• PhilSex (Philosophy of Sex ) - 2. Wild Thing!

    1297552215
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7645
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    The PhilSex had a request! So here we go, another topic ready.

    But first a link to the original:

    http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/community/forums/sex-tips-and-talk/316785-philsex-philosophy-of-sex-1-naughty/

    So. Quite a tricky one in some respects. No doubt almost all of us will object to the described practice and most of us will find it quite 'icky', but justifying that feeling is a bit more difficult in my opinion.

    Bestiality, animal lovin'!

    Some points to consider:

    Animal rights, they obviously don't have the same rights as us but just who/what are we protecting when we discourage bestiality (human dignity/the creature/just us as a full human).

    Our own moral outlooks and perhaps a conflict within them (we don't object to consenting adults but find human/animal even if 'pleasurable' for both morally objectionable).

    The legal basis.

    Does it leads on to any actual 'negative' perversions?

    Utility. If pleasure is gained through both 'parties' what is the bit we don't like?

    Is it purely an emotional response, if it is does that mean sex is always emotionally linked?

    As is the case, please feel free to add your own questions or simply chime anything in that you feel relates to the subject (unless you want to tell us about that time the dog gave you 'the look')!

    1297552905
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 831
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    I have the same objection to beastiality as I do to (active) paedophilia, namely that 1 of the participants is an involuntary 1! I don't believe anybody who indulges in beastiality cares what the animal feels! (&, except for the gr8 apes, how would 1 know?)

    [I am of course talking 'bout animals with sufficiently complex CNS that they experience pain/pleasure]

    1297553365
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7645
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    But surely consent doesn't apply to something incapable of giving it (or perhaps more importantly something incapable of having the potential to).

    I doubt my bacon consented to becoming a tasty snack.

    And of course we don't expect consent for anything we do with animals, we feed them, water them, take them for a wee and to the park etc... on our terms. We do it because it is in the best interest of the animal, if something causes no harm, or is actively pleasurable it can't be wrong can it?

    1297554450
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 831
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    But did u actually kill the pig? If u didn't (as I suspect), then u simply bought (part of) the dead carcase. (Admittedly it might be better if the population was vegetarian and there was no market for meat so the killing would stop but that's a different argument!)

    Wrt the consent argument, r u really saying that sexually abusing educationally challeged people is OK?

    1297555054
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7645
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Wilkibo wrote:

    But did u actually kill the pig? If u didn't (as I suspect), then u simply bought (part of) the dead carcase. (Admittedly it might be better if the population was vegetarian and there was no market for meat so the killing would stop but that's a different argument!)

    Wrt the consent argument, r u really saying that sexually abusing educationally challeged people is OK?

    Strawman x2!

    The point is we often 'manipulate' animals to suit our ends to some extent. Although I didn't kill the pig someone did, and the scientist did etc... Are those people all on an equal footing with animal lovers? The point is not who actually does what but rather the moral values we apply to each circumstance.

    It certainty is not OK to sexually abuse anyone. But abuse as concept that implies certain judgements along with the act. We seem to attach a certain intrinsic value to human beings regardless of their mental states. It may be irrational but we do it as a group. Is something abuse if no harm occurs or is actually pleasurable? Of course this is the absurd example but sex toys don't consent. We seem to discourage some acts based on a shaky hypothetical foundation of "Well, if it had consent it wouldn't/would do this..." and this seems to dictate our judgement of certain acts.

    It seems a bit odd to apply this 'if consent existed' argument to me.

    1297555244
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4092
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Wilkibo wrote:

    But did u actually kill the pig? If u didn't (as I suspect), then u simply bought (part of) the dead carcase. (Admittedly it might be better if the population was vegetarian and there was no market for meat so the killing would stop but that's a different argument!)

    Wrt the consent argument, r u really saying that sexually abusing educationally challeged people is OK?

    By that argument, you're saying the educationally challenged should never have sex as adults?

    Where's the cut off? People with mild autism aren't able of consent? Only people with certain levels of disabilities.

    Sorry not really relevant to the thread but an interesting topic nontheless. I've heard of parents of autistic people paying for prostitutes for them so they can experience sex without the emotional requirements. Using the very strong term of "abuse" to describe sex with one group seems a little - unusual. It's only abuse under certain conditions. Just because a person may find it more difficult to make a decision on whether or not to have sex doesn't automatically make the act of sex abusive.

    I don't like to get into discussions on animals just because it's a topic people can be very sensitive about and I've had enough debates about whether medical testing on animals is morally right. (In my opinion cosmetic testing on animals isn't up for debate, it's always wrong since it isn't life or death and doesn't *need* to be done in order to save lives).

    I think for me, I think the cut off with beastiality is the argument that very few animals have sex for pleasure - therefore sex with most animals isn't going to benefit them in any way (no reproductive benefits) and is therefore a selfish act making it wrong in my opinion. Selfish acts are only acceptable if they don't negatively impact on others and therefore sex with animals for selfish reasons is wrong.

    Adx

    1297555447
    sweetlove666 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2195
    • Joined: 17 Nov 2008

    WandA wrote:

    But surely consent doesn't apply to something incapable of giving it

    Personally i find that a little dangerous as a statement. A drunk person or someone who cant understand is incapable of giving consent to an act of sex or violence, does it mean that it dosen't apply to them and that it is fine if they are attacked. Historically that kind of statement has been used to justify rape and spousal abuse because " they did x so they were asking for y regardless of wether they wanted it or not"

    Bestiality for me is "immoral" on the grounds of cruelty to the animal. it hurts them and stresses them out. Also consent is a big factor for me too and as Wikiboo stated the animal participant is an involuntary one.

    most animals except humans, apes and pigs have sex purley for reproductive purposes, which is an interseting thing to think about. It suggests that the pleasure recieved is purley human, and any pleasure upon the animals part is human perception.

    1297555628
    sweetlove666 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2195
    • Joined: 17 Nov 2008

    Alicia D'amore wrote:


    I think for me, I think the cut off with beastiality is the argument that very few animals have sex for pleasure - therefore sex with most animals isn't going to benefit them in any way (no reproductive benefits) and is therefore a selfish act making it wrong in my opinion. Selfish acts are only acceptable if they don't negatively impact on others and therefore sex with animals for selfish reasons is wrong.

    Adx

    I was writing my reply as you posted this!

    1297555691
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4092
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    most animals except humans, apes and pigs have sex purley for reproductive purposes

    Actually - pigs don't have sex for pleasure (as far as is known). Perhaps you're thinking of dolphins which do!

    And only certain species of ape (and of course humans are one of the great apes so we fall into that bracket too). But still an interesting point.

    On your previous point I do think you quoted WandA out of context and his statement wasn't implying what you took it to mean but I'm sure he'll clarify that

    Adx

    1297555694
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 831
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    Wilkibo wrote:

    But did u actually kill the pig? If u didn't (as I suspect), then u simply bought (part of) the dead carcase. (Admittedly it might be better if the population was vegetarian and there was no market for meat so the killing would stop but that's a different argument!)

    Wrt the consent argument, r u really saying that sexually abusing educationally challeged people is OK?

    By that argument, you're saying the educationally challenged should never have sex as adults?

    Where's the cut off? People with mild autism aren't able of consent? Only people with certain levels of disabilities.

    Why is it we always get off on the wrong foot? I'm not saying that the educationally challeged should never have sex, if u read ur OH's 2nd post, u'll see I'm talking 'bout people who r unable to give consent

    1297555728
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4092
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    Alicia D'amore wrote:


    I think for me, I think the cut off with beastiality is the argument that very few animals have sex for pleasure - therefore sex with most animals isn't going to benefit them in any way (no reproductive benefits) and is therefore a selfish act making it wrong in my opinion. Selfish acts are only acceptable if they don't negatively impact on others and therefore sex with animals for selfish reasons is wrong.

    Adx

    I was writing my reply as you posted this!

    Great minds think a like 'ey

    Adx

    1297555926
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7645
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Animal-necrophilia?

    I'm sure that is as morally repugnant but lacks any potential harms. This alteration leaves the moral objection intact but removes the objections upon animal pain etc (that is of course accepting the animal would not enjoy it).

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    WandA wrote:

    But surely consent doesn't apply to something incapable of giving it

    Personally i find that a little dangerous as a statement. A drunk person or someone who cant understand is incapable of giving consent to an act of sex or violence, does it mean that it dosen't apply to them and that it is fine if they are attacked. Historically that kind of statement has been used to justify rape and spousal abuse because " they did x so they were asking for y regardless of wether they wanted it or not"

    Bestiality for me is "immoral" on the grounds of cruelty to the animal. it hurts them and stresses them out. Also consent is a big factor for me too and as Wikiboo stated the animal participant is an involuntary one.

    most animals except humans, apes and pigs have sex purley for reproductive purposes, which is an interseting thing to think about. It suggests that the pleasure recieved is purley human, and any pleasure upon the animals part is human perception.

    You deleted the brackets, I think they're key to what I was expressing about potential. You may not be able to consent at the time but it can your wishes can be reasonably expected.

    You can't reasonably expect consent from something unable to give it! I can't ask the pig if it would like to be bacon. I think the 'get out' for humans is they have potential for consent and can experience pain/feelings etc. Although a child cannot consent they have the potential to reflect and later reject that act.

    1297556963
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4092
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Wilkibo wrote:

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    Wilkibo wrote:

    But did u actually kill the pig? If u didn't (as I suspect), then u simply bought (part of) the dead carcase. (Admittedly it might be better if the population was vegetarian and there was no market for meat so the killing would stop but that's a different argument!)

    Wrt the consent argument, r u really saying that sexually abusing educationally challeged people is OK?

    By that argument, you're saying the educationally challenged should never have sex as adults?

    Where's the cut off? People with mild autism aren't able of consent? Only people with certain levels of disabilities.

    Why is it we always get off on the wrong foot? I'm not saying that the educationally challeged should never have sex, if u read ur OH's 2nd post, u'll see I'm talking 'bout people who r unable to give consent

    My issue was with the statement, not with you personally. I just think the statement in the way it was given was wrong. Add that disclaimer and it's a different matter entirely but sometimes things can be taken literally on the internet so you have to add the disclaimers.

    I think we're both quite direct and perhaps that comes across as confrontational when really that's not the intention.

    Adx

    1297556990
    sweetlove666 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2195
    • Joined: 17 Nov 2008

    WandA wrote:

    You deleted the brackets, I think they're key to what I was expressing about potential. You may not be able to consent at the time but it can your wishes can be reasonably expected.

    You can't reasonably expect consent from something unable to give it! I can't ask the pig if it would like to be bacon. I think the 'get out' for humans is they have potential for consent and can experience pain/feelings etc. Although a child cannot consent they have the potential to reflect and later reject that act.

    not all humans have the potential to be able to consent. someone who permanantly has the mental age of a two year old will never be able to make an informed consent on several matters including sex. their wishes cannot reasonably be expected if they lack the capability to have wishes regaring the matter

    terms like "consent" are broad and could lead to confusion on all our parts :S

    Personally for me animals are raised to be food, for example there wouldn't be so many pretty animals in the fields if people did not eat them! yes the pig cannot consent to becoming bacon but that is its main puropse in life, if it does not become bacon then it may not have been born! I find this slightly different to the thought of them consenting to somehting that is unpleasurable/ damaging. I do not feel that the death argument is valid really. death is a certainty to every living thing and saying you consent to it or not is therefore pointless. you don't become immortal just because you do not consent to dying.

    There is also a whole debate about how animals feel pain during slaughtering which is not worth getting into here.

    Anthropomorphisim is often applied to animals, and i can see that consent is a human construct, however it can be seen that animals do have a will on their own, try getting a cat to move off of your knees when it dosen't want to - you will see what i mean!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

    1297557700
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7645
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    WandA wrote:

    You deleted the brackets, I think they're key to what I was expressing about potential. You may not be able to consent at the time but it can your wishes can be reasonably expected.

    You can't reasonably expect consent from something unable to give it! I can't ask the pig if it would like to be bacon. I think the 'get out' for humans is they have potential for consent and can experience pain/feelings etc. Although a child cannot consent they have the potential to reflect and later reject that act.

    not all humans have the potential to be able to consent. someone who permanantly has the mental age of a two year old will never be able to make an informed consent on several matters including sex. their wishes cannot reasonably be expected if they lack the capability to have wishes regaring the matter

    terms like "consent" are broad and could lead to confusion on all our parts :S

    Personally for me animals are raised to be food, for example there wouldn't be so many pretty animals in the fields if people did not eat them! yes the pig cannot consent to becoming bacon but that is its main puropse in life, if it does not become bacon then it may not have been born! I find this slightly different to the thought of them consenting to somehting that is unpleasurable/ damaging. I do not feel that the death argument is valid really. death is a certainty to every living thing and saying you consent to it or not is therefore pointless. you don't become immortal just because you do not consent to dying.

    There is also a whole debate about how animals feel pain during slaughtering which is not worth getting into here.

    Anthropomorphisim is often applied to animals, and i can see that consent is a human construct, however it can be seen that animals do have a will on their own, try getting a cat to move off of your knees when it dosen't want to - you will see what i mean!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

    In respect to the mental age problem, I see pain and the ability to feel as also important. We do/don't do certain actions on the expectation of inflicting pain. We don't apply this animals and in my opinion we are generally a 'speciest' species ourselves, we prioritise the pain of our kind over the pain of another species. That of course is another debate.

    Immortal? I mentioned immorality if you have mistaken that? This example serves to highlight the moral disdain we hold even if it is an example neutral in respect to consent and pain. The broader point is that we often treat animals much worse than the theory of bestiality would hold. We raise certain animals in squalid conditions, kill them when we wish to and inflict a great deal of pain for our benefit yet most of us find this acceptable in a large part.

    What is the element that makes breaching this 'animal rights' in regards to (perhaps pleasurable) sex much worse than treating them how we often do in factory farming/labs etc?

    1297558160
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4092
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    Personally for me animals are raised to be food, for example there wouldn't be so many pretty animals in the fields if people did not eat them! yes the pig cannot consent to becoming bacon but that is its main puropse in life, if it does not become bacon then it may not have been born! I find this slightly different to the thought of them consenting to somehting that is unpleasurable/ damaging. I do not feel that the death argument is valid really. death is a certainty to every living thing and saying you consent to it or not is therefore pointless. you don't become immortal just because you do not consent to dying.

    But can causing death earlier than would otherwise occur not be considered damaging? It's damaging to life after all, potentially the most damaging.

    On Tim Minchin's newest album (which isn't up on YouTube) there's a song called "The Fence" (loosely based on the Ben Goldacre quote "it's not quite as simple as that") - chorus is quite fitting to this:

    "This is my song in defence of the fence
    A little sing along, a tribute to ambivalence
    The more you know the harder you will find it
    To make up your mind it doesn't really matter if you find
    You can't see which grass is greener
    Chances are it's neither and either way it's easier
    To see the difference when you're sitting on the fence”

    Suggestion being that the more in depth you look at something, the harder it is to come up with a definitive answer.

    That's what WandA tends to do - annoys the hell out of me when he offers lots of different arguments (of which none of them he may agree with), but I have to say it's kind of useful when forming beliefs because it makes you consider every side of the argument!

    Adx

    1297558186
    Pixieking [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 672
    • Joined: 31 Aug 2010

    Just to throw a spanner into the works, you also have to consider the idea of intention here, because, if you consider it, acts that one person could do to an animal for pleasure are regularly done by vets in the interests of either collecting data or samples, neither having the concent of the animal.

    When was the last time you saw someone up to their elbow in a cow? Or, indeed, has anyone put any thought into how vets collect semen from animals for use in artifical insemination? I believe the most common way of doing it for tame animals is basically the bet giving the animal a handjob into a cup.

    Is this justified because it is a medical procedure, or do we just accept certain "sexual" acts towards animals because they are viewed as being sterile and for neithers enjoyment?

    1297558240
    sweetlove666 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2195
    • Joined: 17 Nov 2008

    WandA wrote:

    Immortal? I mentioned immorality if you have mistaken that? This example serves to highlight the moral disdain we hold even if it is an example neutral in respect to consent and pain

    there was descussion about whether a pig could consent to death. my argument is that death happens anyway wether we consent or not, so consent over death is an illusion in all species. and used as an example in a clearly seperate scentence

    you don't become immortal just because you do not consent to dying

    if you are going to state that i have misinterpreted you every time i try to raise points than i will not bother. There's no point trying to raise points to someones rather broad statements when after you do they decide they really meant something completley different. I am a degree level student with a better than average vocabluary and grasp of the English language despite severe dyslexia so please do not treat me like i am an idiot who cannot comprehend what you are saying.

    1297558496
    Pixieking [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 672
    • Joined: 31 Aug 2010

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    there was descussion about whether a pig could consent to death. my argument is that death happens anyway wether we consent or not, so consent over death is an illusion in all species. and used as an example in a clearly seperate scentence

    That arguement doesn't really hold up, as it could therefore be suggested that it would condone the killing of fellow humans because death is also inevitable for people.

    1297559866
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7645
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Pixieking wrote:

    Just to throw a spanner into the works, you also have to consider the idea of intention here, because, if you consider it, acts that one person could do to an animal for pleasure are regularly done by vets in the interests of either collecting data or samples, neither having the concent of the animal.

    When was the last time you saw someone up to their elbow in a cow? Or, indeed, has anyone put any thought into how vets collect semen from animals for use in artifical insemination? I believe the most common way of doing it for tame animals is basically the bet giving the animal a handjob into a cup.

    Is this justified because it is a medical procedure, or do we just accept certain "sexual" acts towards animals because they are viewed as being sterile and for neithers enjoyment?

    Some fantastic points here.

    It seems getting an animal of sexually is OK if it has a legitimate purpose, say semen collection. What does this then imply of sexual pleasure if that statement is accepted?

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    WandA wrote:

    Immortal? I mentioned immorality if you have mistaken that? This example serves to highlight the moral disdain we hold even if it is an example neutral in respect to consent and pain

    there was descussion about whether a pig could consent to death. my argument is that death happens anyway wether we consent or not, so consent over death is an illusion in all species. and used as an example in a clearly seperate scentence

    you don't become immortal just because you do not consent to dying

    if you are going to state that i have misinterpreted you every time i try to raise points than i will not bother. There's no point trying to raise points to someones rather broad statements when after you do they decide they really meant something completley different. I am a degree level student with a better than average vocabluary and grasp of the English language despite severe dyslexia so please do not treat me like i am an idiot who cannot comprehend what you are saying.

    I'm with PK on the death thing too. Just because death is inevitable doesn't imply all goes does it? Surely you would be irked if someone ended a life just because?

    The 2nd point is about an easy mistake to make, when replying quickly you may have mistaken 'immorality' for 'immortality'. I assumed you had because I fail to see how mortality fits into your argument, I did however phrase it as a question because I was still slightly unsure.

    As you ask not to be treated like an idiot I ask you assume good intentions when there is no reason to assume otherwise. It is quite a harsh response relating to clarification in a debate on a difficult topic in which the subtleties are crucial.

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.