Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
pLZ YES
HAH! yes please can we get this :D ?…
@Background Pony #5CE1
holy shit , you’re the first brony on here i’ve seen to not be retarded on this subject matter , you just gave me a slightly less hopeless outlook on humanity because that post…..
Fluttershy: OK, give me a search for supercrime, girls in trouble, and press release, How-To.
Twilight: Here’s what your search turned up.
Fluttershy: Sex with Animals? There’s no time, man!
I completely agree with everything you said besides the use of the phrase ‘scientific method’. This is in all ways an ethical debate and morality systems tend to stand apart form science as science itself is purely descriptive and has no comment on what is right or wrong. That’s not to imply one can’t use reasonable discussion or be informed by facts within the body of science when deciding what is and what is not right, just that science itself as a concept is amoral.
@Background Pony #AA0F
I struggle to see what your objection is. ‘Natural’ is a meaningless and vapid term. What is natural? What makes being natural right or wrong? How does something become natural? And that’s just the problem with the word itself. #5CE1 already informed you that animals have been observed in the wild committing sexual acts with other animals not of their own species. Even necrophilia has been observed in the wild (I’d have to look it up but I believe it was a duck trying to copulate with dead duck.) Does the fact it’s seen in nature mean it’s natural and therefore alright?
I don’t mean to speak for #5CE1 but the point he was trying to elaborate seems to have gone completely over your head. The comparison to fetch and placing that example with any number of other uses we have for animals was to showcase that consent only seems to matter when we are talking about bestiality, and never anywhere else. In almost every other interaction with animals we use the amount of suffering inflicted on the animal as a standard for judging that action. Most would agree that making an animal suffer is wrong, and this is because as humans we can recognise that suffering is a state we ourselves don’t want to be in and don’t want to put other animals in.
Except this apparently doesn’t hold true when it comes to sex with animals. Sex with animals is always wrong, and to justify that you have to make up a standard that you don’t apply elsewhere. Humans are not carnivores, humans are opportunistic omnivores. Yet we as a spices have decided that our want to eat it greater than an animals want to continue living. Notice that at no point does consent come into this, as the animals consent just isn’t important unless, apparently, it involves a penis or vagina.
As far as I am concerned the only real questions are can an animal consent and can a human have sex with an animal without the animal suffering. I think an animal can consent, if it can’t does that mean every time one animal has sex with another it’s rape? What changes and why does it change when a human enters the equation? As for if a human can have sex with an animal and not make it suffer, I think it’s rather obvious that is possible.
Now I’m not saying any human can do whatever they want to any animal, only that there are moral questions that have to be asked before a human has sex with an animal and that I am content that these questions can be asked and answered with the end result being it is acceptable to do so.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the core of your objection found in your last paragraph seems to be that sex with animals is wrong because society cannot ensure that abuse will never take place. If that’s the case I’d like you to establish why this only applies to animal sex and not any other area of law enforcement.
True, but I do think that morality can be based on facts. Neither of us is arguing for abusing animals so, I do think we have to try and present a case on why I think it is abuse and he doesn’t and that can be based on facts.
Either way, it’s a “morality” question, so facts won’t necessarily gain you much ground.
Yeah, no. Animals can react in a whole bunch of different ways and we can’t always detect it without proper study in animal behavior. I’m not saying that nobody can know how an animal is feeling, I’m saying that it’s not insanely obvious to everyone and that an animal can’t tell someone they were raped after the fact so it’s too easy to take advantage of them. (I had this argument on a different site before and someone said I was committing the personal incredulity fallacy, but I’m not. I’m not saying nobody can know if an animal wants to be fucked, I’m saying that since animals can be tricky to understand and take a lot of education in certain cases, it should most certainly not be legal for just anyone to go fuck an animal. (What if it’s too scared to resist and the person isn’t educated enough to recognize these signs?)
Your comparison to a game of fetch or taking them for walks is laughable. That helps them get good exercise that they need. It does absolutely nothing to harm, it’s not us using them for our own pleasure and taking advantage of them. I really have no idea what you were thinking putting those up there with putting them in danger or killing them. Even breeding them is on a completely different level, because while they need to fuck, I think human interference has done harm to a lot of different species of dogs.
As for putting them in danger and killing them, that’s for food and our protection. It’s a whole different argument of if their rights should be equal to ours, but the point stands that we need to eat and are carnivores by nature. There are obviously people who don’t eat meat, but it just isn’t as natural to do so. That might not be good enough of a reason to allow us to eat meat and is a whole separate argument. At the very least we do need to eat and meat has shit like protein that we need, what we don’t need to do is fuck.
Having sex is something we do to produce offspring, if you’re doing it in a way that you can’t impregnate someone, it’s just for fun. There’s nothing wrong with having sex just for fun, as long as your partner is an informed person consenting. If they aren’t and you’re just raping them, you should be held criminally accountable for abuse. Always. If animals count be impregnated by humans and it was the only way to keep one of the species going, I’d still be against the idea, but your augment would be stronger. It’d be more like meat in the sense that it’s actually something that we as a species need. This isn’t.
It has nothing to do with sex being offensive, or that it’s “icky”, it has to do with what is informed consent and what isn’t. You’ve told me to research it, but most of what you’ve said is just “X is okay, therefore fucking animals should be too.” What exactly am I supposed to research? The only thing you’ve provided that could be researched is animal behavior, but I’ve explained my stance on that better above. I’m not saying it’s impossible to understand animals, I’m saying that we still have to take your word for it after you’ve done it, since animals can’t report rape and that there is still the chance of misinterpreting what they want since not everyone is an animal expert and we shouldn’t legalize it for everyone as if they are.
@Scrounge
No, they’re about making poor comparisons to something like killing animals for meat, which is already kind of a morally gray area in a lot of people’s minds, and equating harming animals for something we need to harming them for something we don’t.
Why research? Things like this are never about data. They’re about making people feel icky.
So, you’ve pretty much hit the big argument against. Now it’s time to whip out the old scientific method and test.
The first point is that we can’t divine simple consent. This is somewhat silly. Not only do we have professionals who do just this, but it’s a vital component of one of the oldest of human activities- animal husbandry. Even a child can learn this through simple exposure, and this is observable and testable at least with non sexual activities. We’ve observed animals engaged in bestiality, or at least inter-species mating, such as dog humping leg or dog mounting sheep. This is reported in wild animals as well, lest you think this solely the result of human taint, though rarely as we’re not n a position to well observe it.
The second part, that of informed consent, is simply the wrong standard. We need no type of consent to induce an animal into physically demanding recreational activities, even to the point of training them, such as fetch. Nor do we need it to put them in danger, kill them, breed them, take them for walks, etc. The proper standard is unnecessary harm, which is clearly met and exceeded in the case of simple consent executed safely.
The reason for the taboo, and the tortured justifications of selfsame, is because our society finds sex offensive. If you need to test that assertion, it is easily done by sending two couples to a public park- have one engage in heavy petting and one in Frisbee. While this served us well before the germ theory of disease, most objections surrounding sex are better addressed using a condom. It’s time to reevaluate not just this but all our mores, and accept that we’re likely going to feel uncomfortable about the process. There were certainly plenty of uncomfortable people in the 60’s during the miscegenation discussion.
I know I asserted a lot here. Dont take my word for it. go do the research yourself.
Those are “always relevant” only if you can provide a picture or better. :P
I forgot we had it.
Welcome. It’s not even an argument in favor of bestiality, just pointing out how little credibility people can have when they hate on it.
That… Our or Steak Knives, and Forks…
You’ve made the argument I couldn’t get out, thank you.
Just to toss this in, we never ask an animal’s consent when we breed them for our own needs and take their babies away. Shouldn’t that be an issue? Also, semen collection, insemination, ovary exams, etc, we do all kinds of things that we’d normally ask permission to do to a human, but we only care about the animals when someone’s dick gets involved.
The bestiality argument.
And oh my, what happened here while I was asleep o.0