Bestiality

[Corvus]

Is bestiality wrong?

And should it be illegal?


I do not believe so on both questions.

[Corvus]

And as far as pain goes, how would we know? We know, for example, that intercourse is de facto painful for cats because of strategically placed barbs. The violence of the act is necessary to stimulate ovulation in the female. Acts such as these are behaviors controlled by seasonal shifts in hormones and so the urge to procreate becomes stronger than the urge to not feel pain. But we don't really know the degree of pain endured by the animal because they can't communicate such information to us.

I do not understand the correlation. If the animal is discomforted by the act, it will struggle. If it enjoys it, depending on the animal, it will give signs of approval and arousal. If it is driven by a hormonal urge, then it is entirely natural for it to seek out satisfaction. I have never owned a cat, but do most people lock it up when it is in heat fearing that it might hurt itself?

Also remember that an animal can also be the dominant partner, and may even be able to instigate the act, as when a dog humps a leg, or when a horse enjoys the presence of its handler a little too much and chases them around the paddock. The last is an amusing image that I have actually seen happen.*

We also don't know the degree of what you might call "humiliation" endured. This is not an animal concept, but there is an animal analogue. Certain wild bird species will kill one of its chicks if a human handles it, presumably because of the strange smell. This happens with wolves also. The mother may reject the animal because of the human handling. Now, we don't really have any evidence that this happens among adults, but it is known that there are instances where individuals are forced out of the pack for various reasons, some of which remain a mystery. Can you guarantee that an afflicted sheep won't suffer some kind of "Klingon-like" ritual of banishment? This is a silly example.

I agree, but it is worth noting, and something I never suspected could happen. I suppose the only way to find out is through observing the antics of a lonely farmer.

But if we should be able to do as we like with animals, what would you say to bear baiting or cock fights?

Both are cruel, and I am not condoning that anything goes with an animal. Abuse is something entirely different to animals which has yet to be explored, thus causing this debate to devolve into hypotheticals.

I am also allowing as a given that for animals to suffer unnecessarily is wrong, which I do believe even though it is something for which I have no reason, other than compassion.


*Allow me to state that I am no yokel farmer wishing to indulge in indecent practices. I live in the 9th largest city in Australia - third largest in this state. I broach the topic as an intellectual exercise.

[ST88]

And as far as pain goes, how would we know? We know, for example, that intercourse is de facto painful for cats because of strategically placed barbs... The violence of the act is necessary to stimulate ovulation in the female. Acts such as these are behaviors controlled by seasonal shifts in hormones and so the urge to procreate becomes stronger than the urge to not feel pain. But we don't really know the degree of pain endured by the animal because they can't communicate such information to us.

I do not understand the correlation. If the animal is discomforted by the act, it will struggle. If it enjoys it, depending on the animal, it will give signs of approval and arousal. If it is driven by a hormonal urge, then it is entirely natural for it to seek out satisfaction. I have never owned a cat, but do most people lock it up when it is in heat fearing that it might hurt itself?

Also remember that an animal can also be the dominant partner, and may even be able to instigate the act, as when a dog humps a leg, or when a horse enjoys the presence of its handler a little too much and chases them around the paddock.

The point here is that we wouldn't know that the cat is in pain just by observing it. To us, its yowls would appear, shall we say, normal. The only reason we know it is in pain is because of the physiology of the male cat. Because we can't read the animal for a pain response, we shouldn't necessarily make the conclusion that there isn't any.

It should also be noted that "humping" behavior towards other animals and people is a dominance behavior, not a sexual one. For my own anecdote, I can relate that I have seen spayed female dogs engage in this behavior with human children. The children are seen as members of the pack that must be shown who is above them in the heirarchy. And this goes to prove my point that the appearance of the behavior and the motivations behind it are entirely animal in nature and should not be anthropomorphized.

[Spongemom]

Certain wild bird species will kill one of its chicks if a human handles it, presumably because of the strange smell.

Birds have a very poorly developed sense of smell. If you handle bird eggs while the mother is away from the nest, the mama bird will usually notice upon her return that the eggs were disturbed during her absence, and some species of bird will take this as an indication that a dangerous intruder is present and may temporarily or even permanently abandon their nests as a result. Such behavior is relatively rare, however, and in these situations the mother birds are reacting to visual warnings, not olfactory ones.

Just to clarify.

[ST88]

Birds have a very poorly developed sense of smell...

Thanks for the clarification. Vultures and some ground-dwelling species, like kiwis have useful olfactory organs, but apparently there is some doubt as to whether many birds have any sense of smell. Color me surprised that hummingbirds have little or no sense of smell. But now I'm curious. Does the rarity of a mother abandoning her nest because of disturbance invalidate my point?

[Spongemom]

But now I'm curious. Does the rarity of a mother abandoning her nest because of disturbance invalidate my point?

Not at all. Some birds do abandon their nests, only it's because of visual cues, not because of the presence of the human scent.

[Corvus]

Sorry for resurrecting such an old topic, but while linking to this topic in a separate debate, some thoughts occured to me, and I wanted to give this thread some finality.

It should also be noted that "humping" behavior towards other animals and people is a dominance behavior, not a sexual one. For my own anecdote, I can relate that I have seen spayed female dogs engage in this behavior with human children. The children are seen as members of the pack that must be shown who is above them in the heirarchy. And this goes to prove my point that the appearance of the behavior and the motivations behind it are entirely animal in nature and should not be anthropomorphized.

My own observations of the act of humping has been of a pet male dog who did it to inanimate objects, including, but not limited to, a blanket. I do not believe that every example of this behaviour is one of dominance, but can be sometimes be purely for gratification. I am aware that monkeys masturbate, though know nothing of the extent to which lower animals pursue sexual gratification.

I am willing to concede defeat, ST88, for you have admirably proven that it is almost impossible to understand the effects of unsolicited sexual encounters on animals.

[Gangstawombatninja]

Corvus, I don't know about monkies but I think only bonobo chimps masturbate. But maybe monkies do to do, but I know bonobos do--all the time. (Bonobos are "pygmy" chimps, the most intelligent, I think). And I, if I remember correctly, only about 25% of bonobo sex is for procreation.

Before, we adress bestiality, we first have to adress sex. A lot of people attach negative connotations to sex outside of marriage even though this makes little sense to me. As is ceremony inherently purifies. I've said this on another part of the site (homosexuality) but, come on, does the ceremony of the union between Britney Spears and her one-day hubby really make it pure? The purity lies in the emotional bond, not necessarily the celebration of the paradigm of an emotional bond.

Like prostitution. I don't consider it immoral. Or rather, only partially in the sense that the emotional aspect of love is being denied. Because forming emotional bonds of trust (to allow ourselves to depend on others of the tribe (society) for our survival) is essential not only life but well being. Prostitution, while it might deny the emotional, does sate the physical--and that pain that builds up between the navel and the loins in males--women, don't have that pain, and don't place as much importance in the physical. (I think of it as sixty forty, opposite for the respective genders). But which is more emotionally unsatisfying: complete loneliness and denying both sources of love or the acknowledging and celebrating of one and the possible delusion into believing the latter exists despite the shortness of the period of time? Me, if I can't find one, I at least want the other one, wanting both, of course.

So sex with an animal. I've adressed out of wedlock aspect and the physical sating of lust (which should not be thought of as negative, considering it's absence would not allow the continuation of life, which is certainly sacred). But who says sex with an animal has to be purely physical? I mean, what if you have a strong emotional bond as well as a physical one?

Morality. A lot of people define morality as following what God has decreed (which most people at this site was presented exclusively in the Bible). But I believe morality is simply defined as making another happy and finding happiness in doing so. Immorality, being, the enjoyment of inflicting suffering (sadism--nonconsensual sadism, that is, of course). Sanity and insanity I also define as such--sanity as being morality and insanity as being find happiness in making another unhappy--which is a productive of childhood trauma which makes a person outlet for happiness and unproductive one. Like how 90% of prostitutes were sexually abused as childeren and how children who have been abused as children grow up to be abusers--as a children our foundation (first memory cells of a specific topic) for later conduct in life are laid down.

So, as long as bestiality doesn't not cause unhappiness or suffering, I define it as moral, if emotionally (intellectually) unfulliling.

But does an animal enjoy it? Well, first, let's ask ourself if an animal enjoys sex. An emphatic yes should resound from all debaters. All animals, humans included, enjoy sex. It is this biological and genetically-ingrained compulsion that produces the release of euphoric chemicals that allows life to continue and makes us take so pleasure from it.

So, the question remains, does an animal enjoy having sex with a human--in general, that is, because animals are individuals and there are varying circumstances (I guess, the topic is actually "under what circumstances is bestiality immoral?" "All" being one answer). Well, let's ask ourselves if people do. Yes, some do. But what about those that don't and hate and think it's disgusting? Why do they think this?

A person who considers bestiality immoral, if they hear or read the word, their emotional response is disgust. But why? Well, what is a thought? A thought an original configuration of memory cells linked by dendrites and brought to the surface of consciousness. When we hear or read "bestiality" it reminds us of former reactions to that word--similar memory cells link up by dendrites and we remember how we felt when reacted to the word previously (like how we have perfect memory, simply imperfect recall). And if all our previous are negative, every response afterward will be negative because a though is configuration of old memory cells linked up in response to new sensory information.

But how does a person get to think this way? As children by parents but also by society in general. And a person is afraid to be comfortable with bestiality (yes, afraid, all things boil down to love and fear) because by doing this they are being rejected by society--psychologically. All their friends believe it's immoral and if they were to think this and voice this opinion they know they'd be rejected whether or not this is true.

Plus this thought brings up memory cells, foundational memory cells put upon them as children, sometimes, that make a person regard it negatively.

Whether or not bestiality is immoral this is still why a person thinks that.

My thought are thus. It takes less muscles to smile than to frown. Emotionally analogous, it's easier to love than to hate. It's easier and more psychologically beneficial to regard things in general if not positively, not negatively.

I'm heterosexual. But up until I was sixteen my brain wouldn't allow me to think of a man naked--there was this emotional block. But struggled with it and overcame all at once. It was tough to push through this block but I felt lighter after doing it. Opening up my was so cathartic. Catharsis, being, purifying, and, in psychiatry, bring subconscious fears and desires and issues to the surface and confronting them. Being openminded--it's just so much freer to be absent of prejeduces.

I didn't mean I was suddenly gay. My body releases adrenaline and w/e other hormones and chemicals and causes blood to pool in my penis in response to images of female nudity--that's not something I can control. But I'm confortable with my sexuality and openminded--not to say I was anti gay in the first place. It only served to reaffirm my sexuality--by putting it to the ultimate test.

So, absent of prejudices, is bestiality immoral? The only question should be if the animal is happy. Well, all female animals, humans included, respond to phallic motion in their vagina--the vaginal nerve cells register pleasure and send that to the brain and create happiness. With all male animals, something gripping the penis in hopes of liberating semen that can build up "pain"fully (more uncomfortable, actually) registers pleasure and creates happiness. Sex, between species, as long as anatomically compadible, would serve to register as pleasure between respective partners. Check for the physical love. And emotional love, a bond formed over a long period of time, could also be made, albeit not an intellectual and truly fulfilling connection.

But does it cause suffering? Not as long as the animal is treated well and is well cared for.

And let it be made clear that just because Corvus and I aren't biased and think bestiality is moral and should be legal, doesn't mean we want to sex with animals.

You can regard bestiality positively and support the legalization without actually wanting to participate--like homosexuality with me. I don't regard it as negative even though my body doesn't respond to it sexually.

[potwalloper.]

Is bestiality wrong?

And should it be illegal?


I do not believe so on both questions.

Until we have a clearer understanding of cross-species contamination bestiality needs to remain illegal.

The moral issues aside (I do not feel that it is appropriate to have sex with an animal that cannot express consent and may suffer as a consequence) common sense says that the risks of viral mutation and inter-species infection are too great to allow bestiality to become common practice. One only has to look at Aids and the potential for a pandemic of bird-flu to realise that it is probably best to be on the safe side until more is known about the risks.

If you fancy an animal buy a teddy bear...

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper:

Until we have a clearer understanding of cross-species contamination bestiality needs to remain illegal.

What do you mean by cross-species contamination?

If a cat and a dog have sex, they will either have a catdog or they won't. The DNA will either be compatible or it won't. Also, I'm wondering: how would cross-species contamination be tested in order to be understood better?

[hannahjoy]

Until we have a clearer understanding of cross-species contamination bestiality needs to remain illegal.

What do you mean by cross-species contamination?

I think he's referring to sexually transmitted diseases - that the possiblity of us getting such diseases from animals and vice versa is too high and too dangerous.

If a cat and a dog have sex, they will either have a catdog or they won't. The DNA will either be compatible or it won't. Also, I'm wondering: how would cross-species contamination be tested in order to be understood better?

I'm no scientist, but I guess bestiality would have to be practiced and observed to be tested and understood .