This thread is now about Furries, for some reason. Formerly: "So. Anonymous."

[Payne]

It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?

We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.

From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.

I draw my line in the sand far before that though.

Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find  distasteful, not the act in and of itself.

[Darth Cupcake]

It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?

We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.

I see what you are getting at, P3nt, and while it is a valid point, it still doesn't seem right to me.

For example, I'll run with the cat thing, since I own a cat (well, now my mum does cause my housemates are allergic and my lease doesn't allow it, but nonetheless).

Generally, I scratch my cat behind the ears when I get in to say hi. If he wants more petting, he'll follow me, or push his head under my hand, or jump on my lap, or push his brush toward me or something. If he wants me to stop, he meows, leaves, or bats at my hand with a paw. The worst that happens when I pet him when he doesn't want is his hair gets a little disheveled.

If I were a dude, and I tried to fuck my cat, I'd split him in half. That's kind of a big deal. Just as I'd flip a shit on anyone I saw beating an animal, fucking an animal bothers me the same way.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?

We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.

From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.

I draw my line in the sand far before that though.

Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find  distasteful, not the act in and of itself.

I agree, most people do too but all I'm saying is that I can imagine a situation where there's fuck all wrong with it.

Weird tho, by my own definition. I wouldn't expect I'd want to hang out with a self confessed horse fucker.

[Elder Iptuous]

We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.

Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?

Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.

don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground.  As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line.  Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.

Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.

I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.

[Cramulus]

what about the dead?
it's cool to fuck the dead, right?

[Elder Iptuous]

what about the dead?
it's cool to fuck the dead, right?

only if they initiate it.

[Payne]

We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.

Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?

Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.

don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground.  As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line.  Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......

Consent is more black and white where animals are concerned. Any intelligence they have been attributed in studies is very low on the "human" scale (think the level of human toddlers, here), and the ability for abstract thought is almost completely unproven. Both of which would be essential for meaningful consent.

Just because an animal responds instinctively to stimulus, this does not necessarily constitute consent.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The very fact that an animal is incapable of consent means that it is incapable of non-consent.

The consent issue is completely irrelevent.

The real issue here is one of cruelty or non-cruelty.

Compounded by our hysterical sense of "Ewwwwww!"

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.

Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?

Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.

don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground.  As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line.  Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......

Consent is more black and white where animals are concerned. Any intelligence they have been attributed in studies is very low on the "human" scale (think the level of human toddlers, here), and the ability for abstract thought is almost completely unproven. Both of which would be essential for meaningful consent.

Just because an animal responds instinctively to stimulus, this does not necessarily constitute consent.

Isn't assuming 'consent' sort of anthropomorphizing them as well?

I grew up in the country and honestly, animal sex is not usually about consent... that seems more like a nice thing we humans invented, because we decided that men and women were equals.

[Payne]

Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.

Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.

I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.

Which is why I'm trying to avoid a biological argument where it's not necessary.

My objections are largely based on social grounds, and if that makes me an asshole for not being forgiving enough of the freaks and fucktards who defend these practices, then so be it.

[Elder Iptuous]

'consent' obviously has to be used in a pared down terminology here...

[P3nT4gR4m]

Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.

Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.

I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.

Which is why I'm trying to avoid a biological argument where it's not necessary.

My objections are largely based on social grounds, and if that makes me an asshole for not being forgiving enough of the freaks and fucktards who defend these practices, then so be it.

Which brings me neatly back to the gay thing. Men might still not have the right to shag men if everyone had stuck to the idea that Icky=Wrong

Who knows what the future will bring.

You fucking zoophobic you  

[Payne]

The very fact that an animal is incapable of consent means that it is incapable of non-consent.

The consent issue is completely irrelevent

We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.

Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?

Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.

don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground.  As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line.  Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......

Consent is more black and white where animals are concerned. Any intelligence they have been attributed in studies is very low on the "human" scale (think the level of human toddlers, here), and the ability for abstract thought is almost completely unproven. Both of which would be essential for meaningful consent.

Just because an animal responds instinctively to stimulus, this does not necessarily constitute consent.

Isn't assuming 'consent' sort of anthropomorphizing them as well?

I grew up in the country and honestly, animal sex is not usually about consent... that seems more like a nice thing we humans invented, because we decided that men and women were equals.

Consent is, in my view, the basis of ANY healthy sexual relationship. The inability to give "non-consent" is irrelevant, because the animal CANNOT GIVE CONSENT. A yes is a yes, a no is a no, a non-answer is a no.

[Elder Iptuous]

so animals have unhealthy relationships?