Bestiality

[Ozme52]

The one difference we use in defending BDSM being tantamount to abuse in vanilla courts, both those of law and public, is consent.

Now so long as whatever is happening is happening between consenting parties (no matter how sick, perverted yada yada yada is in someones opinion) is your private thing.

But when one of the parties is incapable of giving consent...we are talking about rape and criminal behaviour.

Animals, children, corpses....I am sorry, but that is morally indefensible.

Hmmm. A very adament position. These three things are also on my off-limits list but for the sake of arguement, let me ask you this (and not relating to children, no arguement there, we just need to define "child" as age alone is insufficient, noting the age of consent varies by country, including "western" and/or "first world" countries,)...

1) Are you a strict vegetarian? Do your animals consent to be your meat? Your leather? Even your pet? How would beastiality be any different? In fact, it's far less harmful to the animal. My neighbors dog never asked for my consent when he tried to hump my leg... Should the dog be put down for attempted rape?

2) What if someone with a necro-kink made a specific arrangement for his/her corpse to be used sexually after his/her death? That would qualify as consent would it not?

[damyanti]

1) Are you a strict vegetarian? Do your animals consent to be your meat? Your leather? Even your pet?

Actually, I am a strict vegetarian and I dont wear leather. I have cats rescued from abandonment living in my house, but I dont think of them as "less", in fact I sometimes think I am their pet, .

But I do agree with your argument...if an animal apparently has enough intelligence to "consent" to intercourse as some here have claimed and I would bet most of them are omnivores, how can then they rationalize eating their sex partners or at least their relatives?

In fact, it's far less harmful to the animal. My neighbors dog never asked for my consent when he tried to hump my leg... Should the dog be put down for attempted rape?

Less harmful than what? The intelligence of dogs can be compared to a two year old child, if a two year old child cant legally consent to intercourse how can a dog?

As for your other question....Dogs are pack animals. They understand social structure and obligations, and are capable of interacting with other members of the society, which for "house dogs" means humans. If they have been raised, much like toddlers, to see their certain behaviors rewarded for being cute....that still doesn't mean that they understand complexities of human sexuality or that they would voluntarily seek this.

2) What if someone with a necro-kink made a specific arrangement for his/her corpse to be used sexually after his/her death? That would qualify as consent would it not?

Without going into moral, legal and mental health dilemma which I am ambivalent about (I had a thread about snuff once actually)....yes, in your example that would qualify as consent.

[Ozme52]

Actually, I am a strict vegetarian and I dont wear leather. I have cats rescued from abandonment living in my house, but I dont think of them as "less", in fact I sometimes think I am their pet, .

Then you indeed do have "the right" to make your arguement, but anyone who says that beastiality is wrong because animals can't consent and then chomps down on a steak is a hypocrite.

But I do agree with your argument...if an animal apparently has enough intelligence to "consent" to intercourse as some here have claimed and I would bet most of them are omnivores, how can then they rationalize eating their sex partners or at least their relatives?

Yep, an equally hollow assertion.

Less harmful than what?

Less harmfull than being consumed. The two sentences taken together were perhaps less implicit than I assumed.

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

Then you indeed do have "the right" to make your arguement, but anyone who says that beastiality is wrong because animals can't consent and then chomps down on a steak is a hypocrite.

I apologize for getting off subject and don't mean to attack or offend Ozme - but isn't it (more) accurate to say most (if not all) people are hypocritical to some degree? I tend to think it's a question whether or not they're willing to admit they're hypocrisy, rather than being completely free of such tendencies.

[Ozme52]

I apologize for getting off subject and don't mean to attack or offend Ozme - but isn't it (more) accurate to say most (if not all) people are hypocritical to some degree? I tend to think it's a question whether or not they're willing to admit they're hypocrisy, rather than being completely free of such tendencies.

I missed this comment while I was on the road... eating (etc.) my sex partner... but that's not on topic either. LOL.

Sure Cathryn, everyone has some degree of hypocrisy naturally built in because it is the rare subject/topic that either doesn't, or can't be made to seem to, overlap onto another subject that has similar issue. I, for example, recognize my hypocrisy in some eyes for being pro-death-sentence for criminals and pro-choice on the abortion issue. And certainly the opposite views, taken by many of my "brethren" conservatives are equally hypocritical.

I wasn't so much defending the position as attacking that particular hypocrisy... that it is somehow "worse" to attribute the ability to consent to an animal as an arguement against beastiality while munching on your burger or steak or vindaloo.