Beastiality

[knot]

It seems fashionable to be against beastiality if you're a politician these days. Is it all just pretentious virtue signaling that's supposed to show how much they care about animals (while still eating them )?

Is beastiality actually harmful in any way for larger animals, like horses and cows?


I think the increased focus on beastiality may lead to good things, but on its own it seems like a pointless cause to me

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Is beastiality actually harmful in any way for larger animals, like horses and cows?

Is it rape if she's too loose to get vaginal trauma?

[inator]

Is beastiality actually harmful in any way for larger animals, like horses and cows?

I'm not exactly sure how this works or if it's true, but apparently sex with animals doesn't always involve cruelty because it could be mutually satisfying.... usually it does involve harm though.
You could apply a similar logic to paedophilia.

It seems fashionable to be against beastiality if you're a politician these days. Is it all just pretentious virtue signaling that's supposed to show how much they care about animals (while still eating them )?

I think the increased focus on beastiality may lead to good things, but on its own it seems like a pointless cause to me

This sort of thing between humans and animals that results in harm to the animal should remain illegal, there's no question about it.
Yes, it's hypocritical to just focus on this one thing instead of the bigger picture that results in way more harm. The same way it's hypocritical to only care about the poor dogs involved in the dog meat festival in China.

But I think there's no reason to discourage that small concern that people have for animals, even if it's one-sided, if it can result in reduced harm. On the contrary, we should encourage any concern to the point that they may become aware of their hypocrisy.

[knot]

ya, I agree.

I dont really want to think more about how that all works. It's just funny that something is banned almost entirely because of its "yuck factor"

[inator]

Actually you're right, there's little to no concern for animals involved here...most likely it's: yuck, therefore perverts, therefore immoral, therefore illegal.

[atheistarfroot]

I think its less about "cruelty" and more about the idea of consent. Animals cannot give freely give consent (at least, not oral consent lol). Similar to pedophilia, children cannot freely and informatively give consent.

Also I don't know (I suppose I would have to research every single case of beastiality to really determine this) but I think that the human engaging in the activity (especially w/ a large animal) usually ends up injured or dead, and clearly theres harm there.

Overall I agree with everyone: I don't think people really care about the animal.. Cruelty is not why its objected to; the fact that its a major taboo is.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I think its less about "cruelty" and more about the idea of consent. Animals cannot give freely give consent (at least, not oral consent lol).

If a non-human animal and a human both want to have sex with one another and them having sex does not cause harm to them or those around them, why should they not fulfill their interest?
Consider this quote from inator on the subject of animal use (https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=7&t=1723)

If verbal consent is not possible, then you determine it observationally - based on other physical forms of consent like writhing/drawing away, bunting, or no reaction.
If that's also not possible (as with highly mentally disabled people), then by pairing the level of sentience with the interests that one can have based on that."

Similar to pedophilia, children cannot freely and informatively give consent.

How do you know children cannot consent? At the (arbitrarily defined) age of 18 (or whatever the age of consent is) do the elder gods bestow one with the capability to consent?

Also I don't know (I suppose I would have to research every single case of beastiality to really determine this) but I think that the human engaging in the activity (especially w/ a large animal) usually ends up injured or dead, and clearly theres harm there.

I'm not sure either. I do however agree that the potential for injury is relevant to wether or not one should engage in sex with the non-human animal. If anything, this is what would make sex with animals immoral.

Overall I agree with everyone: I don't think people really care about the animal.. Cruelty is not why its objected to; the fact that its a major taboo is.

I'm not sure I understand what these sentences mean. Could you elaborate?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

usually it does involve harm though

Do you consider cases where harm is not involved to be detestable? I am not sure if such cases exist.

[inator]

Do you consider cases where harm is not involved to be detestable? I am not sure if such cases exist.

I don't know if they exist either. Some say they have a "relationship" with an animal, implying it's somehow mutual. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia ... _zoophilia)
IF such cases do exist, then we shouldn't make the mistake of labeling something that we consider to be "disgusting" (unnatural, detestable etc.) as morally wrong. It can only be wrong if it opposes any interests.

But since most cases probably entail animal exploitation for personal profit, then yeah, we can be pretty sure that some harm will be involved.

[Jaywalker]

It's not essentially wrong if it isn't harmful to anyone, but there is an immense taboo attached to it which should not be disregarded. Even if there was no harm, it's very likely that vegan advocates who support bestiality will hurt the movement by pushing it closer to that "extreme" edge. I believe more people will be deterred from becoming vegan if vegans support bestiality, and it's more important to increase the number of vegans than make it ok to have sex with animals. Even I as a vegan think it's disgusting.

Not to mention, it may not be possible for a third party to determine whether the animal consented or not in many cases. If it's made legal, more people can freely rape animals.

How do you know children cannot consent? At the (arbitrarily defined) age of 18 (or whatever the age of consent is) do the elder gods bestow one with the capability to consent?

With children, it's more about informed consent as he said. They are not likely to grasp the full psychological ramifications of the act - or even physical, such as an unwanted fetus. We know it's often not in their best interest to have sex. It becomes a grayer area the older they are, so it depends on the circumstances as with most things. But since animals are exempt from these ramifications, it wasn't a fair comparison.