BEASTIALITY

[Napoléon]

I dunno.  I'm kind of with abaris on this one.  I think a lot of responses here are being really unfair to CL.

They always are aren't they?

/sarcasm

[drfuzzy]

First response:  ewww . . . 

Second response:  really?

Third response:  well, if the animal is not harmed . . . but then, not all harm is physical, and how do you measure harm in a creature who can't tell you how it feels . . . 

Fourth response:  back to ewww . . . 

Fifth . . . Didn't I read something about incidences of men raping dogs growing in frequency?   (Quick Google search)

Nov. 14, 2013 in San Pedro, California, 22-year-old Christopher Alexander Caceres was arrested on a felony residential burglary charge and charges of sexual deviance, bestiality and rape of a dog.

November 21, 2013, David Lee Carter of Benson, NC, was arrested on several counts of crimes against nature — for raping his dog —  in front of a CHILD.

Ok, now I'm nauseous.   
Beastiality?   Causing pain and confusion to a poor animal is just as bad as any other kind of rape, in my mind.  Stories of getting a dog to lick food items off of parts of human anatomy . . . I haven't even taken the time to consider why I think it's disgusting.   I'd say I'll ponder that one some more, but I really need to get back to work now.    Ewww . . .

[Exian]

I think she makes a fair point about animals being unable to give consent to anything we do to them though...

Birds in a bird cage. Giant horses in little stalls. Shamu in a tank. Elephants in the circus. Dogs...well most dogs are happy to live in giant human houses.

I think the answer to that might be- We're aware of the problem.

[Whateverist]

Lol, ok. So I know how this looks. 

Let me first say that I'm definitely against it. And that I am NOT  equating this to gay marriage or anything like that. This is a completely independent issue.   

I am curious 

Good for you!  You'll never know if you don't try it.  Maybe this is something your husband and you and look into together?

[abaris]

Seriously, I feel like this is week 1 of me being on these forums all over again. People constantly assuming and accusing me of having "ulterior motives" for simply asking questions and trying to discuss and understand the views of those who think so differently from myself.

That would be because you aren't in week 1. In lights of all the discussions we had about different forms of sexuality and the word consent being stressed ad nauseam, this question shouldn't be in need to be asked.

[Redbeard The Pink]

INFORMED consent. INFOOORMEDAH!



The example you provided in the OP is an example of non-informed consent because it depends on the animal not really knowing the full extent of what's going on. It would be implicitly consenting to eating the peanut butter by voluntarily doing it on instinct, but it would not be knowingly consenting to licking the hypothetical human's junk until he and/or she came on themselves because (as you stated) it wouldn't have any way of comprehending what was really happening there.


By the same logic you propose in the OP, one might ask what's wrong with using similar tactics (food or what have you) to coax the same behavior out of an adult human who (because of a substance or whatever reason) didn't have the mental capacity to fully comprehend or maybe even remember what happened. Would that be any more or less wrong than doing it to a dog?

[Napoléon]

I think she makes a fair point about animals being unable to give consent to anything we do to them though...

Birds in a bird cage. Giant horses in little stalls. Shamu in a tank. Elephants in the circus. Dogs...well most dogs are happy to live in giant human houses.

I think the answer to that might be- We're aware of the problem.

That's true but rape in and of itself is inherently different to putting a bird in a cage. Let's not compare apples with oranges.

[Athene]

I'm not quite there yet, since I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But this thread seriously puts my previous opinions to the test.

Then what are my "intentions?" Why can't my intentions just be because I want to know someone else's way of thinking and point of view?

Seriously, I feel like this is week 1 of me being on these forums all over again. People constantly assuming and accusing me of having "ulterior motives" for simply asking questions and trying to discuss and understand the views of those who think so differently from myself.

You certainly seem to have no problem with speculating, so I'm going to join you and speculate the hell out of your intentions. You're "aw shucks" attitude is fake. You're attempting to make a connection, through your endless polls and loaded questions, that atheists are sick, heartless and immoral.
You overplayed your hand this time, and went too far.

[Whateverist]

Theists sure do have kinky suspicions. Kind of like the ones who are pretty sure they'd be raping and murdering if not for the love of Christ.

[The Valkyrie]

If God had not meant man to make love to animals he wouldn't have put horns on the front of the goat to hang onto.

And zebras wouldn't look like they're wearing pyjamas.

Just saying...