Beastiality.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Beastiality, officially know as Zoophilia, is a sexual attraction to animals.

When a human has sexual intercourse with an animal (assuming it is penetrative), the animal will be in pain. It will leave a scar on the animal, but not the same kind of scar that humans get from sexual abuse. The animal sees this as "Ouch, that hurts, I had better get away." Animals do not under stand the concept of sexual violation, so it will produce the same kinds of scars as beating them.

To an animal:
Penetrative sex with the animal = beating the animal.

I do not condone either.

There is however the cases in which the animal is a particular species that wouldn't be hurt by penetrative sex. Here, it would "consent" because primal instinct would tell them that this is so they can produce off spring. But as we know, this will not happen due to genetics. This, or any other for of sex with an animal is exploiting the animal weather they realize it or not. On my own stupid human concept of honor I would not defile a creature that I so highly respect.

Platonic zoophilia is a case in which the human loves the animal on a non-sexual level, on a deep level with as much devotion as a they would a human. I personally, love my dog in this manner. I could very easily find my self platonically loving other animals in the future. I am more devoted to my hound than I am to any people, and I love him more than any person. I just would never have sex with him.

Now, onto my questions. Is zoophilia wrong, and does it 'creep you out'? What about platonic zoophilia?

[Amnesiac]

The health problems and potential dangers bestiality present are enough to make it illegal. There are all sorts of diseases that can be sexually transmitted from animals to humans, from worms to salmonella. Some animals bite when sexually excited. And, of course, there's the possibility of animal abuse.

I don't have a problem with platonic zoophilia, most people with pets would love their animals in this way.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health)

[Insanity Fair]

AIDS started from a guy who fucked a monkey.

[Iron Man]

AIDS started from a guy who fucked a monkey.

That is inconclusive. What backs up your claim?

[karl]

It would be on my list of horrible things not to do!!!

[Fruit_Tart.]

sex with your pet?!? really creepy. all i have to say.

[ShatteredWings]

When a human has sexual intercourse with an animal (assuming it is penetrative), the animal will be in pain. It will leave a scar on the animal, but not the same kind of scar that humans get from sexual abuse. The animal sees this as "Ouch, that hurts, I had better get away." Animals do not under stand the concept of sexual violation, so it will produce the same kinds of scars as beating them.

To an animal:
Penetrative sex with the animal = beating the animal.

I do not condone either.

There is however the cases in which the animal is a particular species that wouldn't be hurt by penetrative sex. Here, it would "consent" because primal instinct would tell them that this is so they can produce off spring. But as we know, this will not happen due to genetics. This, or any other for of sex with an animal is exploiting the animal weather they realize it or not. On my own stupid human concept of honor I would not defile a creature that I so highly respect.
Both disgust me.
With the first example, mainly for the reasons stated. You are physically harming something notably smaller than you for your own messed up pleasure.

'Consented', as you put it, still strikes me as wrong. The animals cannot truly tell you they want to do things with a human. Show me a greater ape (non human) who can use sign language to say "i want sex with you" and I'll partially take this statement back.

Platonic zoophilia is a case in which the human loves the animal on a non-sexual level, on a deep level with as much devotion as a they would a human. I personally, love my dog in this manner. I could very easily find my self platonically loving other animals in the future. I am more devoted to my hound than I am to any people, and I love him more than any person. I just would never have sex with him.
This counts as zoophilia? For real?
Most all people love their pets. They're a nuance why else would we keep them if we didn't care for them?

[Jess]

doing that is just DISGUSTING. creepy and horrible

[Sith Lord 13]

It would be on my list of horrible things not to do!!!

sex with your pet?!? really creepy. all i have to say.

doing that is just DISGUSTING. creepy and horrible

You want to back up your statements?




My view:

In the case where the animal experiences pain, I am for legal prohibition as it is animal abuse.

In the case where it does not cause pain, it's gone from assault to just inadvisable. I would not do it, as I see no appeal, but if there is no harm, I cannot find a legitimate reason to ban it.


As for platonic, I engage in it every day. I have two dogs who are my brother and sister. I often form deeper bonds with animals than I do with humans.

[steve1234]

Hey, is this thread about Twilight??

:D

[karl]

Loving your pet rabbit, giving it cuddles is one thing, trying to stick your willy up it is another. I can't see where or why I have to back up my statement. I think it's wrong to have sex with an animal, if others think it's ok well I'm not going to argue with them, coz they won't take any notice of me, so why waste my breath?

[Rutherford The Brave]

You want to back up your statements?




My view:

In the case where the animal experiences pain, I am for legal prohibition as it is animal abuse.

In the case where it does not cause pain, it's gone from assault to just inadvisable. I would not do it, as I see no appeal, but if there is no harm, I cannot find a legitimate reason to ban it.


As for platonic, I engage in it every day. I have two dogs who are my brother and sister. I often form deeper bonds with animals than I do with humans.

So just because you have a deep bond, you are willing to stick your penis in a different kind of animals vagina? I think that is sad and disturbing. That you as a human would go so low as to fuck an animal other than a human.

[Sith Lord 13]

So just because you have a deep bond, you are willing to stick your penis in a different kind of animals vagina? I think that is sad and disturbing. That you as a human would go so low as to fuck an animal other than a human.

1) I said I wouldn't.

2) Can we please not go so low as to use ad hominum attacks.

3) You still haven't said why it is bad.

[Sage]

Hey, is this thread about Twilight??

:D

NO. :l

In regards to the topic at hand, my view is fairly simple. Should animals be harmed, then I am against it legally. If not, then I see nothing wrong- though it is not something I would do myself.

[Insanity Fair]

That is inconclusive. What backs up your claim?

Supposedly the monkey bit him. (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/438)

[CaptainObvious]

People's reaction to this always kind of amazes me. Why is it so objectionable? Because animals can't consent? So? We don't ask for their consent to kill and eat them, or test pharmaceuticals on them, or any of the other ways we use them, and few people complain nearly as vociferously about that.

Personally I'd never do this, I have zero desire. But for anyone who isn't a vegan animal rights crusader to react to this with outrage on behalf of the animal seems nonsensical to me.

[Amnesiac]

People's reaction to this always kind of amazes me. Why is it so objectionable? Because animals can't consent? So? We don't ask for their consent to kill and eat them, or test pharmaceuticals on them, or any of the other ways we use them, and few people complain nearly as vociferously about that.

Personally I'd never do this, I have zero desire. But for anyone who isn't a vegan animal rights crusader to react to this with outrage on behalf of the animal seems nonsensical to me.

Sexual relations with animals pose a health risk to both parties. Simply slaughtering animals for food — something which I believe has become too gruesome and inhumane in modern times — doesn't affect humans at all, it actually benefits us. I hate having to say we have to protect people from themselves, it's not a philosophy I support, but when it comes to the point where the potential risks to both sides is enormous, it should be banned.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Sexual relations with animals pose a health risk to both parties.

Having sex with another human poses health risks too, what we call stds.

Simply slaughtering animals for food — something which I believe has become too gruesome and inhumane in modern times — doesn't affect humans at all, it actually benefits us.

The circle of life, we are omnivores by nature and that means we hunt and kill for food just like other animals.

I hate having to say we have to protect people from themselves, it's not a philosophy I support, but when it comes to the point where the potential risks to both sides is enormous, it should be banned.

I see no evidence here as to how the risk is enormous from what you have stated.

While I have no desire towards animals in the end humans are animals too and if it doesn't hurt the animal then i don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to do so. If it hurts the animal it is abuse and that is a different matter.

[Skeln]

Well...first of all most of you are answering on the terms that the animal is the one being penetrated. What if the animal is the one "on top"?

I would oppose it because I find that it is just wrong. In nature, for the most part, you find animals only mating with their own species for a reason.

While their are possibly health risks, I mainly oppose it based on the moral issue. I can see how one can form an emotional bond with an animal that is extremely strong, but I see no reason to take it to a physical level. Animals are there for emotional support, that's why we have them as pets. Not for us to use as sex toys.

AIDS did orrigionally start out in chimpanzees, but when it was transferred to hum,ans it was not through sexual intercourse. Later on is when AIDS evolved into a disease that was transferred sexually.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Well...first of all most of you are answering on the terms that the animal is the one being penetrated. What if the animal is the one "on top"?

I would oppose it because I find that it is just wrong. In nature, for the most part, you find animals only mating with their own species for a reason.

While their are possibly health risks, I mainly oppose it based on the moral issue. I can see how one can form an emotional bond with an animal that is extremely strong, but I see no reason to take it to a physical level. Animals are there for emotional support, that's why we have them as pets. Not for us to use as sex toys.

AIDS did orrigionally start out in chimpanzees, but when it was transferred to hum,ans it was not through sexual intercourse. Later on is when AIDS evolved into a disease that was transferred sexually.

Warning: This post is gruesome, and describes *cough cough*.

The animal would not be on top, because an animal has no desire to sexually reproduce with a human. However, a human may get sexual actions performed by the animal, when the animal has no sexual intentions of doing so, such as placing an animals favorite treat on their *cough c0ugh* and letting them lick it off.

[Amnesiac]

Having sex with another human poses health risks too, what we call stds.

True, true, but the transmission of that can be prevented. We don't test animals for STDs, do we?


The circle of life, we are omnivores by nature and that means we hunt and kill for food just like other animals.

Yes, I know. The last thing I'd ever be is a vegetarian, I love meat. It's just that we don't have to torture things for months before we kill them, slaughtering animals should be a quick, clean and simple process.


I see no evidence here as to how the risk is enormous from what you have stated.

While I have no desire towards animals in the end humans are animals too and if it doesn't hurt the animal then i don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to do so. If it hurts the animal it is abuse and that is a different matter.

I'm going to flip-flop like a politician here and say that bestiality may be safe for practice with some animals. It also depends on who's getting penetrated. I mean, women can't have sex with dogs for obvious reasons. Guys can't go around doing it with horses, because they kick. It has to be categorized by animal, by gender. And you have to take into consideration the list of diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health#List_of_zoonoses) that animals can sexually transmit to humans.

[Skeln]

The animal would not be on top, because an animal has no desire to sexually reproduce with a human. However, a human may get sexual actions performed by the animal, when the animal has no sexual intentions of doing so, such as placing an animals favorite treat on their *cough c0ugh* and letting them lick it off.


Um...don't know if this is allowed (I haven't read the rules in months, lo siento if I am breaking any rules) but have you never seen the video 2guys1horse? I do not recommend it if you haven't but yeah it's possible for an animal to be on top. However, I would think this would only be possible by somehow attaining hormones from a female of the species. After all, it's the hormones that really get the males going seeing as how that's how they can tell when a female is in heat or not.

It also depends on who's getting penetrated.

Thank you

[Amnesiac]

Um...don't know if this is allowed (I haven't read the rules in months, lo siento if I am breaking any rules) but have you never seen the video [CENSORED]?

The video you describe is why humans cannot have sex with horses, as I stated a minute ago. And the [CENSORED] is for fun, I don't think you're breaking any rules, but then again I'm not sure. It's kind of technical.

[Skeln]

Well, at least that helps to calm my fears.

I agree that humans shouldn't have sex with animals, but my orrigional point was to show that animals can be on top. Generally it's not an easy thing to accomplish unless you have that right hormones on you.

[Insanity Fair]

Well, at least that helps to calm my fears.

I agree that humans shouldn't have sex with animals, but my orrigional point was to show that animals can be on top. Generally it's not an easy thing to accomplish unless you have that right hormones on you.

Have you seen an unfixed dog? They'll fuck anything that moves.

[Skeln]

There is a difference between humping and actual sex. When a dog humps, well at least mine anyways, they do not get an erection. Not only that, but they generally do not try to penetrate. I suppose it is possible, but the hormones will definately help. It's when the dogs sense a female in heat that they actually get the drive to "go for it" instead of jus sexual releif.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

True, true, but the transmission of that can be prevented. We don't test animals for STDs, do we?

Most people don't test their partners for std's before they have sex with them, in fact noone i know has. That point really is irrelevant


Yes, I know. The last thing I'd ever be is a vegetarian, I love meat. It's just that we don't have to torture things for months before we kill them, slaughtering animals should be a quick, clean and simple process.

Actually most countries have laws preventing animals from being tortured before slaughtering them and I have seen documentaries where they show how it is done and the animals are killed instantaneously.


I'm going to flip-flop like a politician here and say that bestiality may be safe for practice with some animals. It also depends on who's getting penetrated. I mean, women can't have sex with dogs for obvious reasons. Guys can't go around doing it with horses, because they kick. It has to be categorized by animal, by gender. And you have to take into consideration the list of diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health#List_of_zoonoses) that animals can sexually transmit to humans.

Im going to say this that there are many diseases that humans can spread to each other through sex and yet we do not ban recreational sex between people as it would be silly.

[Insanity Fair]

There is a difference between humping and actual sex. When a dog humps, well at least mine anyways, they do not get an erection. Not only that, but they generally do not try to penetrate. I suppose it is possible, but the hormones will definately help. It's when the dogs sense a female in heat that they actually get the drive to "go for it" instead of jus sexual releif.

Sorry, I guess it's my fault for entering this debate without making sure I was educated on animals sexual behavior.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Most of the time, dogs are humping to show dominance and establish themselves in a pack.

[Insanity Fair]

Most of the time, dogs are humping to show dominance and establish themselves in a pack.

I assumed that was only in females.

You learn something new every day.

[Skeln]

Well I'm no expert either but from what I've seen I've never seen a dog hump and be horny at the same time. It can be for dominance, but mostly I think it's for releif from all the sexual tension build up. Otherwise, why is it that once a dog gets nudered they stop humping? I doubt male dogs would stop "displaying dominance" just because they loose a few parts.

When I see wolves diosplaying dominance over one another, it's mostly through violence and biting and yeah never in my life have I seen a male dog hump another male dog (or, in this case, wolf). Once dominance has been establiushed, it's usually kept by the occasional arguement or bite.

[Sith Lord 13]

Well I'm no expert either but from what I've seen I've never seen a dog hump and be horny at the same time. It can be for dominance, but mostly I think it's for releif from all the sexual tension build up. Otherwise, why is it that once a dog gets nudered they stop humping? I doubt male dogs would stop "displaying dominance" just because they loose a few parts.

They don't. I have a male bull-mastiff mix and he will occasionally hump my younger female Rottweiler, even though he was fixed several years ago. He will also occasionally hump other dogs, both male and female, at the dog run. It's a display of dominance, no more.

[Dorsum Oppel]

They don't. I have a male bull-mastiff mix and he will occasionally hump my younger female Rottweiler, even though he was fixed several years ago. He will also occasionally hump other dogs, both male and female, at the dog run. It's a display of dominance, no more.

Kinda like telling other dogs that they're the bitch.

LOLPUN.

.... Back on topic time starts now.

[Dog Desab]

i love my elliot to death more than i can say about my family, he is my family and id consider it completely wrong to touch him any other besides a hug... its just straight up gross for a human to do anything sexual with a non-human.... imho

[Dorsum Oppel]

i love my elliot to death more than i can say about my family, he is my family and id consider it completely wrong to touch him any other besides a hug... its just straight up gross for a human to do anything sexual with a non-human.... imho

I kiss my dog/ other dogs/ horses/ whatever animal I want. Just like a peck on the head or neck or something, not sexual.

Also:
I'm pretty sure that this thread got so much attention because my username is coyote and people expected me to be all "F*cking dogs! yeah! I love yiffin' it up with coyotes!"
....that is all.

[Dog Desab]

I kiss my dog/ other dogs/ horses/ whatever animal I want. Just like a peck on the head or neck or something, not sexual.

Also:
I'm pretty sure that this thread got so much attention because my username is coyote and people expected me to be all "F*cking dogs! yeah! I love yiffin' it up with coyotes!"
....that is all.

i didnt think that at all when i saw beastility and thought wow nothing else to debate about... its apretty one-sided argument

[Dive to Survive]

I think that it is wrong and it should be stopped.

[ShatteredWings]

i didnt think that at all i saw beastility and thought wow nothing else to debate about... its apretty one-sided argument

it's just this time. Once in awhile we get a few threads in teen sexuality on the topic, mostly from people trolling tho.

[Dog Desab]

it's just this time. Once in awhile we get a few threads in teen sexuality on the topic, mostly from people trolling tho.

exactly... only super fetished freaks want to do it!!!!

[Sith Lord 13]

i love my elliot to death more than i can say about my family, he is my family and id consider it completely wrong to touch him any other besides a hug... its just straight up gross for a human to do anything sexual with a non-human.... imho

I think that it is wrong and it should be stopped.

exactly... only super fetished freaks want to do it!!!!

You want to back up your statements?

Also, no insults please. It's fine and dandy not to want to do it (It holds no appeal for me personally.), but you need to give real reasons that humans shouldn't do it if you want to debate. Also, insulting someone's sexual orientation, regardless of whether or not said hypothetical person is in the debate, is inappropriate.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Also, insulting someone's sexual orientation, regardless of whether or not said hypothetical person is in the debate, is inappropriate.

*clapclapclap*
There are movements for Zoosexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexuality.

Also, I've changed my mind. I'm not opposed to it because it's defiling the creature, blah blah blah, it just doesn't appeal to me. I'm not opposed to it unless the animal is hurt, really.

[ShatteredWings]

exactly... only super fetished freaks want to do it!!!!

That's not what I meant. I meant people will choose a shocking topic to decide to say they do when it's probably not true. I seem to remember one person who had this and wanted to fix it, then never came back to vt.

[Bougainvillea]

I do think my cat, Tequila, is pretty sexy.

On a serious note.
I think the first statement is disgusting. But hey, that's me. It's just not right.
Do I need to explain this? I shouldn't have to. If it were right, the animals would be able to produce offspring.
Second. That bothers me. Like I've said before, I hate seeing people care for the fluffy bunny, more than a fellow human. Sure I love my cat, and I loved my dog. But would I ever place them above another person? Absolutely not. I just don't see how people do it.
My dog Maggie, meant alot to me. She was my dad's dog. But if I had to give her up to save a person, I would. Sorry.
Even the career path I chose is to help people.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Do I need to explain this? I shouldn't have to. If it were right, the animals would be able to produce offspring.


Define 'right'. On a side note, homosexual couples cannot produce offspring. Does this make them 'wrong'? Just because something doesn't biologically mesh makes it 'wrong'?

There is a beauty in the innocence of an animal. An animal is simple, they don't bother with the dramatic shit that people do. They provide affection and a stronger bond than most people. As a child, I hated all other children my age. They were obnoxious and stupid and too loud. Plus, they thought in weird ways. My only friend was a dog. I liked it this way. I only learned to socialize once he died, and we were too poor to buy another dog. Even now, I prefer dogs to humans.

[Bougainvillea]

Define 'right'. On a side note, homosexual couples cannot produce offspring. Does this make them 'wrong'? Just because something doesn't biologically mesh makes it 'wrong'?

But two men having sex is not the same as a man having sex with a sheep. And in a way, homosexuality is wrong. Nothing against them, but it's true. The sole purpose of having the sex organs that we do is to reproduce. I don't know how else to think of it. Of course like I said, nothing against LGBT people.

I don't prefer animals. If I did, I'd want to train to be a veterinarian. I'm not saying I don't care for animals, but I love my own species.

[Sage]

But two men having sex is not the same as a man having sex with a sheep. And in a way, homosexuality is wrong. Nothing against them, but it's true. The sole purpose of having the sex organs that we do is to reproduce. I don't know how else to think of it. Of course like I said, nothing against LGBT people.

Untrue. Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, it is beneficial for any society to have homosexuals, as they can raise the offspring that can't be raised by their biological parents for whatever reason.

[Bougainvillea]

I completely understand that.
But he asked if it was wrong in biological terms.

[Dorsum Oppel]

I completely understand that.
But he asked if it was wrong in biological terms.
Nothing in biology states that anything is wrong.

[Antares]

Is zoophilia wrong, and does it 'creep you out'? What about platonic zoophilia?

Umm...you know. I feel bad for the animal because they are basically being raped by a human. In that pretense I guess it is wrong...but then again do animals really...

Okay, I am just going to go with it is wrong because society treats animals in a fashion that can be compared to a human and if you can't abuse an animal in your home, you certainly can't rape them.

It creeps me out that people find pleasure in having sex with things that...aren't of their...class/kingdom/phylum whatever. I mean...how in the world can that be pleasureful?

And finally, platonically, I honestly don't care.
Whatever floats your boat.
If you love an animal, then whatever, have fun with that

[Bougainvillea]

Nothing in biology states that anything is wrong.

You know what I mean. It's the simple fact that a man is meant to be with a woman. Pee 'n Vagee.
I don't care if people have sex with animals. Just don't expect me to agree with it though. Bestiality is wrong. Humans are meant for humans. Now is it wrong when speaking in a moral point of view? That depends entirely on the person.
Now. You asked if it's wrong. I'm saying I do think so. And just stated my reasons.
You asked if it creeps me out? Yes. I think it's disgusting.

Platonic zoophilia. I've already stated my thoughts on that aswell.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Umm...you know. I feel bad for the animal because they are basically being raped by a human. In that pretense I guess it is wrong...but then again do animals really...

Okay, I am just going to go with it is wrong because society treats animals in a fashion that can be compared to a human and if you can't abuse an animal in your home, you certainly can't rape them.


I don't think that animals should be treated in a human like fashion. An animal doesn't like being beat because it hurts. They don't mind what you call 'rape' because they have no sense of sexual violation.

[Skeln]

Wow...I don't check this ebate for 1 day and already I'm a whole page behind on the comments.

I don't think that animals should be treated in a human like fashion. An animal doesn't like being beat because it hurts. They don't mind what you call 'rape' because they have no sense of sexual violation.

While I don't think an animal knows the whole concept of "rape," I still think they would know when they are being forced into sex although I don't think it's something that happens as often in the animal kingdom. However, I once saw a documentary on how a certain species of shark mates. To me it looked like a huge gang bang with the female being bitten by the males so that they wouldn't get seperated from her during the process. In the end she was left tired and bleeding (she survived) and it did not look too joyful for the female. I would think the only reason she didn't bite back was due to instincts.

[Dive to Survive]

You want to back up your statements?

Based on my religion. If you don't like it, I don't care.

[Sith Lord 13]

Based on my religion. If you don't like it, I don't care.

Well that's fine and dandy for you, but since you said it should be stopped, you need to give some kind of basis for it.

Unless you're saying everyone everywhere should follow the rules of your religion, regardless of what their religion is. In which case, you need to back up why your religion is better than all others.

[mxrider155]

ok, this is wrong and takes advantage of animals in a very cruel way. i do think that all pet owners love their pets tho, don't know if it is really "platonic zoophilia," but guess it could be. nothing wrong with loving and caring for our pets.

[Dive to Survive]

I don't think my religion is the best. Along with my religion, i think that it is like raping an animal and it could potentially harm the animal. Hugging your pet is fine but animals shouldn't be victims of human sex.

[The Batman]

If you ever see a chicken and a rooster mate it's pretty much rape. Some animals only know sex by rape so even if another species does it, it wouldn't make a difference. Personally I don't care as long as I don't have to see it or be anywhere near it, the sexual parts of animals really creep me out...

[[[chickaroo92]]]

Although I love my Dog, I just cannot see myself having "fun" with him.
Based on the Religion in which I follow, which is Judaism, it states that you shall not practice Bestiality.

I don't agree with it, and would never find myself any time soon having sexual intercourse with some random animal.

Humans should have sex with humans, the same applies to animals.

Seriously, ask yourself, "Would I have sex with that?" You are your own person, and only YOU can decide what is morally appropriate and what obviously isn't.

Each to their own.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Recently spoke with a zoosexual.

any living thing that can show emotion can consent or not consent to something..
obviously, if the animal resists, fights it, cries out in pain, or tries to hurt you, they do NOT consent.

if they accept it, willingly participate, get themselves involved, initiate it, enjoy it, etc. then they consent.

Same happens with humans...

[Amnesiac]

any living thing that can show emotion can consent or not consent to something..
obviously, if the animal resists, fights it, cries out in pain, or tries to hurt you, they do NOT consent.

if they accept it, willingly participate, get themselves involved, initiate it, enjoy it, etc. then they consent.

Same happens with humans...

No, it's not the same. Humans give consent verbally before having sex, we don't judge someone's consent by whether they resist or not. You can't obtain consent by randomly raping different species of animal and saying "this one seems to like it, why don't I continue?"

Also, 250th post and new face.

[CaptainObvious]

I completely understand that.
But he asked if it was wrong in biological terms.

Well yes, but you calling it biologically wrong in this context assumes that each body part has a "right" function and that if it's not serving its function it's being used wrongly.

But that's not the case: our bodies have evolved to perpetuate our genetic material - or, to make an analogy I have always loved (thanks Dawkins!) we are like giant survival suits for our genes - and for no other reason.

If, as Tim purports, we accept the argument that homosexuality can be an evolutionary advantage for a community if it exists in small proportion, it would then follow that the function of the penis is only reproduction if that penis is attached to a straight male. A gay male's penis is without function - or merely for entertainment, if you prefer - if we think about it that way. The only thing, then, that would be biologically wrong (from an evolutionary perspective) would be if that gay man didn't raise some of the community's children. :P

[Dorsum Oppel]

Well yes, but you calling it biologically wrong in this context assumes that each body part has a "right" function and that if it's not serving its function it's being used wrongly.

But that's not the case: our bodies have evolved to perpetuate our genetic material - or, to make an analogy I have always loved (thanks Dawkins!) we are like gian survival suits for our genes - and for no other reason.

If, as Tim purports, we accept the argument that homosexuality can be an evolutionary advantage for a community if it exists in small proportion, it would then follow that the function of the penis is only reproduction if that penis is attached to a straight male. A gay male's penis is without function - or merely for entertainment, if you prefer - if we think about it that way. The only thing, then, that would be biologically wrong (from an evolutionary perspective) would be if that gay man didn't raise some of the community's children. :P

I hate children. I must be a broken gay man.

[zander]

to love an animal is ok, i love my dog and love playing with him( not in a sexual way) and him sleeping next to me. that is a normal bond with an animal like a dog. to have sex with an animal is wrong because they would not understand what is happening. to me that would be the same as raping a person. for people that say ," well the animal does not know when you kill it and eat it" this is a totally different situation. you are not talking about scaring hte animal in a way that it will remember and see as pain. when animals are killed for food it is done quickly and they will have no memory of it. almost all people that go on to abuse people have abused animals as a start. to not understand the coalition of this is very dangerous. and quite frankly if you are sexually abusing an animal nad get bit or clawed i think it is exactly what you deserve

[Dorsum Oppel]

to love an animal is ok, i love my dog and love playing with him( not in a sexual way) and him sleeping next to me. that is a normal bond with an animal like a dog. to have sex with an animal is wrong because they would not understand what is happening. to me that would be the same as raping a person. for people that say ," well the animal does not know when you kill it and eat it" this is a totally different situation. you are not talking about scaring hte animal in a way that it will remember and see as pain. when animals are killed for food it is done quickly and they will have no memory of it. almost all people that go on to abuse people have abused animals as a start. to not understand the coalition of this is very dangerous. and quite frankly if you are sexually abusing an animal nad get bit or clawed i think it is exactly what you deserve

All of your points have been previously dismissed in the thread.
Post script: SMITE THE BUMPER.

[EstrusWanton]

People have very little to say on the subject.
Well, in retrospect people have ALOT to say, but to sum it all down... It depends on the situation.
I'd say teens to adults may abuse this, as 78% do. 10% are curious children/teens/ maybe adults who might float to the 78% of abuse, or to the 12% who actually choose to consort with the animal.

A good relation: * The male/female human has or had a long or short relationship with the animal in which they have learn to trust each other.
* the human male/female is greeted sexually by the animal first.
* The human's response is natural/caring sex. ( By the animals standards)

A bad relation: * The male/female human sees the animal is or isn't willing;Relationship or not.
* The animal let's the human. Not knowing if the situation is good or bad.
* The human can either attempt caring sex(which keep in mind the animals hates). Or rough sex.

Im not a fan of beastiality, but It's what you choose to do,people. The matters in your hands, remember that.
P
All I have to say is, let your animal/partner/lover choose you. Alway care and never have relations with others or with your partner without there consent.
--------
Edit: I have performed oral on a dog, but I wasnt aware of the subject at the time. If I had knowledge I would have rejected the offer, seeing as his intentions were just for fun.

Sure i have done wrong,in my opinion, but I'm being open about my mistake. I would only suck or make with a boy who loved me.... Preferably human by my standards.

[Candicane]

Who thinks up this stuff? ewwwwwwwwww

[ImCoolBeans]

Please don't bump oldies :locked: