Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Zing!
Consent is a meaningless term when it comes to animals like dogs. They simply do not have the brains to conceive of such a thing nor a developed enough psychology or sense of self to see sex as peoples do.
Fucking a dog is gross gross gross though and certainly outside of the bounds of any reasonable expectation of being accommodated in a relationship. Just watching porn with this guy is above and beyond so he should count his fucking blessings that she did not dump him right then and there.
But at the same time grossness is not grounds for legal sanction so to the extent the animal is not harmed it should be legal. Plus then it is less likely I'll have to hear about some dude getting banged by a horse in Enumclaw.
@8: Except that we generally only do those things (or ethically, SHOULD only do those things) when they're necessary. It's never necessary for a human to fuck a dog or get a dog to fuck them.
And my entire point is that consent is impossible to get from an animal because they don't have the faculties or ability to do so. Pedophilia doesn't always hurt children (even though it does hurt many), and yet we consider it wrong because children are NOT ABLE TO CONSENT, even though they can verbally do so.
If a child starts humping you, wouldn't you stop them? Wouldn't it be fucked up of you to allow the child to continue, even though they initiated?
Note that you should never rape children; that is illegal for good reason. How hard is it to extrapolate this to our pets? Care for your animals. Do not rape them.
Seriously, this guy wanting to get off does not trump the animal's rights. It is not always about your orgasm, guys. Shocking, I know.
People keep animals as pets without their consent, and it's arguable whether they're "better off" being in captivity or not. A longer lifespan and better health versus freedom and autonomy... definitely arguable which one equals "better off."
I'd say if someone is trying to force a dog to fuck, that's abuse. If the dog does it on its own, that may be many things, but abuse? No.
So it is not consent that matters with animals like dogs, but harm. It is not ethical to cause an animal harm except when necessary, e.g. medical treatment. So to the extent that fucking the animal does not cause them harm, and in the letter's example it certainly would not, then it is still gross, but not unethical. To the extent that you are hurting an animal for your own gain, then that is wrong.
With kids it is a whole different ball game. It is pretty easy to tell which sex acts would hurt a dog and which would not because harm to them is almost entirely a pain pleasure kind of thing. A dog cannot be 'violated' or develop a fucked up sexuality. A kid can.
How long will it be allowed to live if it -- literally -- tries to hump women? Goes beyond the usual dog nose to woman crotch?
My thought: not long before someone brings it to the pound, where the chance of adoption is slim to none.
When the Israelites conquered Canaan they were often commanded to destroy the animals.
I don't know how many dogs I have known in my life that humped anything that moved. The number of times that habit resulted in a trip to the pound for the little pervert is exactly zero.
Be a little more careful about what you exaggerate about, if you don't like being laughed at.
I've grown up among dogs (we had quite a few), and I only remember one of them trying to hump me once. And he was still a puppy.
Where do you find all these dogs with severe behavioural problems?
The question is, I guess, is this normal dominance behaviour in a dog, or is it something they learned? If it's learned behaviour, then that would be a strong argument against bestiality. And the lesson, of course, is that dogs should never be allowed out unsupervised. Especially dogs who have not been doctored.
Why?
Discussions like this make it seem that liberals have NO morals at all.
@consent You don't have to ask a dog if he wants to fuck you - the boner he sticks in your vag will pretty much give it away.
Your "morals" are a just an excuse to treat harmless people like shit.
As Dan said...
Icky /= immoral
Every affront to freedom is built on this same basic idea. The idea that if you personally don't like it, it must be wrong. Though Dan does this too... Pitbulls?
Bestiality is (IMO) gross, and a desire to engage in it likely speaks to some psychological imbalance in the individual experiencing that desire. Does the act harm the animal? That's much more difficult to establish; as has been noted, the reason sexual assaults between humans are considered so heinous is because of the psychological damage they inflict, which can have a tremendous impact on the rest of a person's life. It seems fairly disingenuous to imply that a dog or other animal would experience the same trauma. Further complicating things is the common use of sex in the animal world as a means of establishing dominance, in addition to the fact that one of the most intelligent animal species on the planet (dolphins) is known to occasionally force sex with swimming humans. If we unquestioningly consider animals' inability to consent to be identical to minors' inability, we should be convicting every swimmer this has ever happened to of rape, even if the actual situation would be more accurately described as the dolphin raping the human.
I don't advocate for bestiality, but I want the opponents thereof to have stronger arguments than "it's gross" and "animals can't consent." Neither holds up well enough under close scrutiny.