Bestiality.

[Mosasauria]

Perhaps there's more to sexual intercourse than just pleasure. It is a social action. It is for a bond between a couple, and form a productive society. Sex in the animal world means something different than in the human world. For animals it is an expression of social status, whereas for human beings it is an expression of affection. Ultimately sex between a human and an animal is unproductive. No baby can be made, no mutual love is expressed, and no mutual pleasure is gained. It serves no social benefit because it is simply treatment of an animal as an object. It is potentially very unhealthy, and is most definitely very unproductive.

Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be illegal? That is up to the majority.

Perhaps the bestial loves the animal?

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

Communication does not always signify sapience, although it is a significant factor. The short answer is that these animals, while intelligent for animals, are still owned by and property of people. They can no more give or revoke consent than a fleshlight. The fact that they possess sentience and can view the world does not automatically imply that they can give or revoke consent or that consent even applies.

If we can prove an animal is sapient, would you then be against their status as property?

[Mosasauria]

Take a look at Nana's post.

I actually disagree with the idea that consent shouldn't be considered, but...that's for another debate.

Not one I'd mind having, mind you.

That's the thing though! The animals won't even know its sex! To them its just another attack.

[Gagatron]

Perhaps there's more to sexual intercourse than just pleasure. It is a social action. It is for a bond between a couple, and form a productive society. Sex in the animal world means something different than in the human world. For animals it is an expression of social status, whereas for human beings it is an expression of affection. Ultimately sex between a human and an animal is unproductive. No baby can be made, no mutual love is expressed, and no mutual pleasure is gained. It serves no social benefit because it is simply treatment of an animal as an object. It is potentially very unhealthy, and is most definitely very unproductive.

Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be illegal? That is up to the majority.

Perhaps the bestial loves the animal?

It can't be a mutual expression.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

No harm. Ha. Not everything boils down to logic. Some things are just wrong, regardless of logical evidence to the contrary.
Again how does an animal give consent?

When was the last time you saw an animal give its consent to, I don't know, slaughtering for instance?

By your logic, we'd have to outlaw a wide range of things. No eggs for breakfast cause the chic doesn't want to give its consent for us to take its eggs. No milk in the coffee cause the cow doesn't want to give its consent to let us pull on its tits. And the next time you see a rat sneak around in your basement, you might want to ask it for permission before you set up traps. Just saying.

[Mosasauria]

Perhaps the bestial loves the animal?

It can't be a mutual expression.

Also, what's wrong with no mutual pleasure and no baby?
Ever heard of masturbation and contraception?

[Zeth Rekia]

Communication does not always signify sapience, although it is a significant factor. The short answer is that these animals, while intelligent for animals, are still owned by and property of people. They can no more give or revoke consent than a fleshlight. The fact that they possess sentience and can view the world does not automatically imply that they can give or revoke consent or that consent even applies.

If we can prove an animal is sapient, would you then be against their status as property?

Morality, and other nice stuff like that, doesn't exist in the natural world.

[WWII History Geeks]

Fluffy does not want your penis.

/end of discussion.

[Azaca]

I'm pretty sure there's somthing against it in the Quran so no

[Mosasauria]

If we can prove an animal is sapient, would you then be against their status as property?

Morality, and other nice stuff like that, doesn't exist in the natural world.

You are exactly right.
When was the last time the lion didn't eat the antelope because the antelope had a family? Instead, the lion eats the antelope and its family.

[Old Vester]

Fluffy does not want your penis.

/end of discussion.

From what I've seen in this thread, since Fluffy doesn't understand and as long as Fluffy isn't hurt then it's okay.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Communication does not always signify sapience, although it is a significant factor. The short answer is that these animals, while intelligent for animals, are still owned by and property of people. They can no more give or revoke consent than a fleshlight. The fact that they possess sentience and can view the world does not automatically imply that they can give or revoke consent or that consent even applies.

If we can prove an animal is sapient, would you then be against their status as property?

I still have no idea why exactly this is relevant to the discussion.

[Gagatron]

It can't be a mutual expression.

Also, what's wrong with no mutual pleasure and no baby?
Ever heard of masturbation and contraception?

Sex where one party feels good and the other doesn't is generally a bad thing. As for the contraception, that does kinda defeat one of the purposes of sex, yes.

[WWII History Geeks]

Fluffy does not want your penis.

/end of discussion.

From what I've seen in this thread, since Fluffy doesn't understand and as long as Fluffy isn't hurt then it's okay.

I disagree. To me, there's just something wrong with screwing anything named "Fluffy."

[Mosasauria]

I'm pretty sure there's somthing against it in the Quran so no

So? The Quran encourages murder in one part, so why aren't you killing people? DON'T LISTEN TO EVERYTHING A 'Holy Book' TELLS YOU! Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Old Vester]

From what I've seen in this thread, since Fluffy doesn't understand and as long as Fluffy isn't hurt then it's okay.

I disagree. To me, there's just something wrong with screwing anything named "Fluffy."

Well, I'm just telling you what the pro-beastiality is saying. And don't Google Fluffy.

[Zeth Rekia]

I'm pretty sure there's somthing against it in the Quran so no

Try telling a bear that while he tears your head off.

[The Deep Vault]

No, it's not. Killing to protect yourself from starvation is different from committing rape for a thrill.

We don't need to eat animals to survive. We do, but it isn't necessary.

Moreover, rape implies consent was not given. Fascinating how you're throwing that word around without bullet-proof definitions of consent that work for animals and a reason why consent matters in terms of sex but not in terms of food without sounding hypocritical.

We actually do need to eat. There are other things we could eat, but these are things we don't necessarily have access to all the time. There have even been instances in which most of the alternatives have shown intelligence, but I'm not getting into that because I don't need to. Given all else, meat eating is by no means inherently wrong.

[Mosasauria]

Also, what's wrong with no mutual pleasure and no baby?
Ever heard of masturbation and contraception?

Sex where one party feels good and the other doesn't is generally a bad thing. As for the contraception, that does kinda defeat one of the purposes of sex, yes.

But, there is sex for pleasure, and who said the animals will feel bad? The only thingt they'll feel is pain, to which they will turn around and attack, which I have no problem with.

[Mosasauria]

I disagree. To me, there's just something wrong with screwing anything named "Fluffy."

Well, I'm just telling you what the pro-beastiality is saying. And don't Google Fluffy.

Can't... unsee... the horrors...

[WWII History Geeks]

I disagree. To me, there's just something wrong with screwing anything named "Fluffy."

Well, I'm just telling you what the pro-beastiality is saying. And don't Google Fluffy.

Still. I mean, can't animals be raped? Unless the animal expresses a desire then it can be considered rape. Otherwise there's no real way to know that it hurts the animal unless there's some sort of lasting damage. Maybe it could be a psychological thing.

[Old Vester]

I'm pretty sure there's somthing against it in the Quran so no

So? The Quran encourages murder in one part, so why aren't you killing people? DON'T LISTEN TO EVERYTHING A 'Holy Book' TELLS YOU! Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Well, you're not suppose to take a holy book of any kind word for word. That doesn't mean you have to dump all the lessons and value for the things you don't agree with.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

From what I've seen in this thread, since Fluffy doesn't understand and as long as Fluffy isn't hurt then it's okay.

I disagree. To me, there's just something wrong with screwing anything named "Fluffy."

I don't know what the appeal is, either. However, if Sebastian screws Fluffy, is that affecting you, WWIIHG, in any way?

[Zeth Rekia]

Contraception? WHat? You don't need contraceptives when having sex with an animal of a different species. You can't reproduce with them anyways. It just doesn't work.

[The Deep Vault]

Morality, and other nice stuff like that, doesn't exist in the natural world.

You are exactly right.
When was the last time the lion didn't eat the antelope because the antelope had a family? Instead, the lion eats the antelope and its family.

To keep its family alive, though. It's almost self-defense.