowned upon but is now generally accepted. Society makes the moral rules. In our society, bestiality is taboo and forbidden. This may not be the case in past or future societies but it is in ours. Disgust may play a part in this but it's not the only reason, and not enough to justify making it illegal.

    It's all about consent (we can't communicate with them and we cannot presume consent on their behalf), the rights of animals (they have rights), duty of care (we have responsibilities), and the limits society imposes on individual liberty (based on morals, ethics, public opionion, politics, philosophy, law etc).

    Animals have rights. We are rationally-thinking humans, and as owners of pets, farm and zoo animals, we have a responsibility to care, protect, shelter, and feed them. This includes preventing animals from being used as sex toys.

    With regard to what constitutes abuse, there doesn't have to be any physical pain for abuse to have occurred. Abuse can be defined as harm inflicted on a living creature through physical, verbal, emotional, or sexual means. The inappropriate use of an animal as an object purely for the sexual gratification of a human can thereby be classified as harmful and cruel, i.e. abuse, even if the animal has not suffered physically or emotionally (in as much as we can understand the psychology of an animal).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    This is what makes this thread so ridiculous - the fact that you're debating it in the first place - it's a complete non-starter. If you can't see that it's wrong you've got something wrong with you. end. of.
    Also, I don't know why you took what I said so personally: you voted 'no'.
    Most of the people including myself who voted yes on this poll did so not because they don't feel repulsed by the idea of sleeping which animals because I don't think anyone on this thread has posted this. But because I understand that there are people who do want to do this with animals. And in my personal oppinion as long as this is causeing no harm to the animals there is no reason to make it illegal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Firstly, homosexuality, mixed race relationships offended people at the time but is that right? And since you're christian (or other religion), this won't go any where. Sorry but you can read my views on religion on the post in debate and discussion 'more vulnerable acts from islam'.
    Actually I'm not religious at all. I was just saying why other people may take offence. I don't think I ever said I was religious...

    Homosexuality is completely different - at least the indivduals involved are of the same species!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Most of the people including myself who voted yes on this poll did so not because they don't feel repulsed by the idea of sleeping which animals because I don't think anyone on this thread has posted this. But because I understand that there are people who do want to do this with animals. And in my personal oppinion as long as this is causeing no harm to the animals there is no reason to make it illegal.
    It already is illegal
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onearmedbandit)
    It already is illegal
    Ok then it should be legal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Ok then it should be legal.
    It should not be legalised for the following reasons:

    1. Consent - we can't communicate with animals and we cannot presume consent on their behalf

    2. The rights of animals - they have rights

    3. Duty of care - we have responsibilities

    4. The limits society imposes on individual liberty - based on morals, ethics, public opinion, politics, philosophy, jurisprudence etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is ilegal for good reason. At least these imbersiles are removing their obviously defective genes from the gene pool voluntarily
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, my point, ONEARMEDBANDIT was that you can't dismiss it and make it illegal just coz you find it disgusting (which I belive many people opposing my bview are but not admitting it. People like armedbanditshould read my previous posts as I can't be bothered repeating my ponts (and don't tell me you have coz you quite obviously haven't)

    And hey spk! Right, this is where our main dispute is. I don't think animals have rights but you do. You haven't said why they should have rights, except we are rational humans. Yes, for pets people should care for them because they have chosen to empathise and have that kind of connection witht he animal (plus it is their duty as the owners to ensure they don't run off stray and pollute the streets. If all first time pet owners did this, we'd be like Athens! (I've heard lots of stray cats and cat diseases). Zoo animals should be cared for because they have been taken into captivity and therefore unlikely to be taken back into the wild. Part of some zoo's jobs are to help stablise numbers (breeding programmes etc). Plus it would cause huge upsets if the animals were displayed as sick etc.

    Now when it comes to pets, giving their emotions/psychology importance is not why they are protected. If an animal didn't squirm/show suffering, I'm sure people wouldn't care because it doesn't evoke empathy but the fact remains that when an animal is 'raped' or screwed, it conjures up strong disgust and empathy if raped. Thus afffecting peoples well being and that is why so many people oppose it because they find themselves either strongly distubed/disgusted. This is particular strong if they are our pets. I'm glad to see where we stand on disgust not being enought to make something illegal.

    And I know why it is not legalised, but we're discussing whether it should be, independent of public opinion and politics. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right (but two rights make a left! ).

    I don't feel you have really answered my question of WHY they should be given rights therefore a right to consent. Yes they are similar to us, but we don't just give rights to something that we have simply found empathy for. Humans have created rights for HUMANS because rational, intelligent society has to be maintained this way but why give animal rights? I don't feel you are acknowledging that animals (that we have chosen to care for) are simply there for our pleasure (not necessarily sexual pleasure) or benefit and protecting them is only for people's feelings, not the animals. From a geneticists point of view, we need to keep the range of animals on this planet for a diverse gene bank, and secondly, the devasting effect it would have on the rest of the ecosystem (even if one animal disappears).

    I would like to hear your response spk, especially to my last question of why animals should have consent/rights. Or anyone who isn't going to just say "animal sex? ewwwww!" (not you spk)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Firstly, my point, ONEARMEDBANDIT was that you can't dismiss it and make it illegal just coz you find it disgusting (which I belive many people opposing my bview are but not admitting it. People like armedbanditshould read my previous posts as I can't be bothered repeating my ponts (and don't tell me you have coz you quite obviously haven't)
    Calamity - What makes you think that the only reason I think it should be illegal is because I think it's disgusting? Of course I do think it's disgusting, but that's not the reason for which I think it should be unlawful! There are many things which I think are disgusting but I can accept their legality.

    I have read your posts and I believe I've addressed all your questions. I really don't understand what more you want me to say. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Some people find hip hop music disgusting.....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Some people find hip hop music disgusting.....
    Nah, I just find it pointless But I don't have a big problem with it if people like it, that's just them.


    Personally I find cheese & pickle disgusting, but I am prepared to accept its legality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    1. Consent - we can't communicate with animals and we cannot presume consent on their behalf
    Animals have sex with each other all the time. The have also been know to initiate sex with humans. As far as consent goes that seems preety conclusive. If they cannot consent to sex then how can we allow animals to have sex at all.

    2. The rights of animals - they have rights
    Of course animals have rights I am not saying that they don't they have the right not to be hurt by people. I am just saying that cases where the animals don't actually get hurt aren't violating their rights. And as this thread is about Zooaphilia the people normally love or at least think they love the animal so they are unlikely to cause these animals pain

    3. Duty of care - we have responsibilities
    Yes we do but I don't think that this is the worst thing that people in the country do to animals. Where is that duty of care when it comes to the chickens that are in battery farms or the calves that are taken away from their mothers soon after birth and locked in crates to keep their meat supple for veal. Do we not have a duty of care to these animals. Yet it is some how considered a violoation of this duty of care when a man sleeps with a horse or a women let her dog have sex with her. Now I agree that the idea of haveing sex with animals makes me feel sick. But can you honestly say that you think that the owner who has sex with the animal is being more cruel then the people who are keeping animals in the conditions mentioned above. So unless we suddenly ban battery farming and many other inhumane practices involving animals I don't see why this can be considered worse.

    4. The limits society imposes on individual liberty - based on morals, ethics, public opinion, politics, philosophy, jurisprudence etc.
    I understand where you are coming from when it comes to public oppinon and Politics ect because public oppinion is generally against zooaphilia it would be hard to change the law. However again I ask how can it be morally or ethically right to kill animals and keep them in such horrific conditions but not morally or ethically right to have sex with them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    I would like to hear your response spk, especially to my last question of why animals should have consent/rights. Or anyone who isn't going to just say "animal sex? ewwwww!" (not you spk)
    Okay, just for CJ, here’s an argument to justify why animals should have rights. (It’s adapted from an essay about animal research but that’s another issue, so let’s not get bogged down with that):

    All beings are entitled to basic legal rights if they have the status of a legal person. Legal persons have legal rights. Legal things are slaves without rights.

    In determining whether any being, human or non-human, should be a legal person with basic legal rights, you need to look at the first principles of Western law.

    No being should be denied legal personhood and fundamental rights as a matter of policy.

    There are certain inherent legal rights to which beings are entitled. These basic legal rights protect the most important interests.

    Bodily integrity – freedom from substantial touching – is one.

    The right to move about freely – bodily liberty – is another. You can see how vital bodily liberty is because it is what we take from those who seriously violate criminal laws.

    Liberty and equality are fundamental to Western justice. Liberty entitles beings to be treated a certain way. There is an irreducible degree of bodily liberty and bodily integrity that is everywhere considered sacrosanct. If we trespass upon them, we inflict the gravest injustice, because then we treat others as slaves and things.

    An important aspect of liberty is autonomy. Autonomy is not necessary for basic liberty rights but sufficient. Practical autonomy is sufficient for personhood and basic liberty rights. Beings have practical autonomy if they can desire, intentionally try to fulfill their desire, and possess a sense of self sufficient to allow them to understand, even dimly, that it is themselves who wants something and is trying to get it.

    Any autonomous being is entitled to basic liberty rights.

    We can be fairly confident that mammals (non-human species, which are close to us taxonomically, and that resemble us in certain behaviours) possess desires, intentions and a sense of self resembling ours. They can thus be classified as autonomous beings and be entitled to basic liberty rights.

    Such beings are probably self-conscious, with some or all of the elements of a theory of mind, may have some understanding of symbols, use a language-like communication system, and may perceive, pretend, imitate or solve problems.

    At the root of practical autonomy is consciousness. Emotions may produce consciousness. The structures responsible for simple consciousness are evolutionarily old and are present in numerous non-human animals, and they mature early in individual human development.

    Brain structures generating simple consciousness can be found in most mammals, some birds, and some reptiles.

    Because emotional stress raises the body-core temperature and heart rate of rats, humans, birds and reptiles but not amphibians, it has been posited that emotion and consciousness emerged between the evolution of amphibians and reptiles, more than 200 million years ago. A reasonable guess, then, is that reptiles, mammals and birds are probably conscious.

    How can we assign autonomy to an animal about whose mental abilities we are uncertain? Uncertainty is pervasive in law. In the threat of uncertainty and the threat of error, judges must decide and content themselves with determining on which side they err.

    Depriving autonomous beings of basic liberty rights is a terrible injustice. When there is doubt and serious damage is threatened, we should err on the cautious side where evidence of practical autonomy exists.

    There are over a million species of animals with a huge array of cognitive abilities. To determine the legal status of an animal, you have to look to the animal, the intended use, the manner is which the animal will live, and whether it would be legal to use an incompetent human in a similar situation.

    Since we accord animals that have practical autonomy such basic legal rights, we also extend this to all living creatures – a prudent and just application of the precautionary principle.

    Therefore, animals do have rights.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Of course it's disgusting!!!! I do want to throw up my carrot infested guts up!! But the people who actually enjoy this have very complex reasons for this and I'm saying they should be allowed to do this because there's no other good reason to except finding it gross!!! And if you're gonna be sensible and not trying to be attention seeking and witty, look at the previous arguments between me and someone who has a pet dog or the arguments between the law students earlier! Otherwise, just piss off you dumb *****.
    God! There's no need for that! Can't you articulate a debate without losing your cool?
    The 'sensible' thing would to those who participate in bestiality some sort of psychological help ASAP. Not just saying, "hell, it doesn't affect me, so let them just get on with it!"
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    em when was the last time you 'ungayed' someone? I SAID ALL THIS ABOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP EARLIER!if they can, then of course that would be the best option but if not then, I didn' see why not? And i was pissed off at you coz you didn't have anything sensible to say and wjust kept going. 'this is so f*cked up'. And you clearly still haven't even attempted to read the previous. And it's not like you're even asking me anything or even understand why some people think it's ok. All you're saying is 'it's sick and you're all f*cked and I'm not listening!' If you know why so well don't you share with us? And I doubt you will come up with anything that law or medic students haven't brought up but at least they aren't being ignorant of the other side. If you want to debate this sensibly, read the previous and we can discuss from then on. otherwise do as th previous.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, thank you spk for taking time to adapt that for me. I hope you know I am finding this discussion most productive and really appreciate your time (especially being a post grad med student and all).

    What I'm going to say is going to sound awful: If those people (mentally impaired to be in same status as animals) were given up for adoption to someone who wanted to use them (like in zoophillia), it would obviously be really harrowing. But would the only difference with zoophillia not be that people would have far greater empathy for the handicapped because it is a human?

    I think the only issue brought up there is where do we draw the line between mentally handicapped and animals? If we blur those lines where do we stop? People in our modern world just can’t help but empathise with animals/handicapped humans. We can’t make laws independent of emotions, as that is what strong moral fabric is based on as I feel punishment is not a strong enough deterrent. We have to encourage people to empathise as this is a far greater deterrent. Now I understand why consent an issue with animals, if we don't give consent to an animal, we don't give it to handicaps and their well being is important to our well being in that we can't help but empathise with their pain.

    So therefore, I’m changing my mind and saying yes it should be illegal for that very reason. Thank you spk! See it has been productive and I’m not just arguing for the sake of it. You’ve educated me! But funny how after a few pages, everyone kept making the invalid comparison to paedophilia but none of the opponents brought up the key issues of empathy: why we do it and why it's important in influencing a law (not politics), nor did anyone else bring up the comparison of handicaps of similar intellect and animals. So I really dout any of you (apart from spk) had any idea of what you were talking about. At least I've questioned it further and admitted I'm wrong.

    If I have got this completey wrong spk, please reply. Want to know more if so.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    So therefore, I’m changing my mind and saying yes it should be illegal for that very reason. Thank you spk! See it has been productive and I’m not just arguing for the sake of it. You’ve educated me! But funny how after a few pages, everyone kept making the invalid comparison to paedophilia but none of the opponents brought up the key issues of empathy: why we do it and why it's important in influencing a law (not politics), nor did anyone else bring up the comparison of handicaps of similar intellect and animals. So I really dout any of you (apart from spk) had any idea of what you were talking about. At least I've questioned it further and admitted I'm wrong.

    If I have got this completey wrong spk, please reply. Want to know more if so.
    OK first of all tell my why the comparison to paedophelia is invalid? Surely even you can see links between the two offences. :confused:

    Secondly I did bring up the issue of consent and the fact that animals have rights.

    Also I think other people made some valid points... not that you'd have noticed seeing as how you so often lose it and fail to debate in what most would deem an appropriate manner.

    Finally just because you don't understand something that somebody said doesn't give you an automatic right to say they don't know what they're talking about. By saying this, you're basically telling us that our opinions are wrong. Great job. :rolleyes:


    Not that spk's research wasn't useful! Well done. :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    em when was the last time you 'ungayed' someone? I SAID ALL THIS ABOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP EARLIER!if they can, then of course that would be the best option but if not then, I didn' see why not? And i was pissed off at you coz you didn't have anything sensible to say and wjust kept going. 'this is so f*cked up'. And you clearly still haven't even attempted to read the previous. And it's not like you're even asking me anything or even understand why some people think it's ok. All you're saying is 'it's sick and you're all f*cked and I'm not listening!' If you know why so well don't you share with us? And I doubt you will come up with anything that law or medic students haven't brought up but at least they aren't being ignorant of the other side. If you want to debate this sensibly, read the previous and we can discuss from then on. otherwise do as th previous.
    What? I posted 2 posts? I didn't "just keep going". My opinion, which I think it's quite fair for me to have (just as you're welcome to yours) was that it's not really something which I feel to be debatable. Obviously you do, which is fair enough.
    I'm sorry that you've been forced to repeat yourself but hey, that's life. Deal with it or go on an anger management course. But by your line of reasoning, I'm not entitled to give my opinion any way - just in case someone else has already stated it - and hell, we wouldn't want to make you go all over that again now would we!
    For the record, my opinion IS that which has already been stated...
    1) that animals should not be 'scapegoats' (pardon for the pun) for the sick and twisted sexual preferences of perverts.
    2) that there is the issue of consent.
    3) that there is the issue of animal rights.
    4) And of course, it's completely disgusting.

    If I don't have anything further to add to the debate than that, I'm terribly sorry. And no, to be honest, I haven't read your posts - I'd rather stick pins in my eyes, ta.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No, Nuff said :cool:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    [one armed bandit]
    OK first of all tell my why the comparison to paedophelia is invalid? Surely even you can see links between the two offences.

    Secondly I did bring up the issue of consent and the fact that animals have rights.

    Also I think other people made some valid points... not that you'd have noticed seeing as how you so often lose it and fail to debate in what most would deem an appropriate manner.

    Finally just because you don't understand something that somebody said doesn't give you an automatic right to say they don't know what they're talking about."

    The comparison is invalid because the effect on a pet is far less of a crime than on a young human being. Yes I see that you were saying they both thought they were in a consensual relationship but I never said that was why I thought it was ok. Animals (other than us) are FAR less important than a human being.

    No I do understand what you have said. I know you stated they had rights but you never said why they were entitled to them. I never said what you said was wrong just coz I lost it (didn't at all but i did with that eleenia).

    As for Eleenia, you critise me for losing my cool, but ever since I've called you a dumb ***** you have done nothing but be *****y back so don't think you are any better. And when on earth did I say you couldn't have an opinion? WE are on a debate and discussion. Thats why we're here, to disagree because of differences. You just came on to the forum and thought it would be very funny and cool to say 'I don't know why any of you are on this forum. It's too sick to talk about.' then why have to come back here at least 5 times to be *****y to me since the first comment I've made about you? My point was if you don't have anything producive to say but be silly, don't post it. It was a waste of your time and ours reading it.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 9, 2004
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.