Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    You’re deliberately misreading my comments.
    how on earth do you know?!

    As I said above:

    Even if the human is the passive participant, it is still they who are the rational, sentient being with a sense of moral judgement, which an animal cannot ever possess.

    This is very similar to the situation where a mature adult woman could have intercourse with a 12 year old boy in a loving, consensual relationship but the woman would be rightly prosecuted for statutory rape, since the child is not competent to make such decisions and the woman would be abusing her position of authority, responsibility and transgressing accepted societal and legal bounds.
    and what does that serve to show other than you are trying to equate having sex with a dog to rape of a minor? they are irrelevant to one another. society may find dog sex illegal and unacceptable, as we are discussing, but it has nothing to do with considerations of child rape and what moral and physical and mental damage that incurs.

    It doesn’t immediately follow but it does in this case (as for murder, incest, rape, necrophilia etc.). One follows the other. It is unacceptable to society and this is enshrined in law.
    there are alot of illegal practices that are still considered acceptable or that are practiced by what society considers perfectly sane people.

    Society confers many constraints on individual liberty – without them a stable, functioning social order would not be possible. Social customs are changeable (human sacrifice and cannibalism were once acceptable in some cultures) but in our particular civilization, at this time in history, zoophilia and bestiality are considered abnormal by almost all of society, and this view is protected by law.
    i dont consider it normal but that doesnt mean i dont accept it or wish to define acceptance in this case.

    It’s plain and simple – the abuse of an animal for personal sexual gratification is deemed abhorrent because animals are not competent to give their consent and the human participant is knowingly abusing their duty of care to the animal.
    in your opinion. duty of care? an animal is not competent to give its consent but, as im sure youll argue, can claim rights rights to a duty of care encompassing sexual stimulation? if im looking after the dog and it sustains no physical harm what is stopping me doing as please with it? i can put a collar around his neck, dictate his feeding patterns and should be able to provide him with sexual stimulation no? if not, when, according to you, did it become a "rational, sentient being with a sense of moral judgement" and how does this not contradict the grounds on to which you based it being unacceptable in society.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    I believe that it is wrong for humans to have sex with beings that are not consenting to the intercourse.

    That does not only imply that you shouldn't have sex with a being that makes its opposition to the intercourse clear, but also that you should not have sex with a being that is not capable to consent, that has no notion of "consenting".

    Clearly, non-human animals do not have such a notion. Therefore any sexual intercourse with them is wrong.
    Animals have sexual intercorse with each other an with other species of animal in the wild. If they have no sense of being able to consent surely this is wronge. Animals choose to have sex in the wild there are cirtain species of animal who have be found to enjoy sex. Just because an animal can't say I concent doesn't mean that it isn't choosing to cary out this act. Also animals have been shown not to percieve sex in the same way that humans do for animals it is generally just another bodily fuction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    I know I'll be shot down for this but I didn't realise until just now that I was debating with law students. Now everything is beginning to make sense!
    cheap sarcasm belongs on GC

    I keep stating that I don't believe laws define what is right and wrong but you keep castigating me for that line of argument.
    So, again:
    - that line of argument:

    "responsibility and transgressing accepted legal bounds."

    "I've already stated that bestiality is akin to statutory rape of a minor..condemned by society and this is enshrined in law."

    "One follows the other. It is unacceptable to society and this is enshrined in law"

    "I've already explained that the legal status of bestiality follows from its status in society"

    "Homosexuality was illegal in the UK until 1967. Sexual attitudes changed in society and the law followed suit. This is not currently the case for bestiality, and I would hazard it is likely to remain so for a long time to come."

    - the multiple times youve repeated that you "don't believe laws define what is right and wrong" : "The law is not always right"


    ill keep castigating you for that line of argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dajo123, NDGAARONDI, vienna95 – the three of you seem to be tying your arguments up in knots with your endless obsession with the legal status of bestiality. I only mentioned it in the context that it is a reflection of society’s general attitude to this activity.

    The important issue is not how bestiality is considered within law – even if bestiality was legal or at least decriminalised, it would still be morally unacceptable.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    duty of care? an animal is not competent to give its consent but, as im sure youll argue, can claim rights rights to a duty of care encompassing sexual stimulation? if im looking after the dog and it sustains no physical harm what is stopping me doing as please with it? i can put a collar around his neck, dictate his feeding patterns and should be able to provide him with sexual stimulation no? if not, when, according to you, did it become a "rational, sentient being with a sense of moral judgement" and how does this not contradict the grounds on to which you based it being unacceptable in society.
    The crux of the matter is that animals are living creatures unable to give their consent. Domesticated animals are dependent on us for protection, shelter and succour, and they are accorded certain basic rights, including that of bodily integrity (wild animals are also accorded similar rights). They are not just items of property that we own and can use and abuse however we so wish.

    The consensus attitude of society is that zoophilia and bestiality are not acceptable. As well as simply being based on an emotional ‘gut feeling’, this is also due to Homo sapiens unique position as a sentient, rational being able to discern right from wrong and capable of knowingly abusing its position of power over other creatures.

    Society (including its legal institutions) acts to confer many constraints on individual liberty – without them a stable, functioning social order would not be possible. Social customs are changeable (human sacrifice and cannibalism were once acceptable in some cultures) but in our particular civilization, at this time in history, zoophilia and bestiality are considered abnormal by practically everyone, and this view would still hold whether or not it was written in a legal framework.

    The abuse of an animal for personal sexual gratification is abhorrent because animals are not competent to give their consent and the human participant is consciously abusing their position of power over the animal.

    Actual physical damage need not take place in order for maltreatment to occur, which is how this is comparable to the statutory rape of a consenting minor, who is similarly not competent to give their consent - the adult participant is knowingly abusing their position of power over the child. And it’s comparable to necrophilia because even a corpse, like an animal is accorded the basic right of bodily integrity, respect and protection from needless interference.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I would disagree because I feel that we are putting human emotions on to animals. What we may consider to be sexual abuse an animal would not. Sex is a natural part of all animals lives and it is seen in nature that animals mate with animals of different species. So aslong as pain isn't caused I really don't understand where you are comeing from.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Dajo123, NDGAARONDI, vienna95 – the three of you seem to be tying your arguments up in knots with your endless obsession with the legal status of bestiality.
    Justify this claim.

    (Original post by spk)
    I only mentioned it in the context that it is a reflection of society’s general attitude to this activity.
    None of us started getting legal, it was you I think.

    (Original post by spk)
    The important issue is not how bestiality is considered within law – even if bestiality was legal or at least decriminalised, it would still be morally unacceptable.
    Morals does not equal law. Jurisprudence springs to mind here.

    (Original post by spk)
    Actual physical damage need not take place in order for maltreatment to occur, which is how this is comparable to the statutory rape of a consenting minor, who is similarly not competent to give their consent - the adult participant is knowingly abusing their position of power over the child.
    A minor is inclusive of which age group in this context? 15 or 17 year old and downwards?

    (Original post by spk)
    And it’s comparable to necrophilia because even a corpse, like an animal is accorded the basic right of bodily integrity, respect and protection from needless interference.
    No they're not. That's why we enjoy excavating (sp) bodies and building roads over burial sites. Oh and don't forget the status with aborted foetuses as well then. There's a thread on that somewhere. Randdom might know

    I wouldn't mind these abuse arguments if we took the same view with animal testing.

    Our laws relating to general animal abuse are not strong enough. The RSPCA need to be given more powers and the penalties need to be much more severe than they are now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    this is comparable to the statutory rape of a consenting minor, who is similarly not competent to give their consent - the adult participant is knowingly abusing their position of power over the child.
    I disagree. You cannot superimpose human values onto animals because animals are driven by the basic needs of sex, shelter, food and reward. So, an animal who initiates sex with a human is doing so because it wants to, this act will not "mentally damage" the animal in the future as it would an underage child, as animals cannot experience such emotions. Therefore i do not see where the element of "abuse" enters the equation or how the two situations are comparable.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    No they're not. That's why we enjoy excavating (sp) bodies and building roads over burial sites. Oh and don't forget the status with aborted foetuses as well then. There's a thread on that somewhere. Randdom might know
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t56171.html that is the thread
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t56171.html that is the thread
    That's the one. Forgot the title of it but since I knew you participated in that thread I mentioned you.

    spk, have a read of the above link. Also see the comments about fox hunting and animal testing within D&D.

    One labatory mouse looked more like a stegosaurus which I saw on the TV. Disgusting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    The crux of the matter is that animals are living creatures unable to give their consent.
    to reproduce?

    Domesticated animals are dependent on us for protection, shelter and succour, and they are accorded certain basic rights, including that of bodily integrity (wild animals are also accorded similar rights). They are not just items of property that we own and can use and abuse however we so wish.
    the discussion is about what ABUSE actually is. so this is jumping the gun.

    The consensus attitude of society is that zoophilia and bestiality are not acceptable.
    that is what we are trying to establish. for my part, i dont really grasp in which context acceptable is placed.

    As well as simply being based on an emotional ‘gut feeling’, this is also due to Homo sapiens unique position as a sentient, rational being able to discern right from wrong and capable of knowingly abusing its position of power over other creatures.
    also in the same position to enjoy sexual pleasure as something other than a method of reproduction. to enjoy sexual stimulation as a virture of life.

    Society (including its legal institutions)
    there it is again.

    acts to confer many constraints on individual liberty – without them a stable, functioning social order would not be possible. Social customs are changeable (human sacrifice and cannibalism were once acceptable in some cultures) but in our particular civilization, at this time in history, zoophilia and bestiality are considered abnormal by practically everyone, and this view would still hold whether or not it was written in a legal framework.
    again, we are trying to establish whether, abnormal or not, bestiality can still be accepted. there are plenty of cases of human abnormality that are nevertheless 'accepted'.

    The abuse of an animal for personal sexual gratification is abhorrent because animals are not competent to give their consent and the human participant is consciously abusing their position of power over the animal.
    as randdom points out, an animal views sex as a reproductive process only. it has no other method of being stimulated other than to believe it will mate. since mating can be considerd a consensual process for an animal, how can you have sex with an animal if it has no intention of mating with you?

    Actual physical damage need not take place in order for maltreatment to occur, which is how this is comparable to the statutory rape of a consenting minor, who is similarly not competent to give their consent - the adult participant is knowingly abusing their position of power over the child.
    i find it increasingly worrying that you can equate the abuse of a child in a "unique position as a sentient, rational being able to discern right from wrong and capable of knowingly abusing its position of power over other creatures" to stimulating an animal, of which you just stated, the human child should instinctively no better.

    And it’s comparable to necrophilia because even a corpse, like an animal is accorded the basic right of bodily integrity, respect and protection from needless interference.
    erm, but its not human and its not dead. i thought that part of the "crux of the matter" was "that animals are living creatures".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna95, I didn't think this was the sort of topics you debated on. This was something I noticed in my first few weeks of membership of this site though, so I can be easily wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    as randdom points out, an animal views sex as a reproductive process only.
    you obviously haven't been in the sack with a dolphin.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    you obviously haven't been in the sack with a dolphin.
    Yes there are other species who use sex for enjoyment purposes like ourselves, this was mentioned before on another thread too somewhere...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Vienna95, I didn't think this was the sort of topics you debated on. This was something I noticed in my first few weeks of membership of this site though, so I can be easily wrong.
    if it is sensible, ill discuss it. I usually wait to see how threads such as this develop. If its well, then maybe ill add something, if its poorly, then ill have it removed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    you obviously haven't been in the sack with a dolphin.
    forgive me, im not an expert.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    forgive me, im not an expert.
    given that there is no conclusive evidence that animals do not seek pleasure from sexual stimulation, where does this leave the issue of consent? especially if "mating can be considerd a consensual process for an animal" is based on the notion sex is purely reproductive?

    *tells flipper to be quiet while i'm in the middle of writing a post*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    given that there is no conclusive evidence that animals do not seek pleasure from sexual stimulation, where does this leave the issue of consent? especially if "mating can be considerd a consensual process for an animal" is based on the notion sex is purely reproductive?

    *tells flipper to be quiet while i'm in the middle of writing a post*
    if the animal seeks sexual stimulation for reproductive purposes only, then we can consider that action to be consensual. if the animal seeks sexual stimulation for purposes of pleasure, then its participation would also be indicative of its consent to the action, since im sure its arousal is equally linked to its desires.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    if the animal seeks sexual stimulation for reproductive purposes only, then we can consider that action to be consensual. if the animal seeks sexual stimulation for purposes of pleasure, then its participation would also be indicative of its consent to the action, since im sure its arousal is equally linked to its desires.
    how can you tell if an animal is actively seeking sex? is there a guidebook produced for this exact branch of ethics in reading the signs? would it start off by a sheep offering you a double vodka at the bar, a few minutes fumbling and then some cheesy chat up line before the sheep says "get yer coat, you've pulled" as he leads you up to his hotel room?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    how can you tell if an animal is actively seeking sex? is there a guidebook produced for this exact branch of ethics in reading the signs?
    You might be surprised at what current research finds. Plenty of animals produce signs seeking sex or mate as they say. Birds perform various acts to pull. Unless you mean soemthing different?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    You might be surprised at what current research finds. Plenty of animals produce signs seeking sex or mate as they say. Birds perform various acts to pull.
    other 'research' suggests inter-species mating signs are actually signs of social hierarchical dominance and this can be a false-initiator.

    the only true consensual 'animal experience' would mean proving that the animal fully wants the whole thing. this could not be proved in a court of law, albeit a kangaroo court
 
 
 
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 protests make a difference in political decisions?
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.