BEASTIALITY

[Catholic_Lady]

Well I think taking someone who is essentially brain dead off of a machine is not the same as euthanize a terminally ill mentally handicapped person without their consent... which is what we do to our pets. We are comparing apples to oranges here when we refer to a brain dead person who we pull the plug on, verses euthanize someone who can't give consent due to their handicap.   

I guess I don't really understand how it's ok to kill/eat an animal without their consent, but not ok to put peanut butter on your junk and have them lick it off without "consent." It isn't making much sense to me.   

Don't get me wrong, I do think doing the peanut butter thing is wrong, but wouldn't use "consent" as an argument for why it's wrong unless I can apply it to other scenarios.

But again, we're assuming in this case that the mentally handicapped person is incapable of giving consent.  Just as Terri Schiavo was incapable of giving consent.  If the mentally handicapped person is capable of consent, then you can't euthanize them without their consent.  Animals however aren't capable of giving consent.  They can't say "Yes, please put me out of my misery."

It's also a bit different if a guy uses peanutbutter to get a blowjob from his dog (desperation) and if he actually has sex with the dog (same with a woman).  When the animal initiates the action, then it's not really abuse.  But when a person initiates the action it's abuse.

To clarify, yes, I was talking about a mentally handicapped person who can't give consent, but objected to the example of Terri because I was not referring to a brain dead person who was only alive due to a machine.

[Minimalist]

Interesting development in the law.

http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/0...-marriage/

The states which do not criminalize Bestiality, yet ban Same Sex Marriage are as follows:

Kentucky; Montana; New Jersey; Nevada; Ohio; Texas; Virginia; West Virginia; and Wyoming (Note: New Jersey does permit Civil Unions.)

You just knew that Kentucky and Texas would be on the list!

[Mister Agenda]

I am curious to know though, what is the secular argument for why beastiality acts should be illegal? I know you will all say that animals can't give consent, but if you're doing it in such a way that is not hurting them physically, mentally, or emotionally, and if they don't understand sex or what is going on, then why would we need their consent for it?

(1) With our current abilities, we largely cannot know the extent to which our actions affect an animal physically, emotionally or mentally.  In the absence of such knowledge, it's better, IMO, to err on the side of caution and not go around fucking them just because we want to.  It could be causing harm we don't know how to measure or detect.

(2) I'm in favor bodily autonomy.  We do violate animals' bodily autonomy on a fairly regular basis but by in large that violation is in the animal's best interest: vaccinations against diseases, visits to vets or by vets in general, dental or medical procedures to which animals cannot consent, etc.  Bestiality violates an animals bodily autonomy for no other reason that because the human wants to have an orgasm.  In that respect, to me, it's no different than rape which is a non-consenting act that violates the victim's body.

(3) It is, fundamentally, an issue of consent, even if you cause harm.  There are sexual acts that can and do result in physical harm to one or more parties participating, but if all parties are consenting participants then who am I to condemn their sexual proclivities?  You don't have the right to have sex with an adult human in a comma even though it won't injury them physically, emotionally or mentally, even though they won't have any memory of the event or what's going on, because they are not in a position to give consent.

Throwing in the caveat of "what if it causes no harm?" doesn't change whether or not consent should be sought and obtained.

We eat them. We cage them. We separate them from their mothers so we can keep them as pets. I don't see the logic of consent not matering for these things, and suddenly it matters when it comes to sex. And that is without common farming practices such as artificial insemination blurring the line. We routinely treat even animals we adore in ways that would be an assault on the dignity of a human being. I think lack of ability to consent is a red herring. And if the empathy doesnt extend to not eating them, that's a red herring as well, in my opinion.

I think bestiality is 'icky', but I can't think of an objective reason to make it illegal. Is it beneath human dignity? I think so, but some people are clearly wired not to be discriminating about the humanity of their living sexual partners, and some even prefer nonhumans.

Maybe there is no philosophical basis to criminalize zoophilia. But maybe there is consequential basis. I've heard Germany decriminalized bestiality in 1969 and re-criminalized it in 2013 due to pressure from animal rights groups. While it was criminalized, it was still illegal to physically harm the animal. After more than 40 years of being decriminalized, was there some unintended consequence that couldn't be tolerated?

Or was it something in the air in the last 14 years? Most US states didn't have laws against bestiality before 1999.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Care to name names?

[Dystopia]

As a general rule, a law that forbids the least must forbid the worst, and a law that permits the worst must permit the least - This is not an absolute principle but an useful criminal law guide (and it works for all Law as well) that I learned in my first year of lawschool. So, a law that criminalizes, for example, possession of marijuana should also, by coherence criminalize more serious drugs, and vice versa.

In law you are either an object or a subjects - The only subjects that exist are those who created Law itself - Humans and groups created by Humans/institutions/etc - So everything that is not a Human is an object by definition. Animal Rights' is an inaccurate terminology because animals can't legally have any rights since they're incapable of minimal rationality, but we can still expand legal protection for animals just like we do with trees and the environment, there's nothing stopping that and I'd advise it.

Now - We treat animals in a pretty shitty way, and I'm not even mentioning insects that we daily squash just because we feel frightened - We use animals for food, clothing, pleasure, etc - We keep pets as property without any kind of consent, we use them for contests, and so on - If the law allows me to keep animals for food and slaughter them it doesn't make sense to just outlaw bestiality even if I find it disgusting and immoral. It's also funny the argument about consent because animals don't consent to anything, including being owned by us - Arguably, there's scenarios where sexual contact may be started by the animal itself - Let's say my girlfriend's dog decides to lick her pussy, and she doesn't stop him - How do we classify this?

[Dystopia]

I always say: If I can't think of a reason it's wrong other than "god said so", then it's not really wrong.

In this case, animals can't give consent.  Probably doesn't hurt them emotionally or physically, but it's still abuse.  That'd be like saying you can rape a mentally handicapped person who doesn't have the capacity to understand.

Extremely bad analogy as animals don't have the ability to have rights but handicapped people still do - Even if they need someone's help to exercise them.

[Catholic_Lady]

(1) With our current abilities, we largely cannot know the extent to which our actions affect an animal physically, emotionally or mentally.  In the absence of such knowledge, it's better, IMO, to err on the side of caution and not go around fucking them just because we want to.  It could be causing harm we don't know how to measure or detect.

(2) I'm in favor bodily autonomy.  We do violate animals' bodily autonomy on a fairly regular basis but by in large that violation is in the animal's best interest: vaccinations against diseases, visits to vets or by vets in general, dental or medical procedures to which animals cannot consent, etc.  Bestiality violates an animals bodily autonomy for no other reason that because the human wants to have an orgasm.  In that respect, to me, it's no different than rape which is a non-consenting act that violates the victim's body.

(3) It is, fundamentally, an issue of consent, even if you cause harm.  There are sexual acts that can and do result in physical harm to one or more parties participating, but if all parties are consenting participants then who am I to condemn their sexual proclivities?  You don't have the right to have sex with an adult human in a comma even though it won't injury them physically, emotionally or mentally, even though they won't have any memory of the event or what's going on, because they are not in a position to give consent.

Throwing in the caveat of "what if it causes no harm?" doesn't change whether or not consent should be sought and obtained.

We eat them. We cage them. We separate them from their mothers so we can keep them as pets. I don't see the logic of consent not matering for these things, and suddenly it matters when it comes to sex. And that is without common farming practices such as artificial insemination blurring the line. We routinely treat even animals we adore in ways that would be an assault on the dignity of a human being. I think lack of ability to consent is a red herring. And if the empathy doesnt extend to not eating them, that's a red herring as well, in my opinion.

I think bestiality is 'icky', but I can't think of an objective reason to make it illegal. Is it beneath human dignity? I think so, but some people are clearly wired not to be discriminating about the humanity of their living sexual partners, and some even prefer nonhumans.

Maybe there is no philosophical basis to criminalize zoophilia. But maybe there is consequential basis. I've heard Germany decriminalized bestiality in 1969 and re-criminalized it in 2013 due to pressure from animal rights groups. While it was criminalized, it was still illegal to physically harm the animal. After more than 40 years of being decriminalized, was there some unintended consequence that couldn't be tolerated?

Or was it something in the air in the last 14 years? Most US states didn't have laws against bestiality before 1999.

Oh my gosh, my thoughts exactly!!

[Catholic_Lady]

As a general rule, a law that forbids the least must forbid the worst, and a law that permits the worst must permit the least - This is not an absolute principle but an useful criminal law guide (and it works for all Law as well) that I learned in my first year of lawschool. So, a law that criminalizes, for example, possession of marijuana should also, by coherence criminalize more serious drugs, and vice versa.  

In law you are either an object or a subjects - The only subjects that exist are those who created Law itself - Humans and groups created by Humans/institutions/etc - So everything that is not a Human is an object by definition. Animal Rights' is an inaccurate terminology because animals can't legally have any rights since they're incapable of minimal rationality, but we can still expand legal protection for animals just like we do with trees and the environment, there's nothing stopping that and I'd advise it.

Now - We treat animals in a pretty shitty way, and I'm not even mentioning insects that we daily squash just because we feel frightened - We use animals for food, clothing, pleasure, etc - We keep pets as property without any kind of consent, we use them for contests, and so on - If the law allows me to keep animals for food and slaughter them it doesn't make sense to just outlaw bestiality even if I find it disgusting and immoral. It's also funny the argument about consent because animals don't consent to anything, including being owned by us - Arguably, there's scenarios where sexual contact may be started by the animal itself - Let's say my girlfriend's dog decides to lick her pussy, and she doesn't stop him - How do we classify this?

THANK YOU!!!

What you're saying is exactly why I think the consent argument makes no sense.

[Aroura]

(1) With our current abilities, we largely cannot know the extent to which our actions affect an animal physically, emotionally or mentally.  In the absence of such knowledge, it's better, IMO, to err on the side of caution and not go around fucking them just because we want to.  It could be causing harm we don't know how to measure or detect.

(2) I'm in favor bodily autonomy.  We do violate animals' bodily autonomy on a fairly regular basis but by in large that violation is in the animal's best interest: vaccinations against diseases, visits to vets or by vets in general, dental or medical procedures to which animals cannot consent, etc.  Bestiality violates an animals bodily autonomy for no other reason that because the human wants to have an orgasm.  In that respect, to me, it's no different than rape which is a non-consenting act that violates the victim's body.

(3) It is, fundamentally, an issue of consent, even if you cause harm.  There are sexual acts that can and do result in physical harm to one or more parties participating, but if all parties are consenting participants then who am I to condemn their sexual proclivities?  You don't have the right to have sex with an adult human in a comma even though it won't injury them physically, emotionally or mentally, even though they won't have any memory of the event or what's going on, because they are not in a position to give consent.

Throwing in the caveat of "what if it causes no harm?" doesn't change whether or not consent should be sought and obtained.

We eat them. We cage them. We separate them from their mothers so we can keep them as pets. I don't see the logic of consent not matering for these things, and suddenly it matters when it comes to sex. And that is without common farming practices such as artificial insemination blurring the line. We routinely treat even animals we adore in ways that would be an assault on the dignity of a human being. I think lack of ability to consent is a red herring. And if the empathy doesnt extend to not eating them, that's a red herring as well, in my opinion.

I think bestiality is 'icky', but I can't think of an objective reason to make it illegal. Is it beneath human dignity? I think so, but some people are clearly wired not to be discriminating about the humanity of their living sexual partners, and some even prefer nonhumans.

Maybe there is no philosophical basis to criminalize zoophilia. But maybe there is consequential basis. I've heard Germany decriminalized bestiality in 1969 and re-criminalized it in 2013 due to pressure from animal rights groups. While it was criminalized, it was still illegal to physically harm the animal. After more than 40 years of being decriminalized, was there some unintended consequence that couldn't be tolerated?

Or was it something in the air in the last 14 years? Most US states didn't have laws against bestiality before 1999.

This! ^^

[The Valkyrie]

Interesting development in the law.

http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/0...-marriage/

The states which do not criminalize Bestiality, yet ban Same Sex Marriage are as follows:

Kentucky; Montana; New Jersey; Nevada; Ohio; Texas; Virginia; West Virginia; and Wyoming (Note: New Jersey does permit Civil Unions.)

You just knew that Kentucky and Texas would be on the list!

Well, a man needs a special bond with his horse...

...or cow...

...or sheep...


Bur they're always FEMALE animals. Anything else would be just wrong!