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

    1297560392
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 536
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    WandA wrote:

    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?

    Surly this is becasue what the vets/farmers are doing are ultimatly for the "public" you get an amount of your top bull's sperm and you can get lots of top end meat withouth the added cost of transporting half a tonne of angry cow (bull) around. So you get cheaper high qualite meat.

    So basicaly its the demand of the consumer that has lead to this happening.

    1297561093
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6223
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Doug wrote:

    WandA wrote:

    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?

    Surly this is becasue what the vets/farmers are doing are ultimatly for the "public" you get an amount of your top bull's sperm and you can get lots of top end meat withouth the added cost of transporting half a tonne of angry cow (bull) around. So you get cheaper high qualite meat.

    So basicaly its the demand of the consumer that has lead to this happening.

    Not for the public. It's for the bloke who wants to make shit loads selling top quality cow! You can justify almost any act in some public and private sense but I don't think we see the bull cum man as doing anything for the public good. It's a capitalist venture, like McDonalds or Nike.

    If we had 'whore animals' we could make that business and supplying something for people yet I know I'd still think it wasn't a very nice thing!

    1297561322
    chipNroll [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 257
    • Joined: 3 Aug 2010

    I think peoples main contention with it boils down to the basic argument that it's 'not natural'. Killing an animal for food is something you can see all sorts of species doing. Whereas subjecting animals to things like cosmetic testing or sex with a different species, well, you wont catch a tiger doing that will you.

    Did anyone see the C5 program where Rebecca Loos basically wanked off a pig? I think Pixieking mentioned similar. I think it shows how the strong moral objection to beastiality is rooted in the human getting sexual pleasure from the animal, rather than the fact the animal is being 'used'. The same as most acts/fetishes that are seen as sexually deviant from the norm'- it's your own business until someone/something else is harmed. And let's face it, a pig doesn't want to fuck you. The law views things in a similar way and now (it didnt always in the past) only intervenes when a non-consenting party is harmed or even potentially harmed. Saying a child enjoyed the sex is no defence to pedophilia. And in the same way that a child's consent is deemed invalid, so is an animals.

    1297561542
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 536
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    WandA wrote:

    Doug wrote:

    WandA wrote:

    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?

    Surly this is becasue what the vets/farmers are doing are ultimatly for the "public" you get an amount of your top bull's sperm and you can get lots of top end meat withouth the added cost of transporting half a tonne of angry cow (bull) around. So you get cheaper high qualite meat.

    So basicaly its the demand of the consumer that has lead to this happening.

    Not for the public. It's for the bloke who wants to make shit loads selling top quality cow! You can justify almost any act in some public and private sense but I don't think we see the bull cum man as doing anything for the public good. It's a capitalist venture, like McDonalds or Nike.

    If we had 'whore animals' we could make that business and supplying something for people yet I know I'd still think it wasn't a very nice thing!

    Err actualy your worng. The famer actualy gets very little extra money. And its not companies like Maccy Ds or burger king that the meat is going to, its mostly super markets. And they work off supply and demand, the people demand high qualitie meat so they have to provide it other wise they lose buissness.

    The thing is that eating meat pre-dates mankind (as in homo sepains sp?) and was species wide. Veggies have only come around in what the last 50 years so is basicaly alien to the human body. My point is that eating meat is hard wired in where as using animals for sex isn't. It goes against every natual instinst in the body and thats why peopel think its wrong

    1297562449
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6223
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Doug wrote:

    WandA wrote:

    Not for the public. It's for the bloke who wants to make shit loads selling top quality cow! You can justify almost any act in some public and private sense but I don't think we see the bull cum man as doing anything for the public good. It's a capitalist venture, like McDonalds or Nike.

    If we had 'whore animals' we could make that business and supplying something for people yet I know I'd still think it wasn't a very nice thing!

    Err actualy your worng. The famer actualy gets very little extra money. And its not companies like Maccy Ds or burger king that the meat is going to, its mostly super markets. And they work off supply and demand, the people demand high qualitie meat so they have to provide it other wise they lose buissness.

    The thing is that eating meat pre-dates mankind (as in homo sepains sp?) and was species wide. Veggies have only come around in what the last 50 years so is basicaly alien to the human body. My point is that eating meat is hard wired in where as using animals for sex isn't. It goes against every natual instinst in the body and thats why peopel think its wrong

    He makes very little extra money but his intention (even if he doesn't), as I posted, is to make lots of money no? I don't see how supply and demand fits in an ethical framework. Cheap child labour shoes are demanded yet surely not ethical by many of our standards?

    The point about 'natural instincts' is a good one. Perhaps that is the reason we find bestiality and acts of cannibalism innately abhorrent, or at least it appears so. However I think philosophy is very much an exercise. If we do have these natural instincts we must then on some level accept we're not as rational as we like to think. Animal sex might be highly distasteful but not 'wrong'?

    1297562964
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 536
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    WandA wrote:

    Doug wrote:

    WandA wrote:

    Not for the public. It's for the bloke who wants to make shit loads selling top quality cow! You can justify almost any act in some public and private sense but I don't think we see the bull cum man as doing anything for the public good. It's a capitalist venture, like McDonalds or Nike.

    If we had 'whore animals' we could make that business and supplying something for people yet I know I'd still think it wasn't a very nice thing!

    Err actualy your worng. The famer actualy gets very little extra money. And its not companies like Maccy Ds or burger king that the meat is going to, its mostly super markets. And they work off supply and demand, the people demand high qualitie meat so they have to provide it other wise they lose buissness.

    The thing is that eating meat pre-dates mankind (as in homo sepains sp?) and was species wide. Veggies have only come around in what the last 50 years so is basicaly alien to the human body. My point is that eating meat is hard wired in where as using animals for sex isn't. It goes against every natual instinst in the body and thats why peopel think its wrong

    He makes very little extra money but his intention (even if he doesn't), as I posted, is to make lots of money no? I don't see how supply and demand fits in an ethical framework. Cheap child labour shoes are demanded yet surely not ethical by many of our standards?

    The point about 'natural instincts' is a good one. Perhaps that is the reason we find bestiality and acts of cannibalism innately abhorrent, or at least it appears so. However I think philosophy is very much an exercise. If we do have these natural instincts we must then on some level accept we're not as rational as we like to think. Animal sex might be highly distasteful but not 'wrong'?

    well child labour no, but cheep labout i'm fine with, mainly beacuse if cheep labour or no labour of those workers, plus out of sight out of mind.

    Humans are, when it come down to it, not rational and are only out for themselfs. Example, the plane that caught fire in manchester airport, the peopel in the plane were so desperate to save themselfs that they effectivly blocked the exit beacuse they all wanted to get out at the same time. yes there are lots of examples of humans not doing things like that, so we are halfway out of the swamp.

    And seeing as right and wrong and human concepts your right to point out that as a specis we see it as highly distasteful, and then the half of us that is out of the metaphorical swamp lable it as wrong

    1297563366
    chipNroll [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 257
    • Joined: 3 Aug 2010

    I'm not pro-beastiality or anything.... but just want to throw it into the discussion that 50years ago people were having the same sort of 'not natural' discussions about homosexuality and other sexual acts that were seen as abnormal. Like there was a case called R v Brown where men were prosecuted for consensual sado-masochism. Do you think one day we will become so sexually open (no doubt propelled by the internet) that literally anything will go?

    1297563864
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3433
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    chipNroll wrote:

    I'm not pro-beastiality or anything.... but just want to throw it into the discussion that 50years ago people were having the same sort of 'not natural' discussions about homosexuality and other sexual acts that were seen as abnormal. Like there was a case called R v Brown where men were prosecuted for consensual sado-masochism. Do you think one day we will become so sexually open (no doubt propelled by the internet) that literally anything will go?

    This is a great problem! I think that's why the argument of "naturality" is an invalid one - we do things that are unnatural all the time so where's the cut off between one unnatural thing being acceptable and another not. That's why debates like this are good because it helps us to understand *why* something is wrong, rather than just brushing it off as going against nature (which has many flaws as an argument) it develops the morals and beliefs of society without just brushing something off as feeling wrong therefore it must be wrong.

    But then I'm very much a believer in beliefs, morals, laws etc. being based on reason rather than far from infallable "feelings".

    Adx

    1297563952
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6223
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    chipNroll wrote:

    I'm not pro-beastiality or anything.... but just want to throw it into the discussion that 50years ago people were having the same sort of 'not natural' discussions about homosexuality and other sexual acts that were seen as abnormal. Like there was a case called R v Brown where men were prosecuted for consensual sado-masochism. Do you think one day we will become so sexually open (no doubt propelled by the internet) that literally anything will go?

    Hehe. Disclaimer noted.

    It does raise interesting questions about actions and within different cultures. Of course some of our European friends have certain stereotypes concerning their liberality.

    I think what you're essentially asking is the nature vs nurture argument. Is there some things we will always dislike but some we could accept? I assume paedophilia will always be in the no camp but things like S&M will become more mainstream.

    I think this whole debate frames the internal conflict between feelings and reason too.

    1297564230
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 536
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    chipNroll wrote:

    I'm not pro-beastiality or anything.... but just want to throw it into the discussion that 50years ago people were having the same sort of 'not natural' discussions about homosexuality and other sexual acts that were seen as abnormal. Like there was a case called R v Brown where men were prosecuted for consensual sado-masochism. Do you think one day we will become so sexually open (no doubt propelled by the internet) that literally anything will go?


    so that would include children?

    Basicaly i dont think it will becasue of the issue of concent, it cant be given, where as with the other forms of sex that were banned before, concent could be given by both parties and reason broke though resulting in it being legal

    1297564333
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6223
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    But then I'm very much a believer in beliefs, morals, laws etc. being based on reason rather than far from infallable "feelings".

    Adx

    But of course we all reach an unjustifiable void at some point in justifying a belief. My belief in equality is pretty groundless other than I happen to think it's a jolly good idea!

    Of course, life cannot be lived as a series on non-truths so we must just accept some things as-is.

    1297564744
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3433
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    WandA wrote:

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    But then I'm very much a believer in beliefs, morals, laws etc. being based on reason rather than far from infallable "feelings".

    Adx

    But of course we all reach an unjustifiable void at some point in justifying a belief. My belief in equality is pretty groundless other than I happen to think it's a jolly good idea!

    Of course, life cannot be lived as a series on non-truths so we must just accept some things as-is.

    Yes you're right.

    Adx

    1297564934
    chipNroll [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 257
    • Joined: 3 Aug 2010

    Doug wrote:

    chipNroll wrote:

    I'm not pro-beastiality or anything.... but just want to throw it into the discussion that 50years ago people were having the same sort of 'not natural' discussions about homosexuality and other sexual acts that were seen as abnormal. Like there was a case called R v Brown where men were prosecuted for consensual sado-masochism. Do you think one day we will become so sexually open (no doubt propelled by the internet) that literally anything will go?


    so that would include children?

    Basicaly i dont think it will becasue of the issue of concent, it cant be given, where as with the other forms of sex that were banned before, concent could be given by both parties and reason broke though resulting in it being legal

    maybe puppies and kittens will remain out of bounds then

    Another thing that's become more mainstream and acceptable are sex toys... what if animals start to be farmed as living sex aids in the same way they're farmed for sausages. I'm sure 60 years ago the idea of dildos and fleshlights would have stirred up feelings of complete disgust and horror too. We have no idea where the moral boundaries may lie in another 60 years.

    I think my 1am imagination is running away with me. bedtime.

    1297592679
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 469
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    WandA wrote:

    Animal-necrophilia?

    I have no objections to nonhuman animal-necrophilia; in fact the only objections I have to human-necrophilia is the distress it'd cause to relatives of the deceased if they found out.

    1297593268
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 469
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    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

    Since we r both being direct, I'd like to make 2points.

    Firstly, I never made the statement u attributed to me:it was 1 u inferred (incorrectly IMO) from a question I asked of WandA.

    Secondly, even on the internet, the context in which a statement is made is important. This of course means that if it is (part of) a reply to something, 1 has to read the initial something in order to deduce the context.

    1297601007
    Dirty Red Angel [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 694
    • Joined: 16 Sep 2010

    What a subject!.......

    Ok just my thoughts here. Firstly, this isn't something I've really though about before but personally I do not like the idea of it. I'm not sure if I know or can explain why, but suspect its because I've been brought up to think that it is wrong and there are some lines I will not cross. That said there are other things I've been brought up to think are wrong and I've still done them because I wanted to. Just for the record beastiality is not soemthing I want to do!

    I echo others thoughts even though I know there are counter-arguements, but sex between two consenting people, is consenting. How do we know a cow or a dog or a pig is consenting to having sex - in my mind they'd just have to go with the flow with little choice unless they could do a runner because they cannot actually communicate to say that they don't want what they're about to do.

    I don't believe the argument that beastiality could lead on to more negative perversions is a big one, but only because you could kind of apply this to anything based on what your morals are. Someone who has never used a toy before could think that if they use one it may lead on to more negative pervasions in the form of anal (for example) but its based on their morals and perceptions. A threesome could lead to a great big orgy, but doesn't mean it will.

    On your question around utility, if pleasure is gained from both parties, what is it we don't like about it - I'd say how do you know both parties are enjoying it?

    Personally, the issue of beastiality does have links with sex being an emotional thing - IMO only, sex is always an emotional thing for me. Even when I try to think, "nah, its not", it is. I can't help it, however I appreciate that some people don't let their emotions run away with them - hats off to them! So for me, my response is an emotional thing, even if I cannot quite articulate why.

    1297605354
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 3433
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Wilkibo wrote:

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    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

    Since we r both being direct, I'd like to make 2points.

    Firstly, I never made the statement u attributed to me:it was 1 u inferred (incorrectly IMO) from a question I asked of WandA.

    Secondly, even on the internet, the context in which a statement is made is important. This of course means that if it is (part of) a reply to something, 1 has to read the initial something in order to deduce the context.

    I don't feel you correctly took the context from WandA's point in the first place saying something like "so you're really saying X" when WandA never said X - he said something completely different and you inferred X. Making sweeping assumptions like that is a little unfair IMO. But never mind hey. Happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    Adx

    1298500897
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 469
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    When I refered above to beastiality, I meant beastiality by a male human. I've no objection to beastiality by a woman.

    W

    ps Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) do have recreational sex; the males even 'penis fence' each other. Interestingly enough, bonobos are the only ape (apart from man) in which intercourse takes place in the missionary position.

    1298505247
    KittyPurry [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1269
    • Joined: 22 Aug 2009

    In my naievety I didn't actually know bestiality was a real thing until a few years ago. It's not something that never came up in any conversation I'd ever had and it just never occured to me that people would do it! I found out about it in discussion about consent weirdly enough!

    Anywho, here's a bunch of thoughts, some in response to various arguements that have been discussed so far, others just random musings:

    - Consent: If a male animal initiates sex with a woman - is that not consent? Dogs hump peoples legs ... is it wrong if you let them? People stroke animals without their consent ... most would agree there's no harm in that...does it matter where you stroke them? Why is it that he animal's consent is assumed for stroking but not sex? Also, if you stroke an animal without consent it's ok but if you do the same to a human stranger you could very well get arrested...I can't remember where I was going with this last bit now...I just think the difference is interesting I guess.

    - Purpose: I think the arguement that the "purpose" of animals is meat not sex is a pretty poor one. The purpose we have given them may be meat but there's no law of physics that says that has to be so. At one point the majority of white people believed the "purpose" of black people was slavery ... just because something is legal and generally accepted doesn't make it good or right.

    - Unnatural: Eating meat is natural (though we were vegetarian before we learned to hunt and now we can live perfectly healthily without them) ... keeping animals in the horrendous conditions that we do for large-scale farming is NOT natural. I really struggle with understanding those who eat (particularly) non-free range meat and who object to bestiality on the grounds of cruelty/dignity. Interspecies mating does occur naturally -> mules are the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. I believe interspecial mating is also thought to be part of evolution, though I don't know much about it.

    - Disease/harm: I think I've read that disgust as a response is sometimes linked to self-preservation e.g. we are disgusted by the smell of rotten food because it might contain harmful bacteria etc. The idea of sex with animals being "wrong" may be a protective thing against zoonotic diseases or maybe to stop us getting clawed to death for making amorous advances on a tiger.

    - Disney: Has anyone else noticed that Disney make a lot of cartoons feature pretty, maybe even sort-of "sexy", girl animals? I'm not sure what my point is again but it just popped into my head!

    - Religion: I think there's something in the bible about not "laying with beasts" or words to that effect and it's in the same part of the bible that condems homosexuality. Paedophilia isn't mentioned ... no real point here...just a random observation again. A lot our laws (and I imagine culture/morality) in the UK is based on Christian laws/teachings - the disgust response may just be a result of this heritage without any solid reason as such.

    Not actually sure what side of the fence I'm on. I think raping animals is definately wrong but it's less clear to me that all sex with all animals is always wrong. I think really my only certainty is about me personally - I just don't fancy animals. In much the same way that sex with a man (other than my partner) grosses me out. The idea of me having sex with an animal just doesn't appeal either!

    xxKPxx

    1298511062
    Mr Monster [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 714
    • Joined: 15 Sep 2010

    Brava! Well said, KP!

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.