Talk:Bestiality

	This crime related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

non-human animals or just different species?

So in a nutshell: does the definition just cover human with non-human, or can be generalised to species A with species B? (replace species with other classification levels if needed). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In any relevant context its human and anything not a human. --Miekal 01:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If we genetically engineered a new species of human that looked super attractive, I don't think intercourse with them would be considered bestiality. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Two wrongs make a right" mentality

Is the argument that having sex with an animal would not be any more wrong than eating an animal really a "Two wrongs make a right" mentality? If that was the case then the writers of this article would agree that eating meat is wrong. Two wrongs make a right: "Jane stole Tom's pen, therefore I can steal Sarah's pen." "Meat eating is wrong, therefore I'm allowed to fuck animals."

But I don't think many people would agree that meat eating is wrong. Dapperedavid

You can't say meat eating is particularly kind/respectful to the animal, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

the difference is that meat has important nutrients for people, whereas bestiality is unnecessary and perverse.100.16.157.193 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say bestiality is usually better, considering the "meat industry" and that animals don't necessarily suffer with bestiality. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So then why is there not an article on meat eating? Dapperedavid (talk) 18:24, 10 Decembet 2015 (CET)

Don't fuck animals

Do not fuck animals ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.39.219.81 / talk}

Thanks for contributing literally nothing to this conversation. You're doing a good job. ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.5.51.48 / talk}

My implementation of the talk-page consensus on the nonsensical consent argument was reverted with the edsum "this is stupid".

@GrammarCommie Mind explaining to me what exactly is stupid about my edit? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek It's a complete non-sequitur. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So, according to you, the fact that the entire article on bestiality and the entire article on veganism completely contradict each other (one claims that putting animals at risk of being harmed without their consent is "unethical", while the other ridicules this position) is totally fine, and shining light on this double standard (which is ubiquitous in society and, by frequency, perhaps the biggest piece of crankery out there) ─ literally the entire mission of RationalWiki ─ is a "complete non-sequitur", right? If not, please justify your assertion. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make a moral argument for universally enforced veganism, make it on the veganism article (preferably try to convince people over the rationality of your viewpoint on the talk page first to avoid editwarring). I say this as a mostly vegetarian (though not vegan admittedly...and I eat meat handful of times a year) individual myself.

No argument against omnivorous diets for humans that I can think of bears any relevance for this article though. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 03:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek "So, according to you, the fact that the entire article on bestiality and the entire article on veganism completely contradict each other (one claims that putting animals at risk of being harmed without their consent is "unethical", while the other ridicules this position) is totally fine, and shining light on this double standard (which is ubiquitous in society and, by frequency, perhaps the biggest piece of crankery out there) ─ literally the entire mission of RationalWiki ─ is a "complete non-sequitur", right?" No, you inserting poorly phrased crap that appears to equivocate eating meat to fucking animals, which itself is inserted in the possibly the most ham fisted way possible, based on a talkpage discussion that went nowhere, is a non-sequitur. As was stated above, if you want to make a case for moral veganism, do it in the appropriate article, preferably after discussing it on the talkpage of said article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Coigreach No, that's not the argument that I'm trying to make. I'm simply trying to shine light on one of the most widespread double standards in society ─ that killing them is fine, but touching them with a private part is not. I'm also highlighting how nonsensical the consent argument is. I am struggling to see in what way either of these two purposes bears no relevance to the article ─ perhaps you can explain that to me.

Also, it's pretty pointless trying to discuss anything with some of the people on the veganism page, given that they overtly deny the scientific consensus and then block me for defending it. And note that we pretty much didn't even touch on the subjective stuff ─ I can only imagine how that will go. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

See my reply above. It's funny how you say "poorly phrased crap that appears to equivocate eating meat to fucking animals" as if that's somehow a no-no. I would really like to hear you justify in what way you think eating meat is more morally acceptable than bestiality (bigotry-based arguments will be ignored). Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek No. We're not going to play the game where you create an absurd argument and then demand that I defend it. Defend your own argument or shut the fuck up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is about as close as it gets to an admission that your entire position is a load of bollocks and that even you realise that it's undefendable. I have already defended my argument many times, and literally this entire talk page seems to agree with this defence. But when I ask you for a defence of your position that meat eating is more morally acceptable than bestiality, this is the type of bullshit that you come up with. I don't even think there is much more to talk about here ─ your words speak for themselves. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek It is not, do not engage in bad faith arguments. If you vaguely gesture towards other conversations, do not be surprised when others find it less than compelling. You made the claim, that these things were equivalent, YOU defend it. I'm not going to take the burden of proof when you're the one making the claim. That is Mauvaise foi, Bad Faith. Defend your position or don't, but do not accuse me of dishonesty when I refuse to take YOUR Burden of proof. I made no claim, YOU did. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As I already told you, I have defended my claim. My claim was "if we assume that a lack of consent on behalf of the animal to actions involving that animal is what makes bestiality unethical, then meat-eating must be unethical". I have justified that claim by making the statement "the animal did not consent to being eaten, and eating the animal is an action involving the animal". From this statement, the veracity of my claim is deduceable. Now the burden of proof is on you to show me how either of the statements "the animal did not consent to being eaten" and "eating the animal is an action involving the animal" are false. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘By your rationale, bestiality would be ethical if you presented your ass to a horny dog & it took you up on the offer. I therefore submit that your consent argument is probably not the killshot you were hoping for. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helena Bonham Carter While I agree with you that the consent argument is a pile of horseshit, your particular refutation isn't particularly convincing. I don't think it's anybody's business how you make use of your own ass (as long as nobody gets hurt, of course). Anyway, just to be sure, you're on my side here, right? Because it's the article that attempts to make the consent argument ─ I am only pointing out how illogical it is, just like you attempted to in your comment. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek Your reasoning seems to run along the line that human morality should be logically consistent. We are not Vulcans after all. The Book of the Eskimo, by Peter Freuchen describes behaviors of remote groups of Greenland Eskimo in the early 20th century. Freuchen discusses a kind of bestiality: sex with sled dogs. He reported that the cases where that activity was considered to be wrong, was when the act was done in secret. If a man had sex with his dogs out in the open, where he could be seen doing it, nobody thought anything about it. Otherwise people would point and whisper with disapproval and say "He has sex with his dogs".Ariel31459 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I know that our moral instincts are iffy. That's why gay sex was considered unethical up until very recently while raping a wife is still viewed as totally fine in many countries. However, that should only serve as proof that our instincts should not be relied on when making moral judgements. In this case, it's pretty clear that relying on our instinct that sexual perversion is a graver offence than slaughter isn't the best idea, as doing so leads us to the age-old belief that e.g. it's okay to stone homosexuals to death. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek It's a shame being misunderstood isn't an Olympic sport. Judging by your brief spell here, you'd obliterate the field like Usain Bolt in his prime. Please outline what you'd like to happen re. the consent arguments presented in both the bestiality and veganism articles. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helena Bonham Carter Haha, you're right. I can't go a single step without being misunderstood. Perhaps I should speak more concisely and use shorter sentences, I guess. Anyway, I'd like to either abolish the consent argument completely or ridicule it (e.g. like I have in the edit reverted by GrammarCommie). As far as the consent argument is concerned, I am happy if it is given the same treatment when I applied to both meat-eating and bestiality. Whether you decide it's a good argument or not (I don't think it is), it should never by itself grant meat-eating more ethical value than bestiality, which it does now (by not being brought up on the Veganism page but instead being brought up here). Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. I've removed the deeply weird consent argument from the article. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It's a bad argument. If someone had pointed it out I might have removed it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Good.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the last traces of the argument elsewhere in the section; hope you folk don't mind. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with most of these changes. However, the line "Sex with animals may result in serious injury to the human" is misleading, as obviously sex with animals could result in damage to the animal as well (at least depending on the animal), just as a rape could result in serious harm to a human rape victim. Also, the line "Infectious diseases may also spread from the animal to the human" was there already, but infectious diseases could spread from humans to the animals as well, as exemplified by a guy in South Carolina (actually surprised it wasn't Florida) fucking a horse and giving it infections[1].

I mean maybe we don't care about animals being injured or getting infections during bestiality, but it's still misleading. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 00:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait, sorry. I didn't notice the fact that animal might be harmed during bestiality was mentioned in the previous paragraph. However the infection bit still stands. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 00:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Added the infection bit. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Are all dog breeders facilitating rape?

Going back to the question of consent, we regularly encourage dogs to breed with other dogs. And good breeders *do* look for consent, someone that cares for their canine will stop a breeding if either canine looks likely to be hurt or overly distraught. Likewise a good breeder won't breed a female during her first heat precisely to give her time to better understand her heat before the stress of breeding.

However, plenty of breeding does happen. We don't consider it rape for a male canine to mount a female, even a young bitch who may be afraid of their first mating, even if the male may be overly forceful in seeking his own pleasure. So the question is why is that okay and not considered supporting rape, despite the female's supposed inability to consent to the mating? If a female can be deemed as consenting to a mating with another dog then why would she be deemed incapable of consenting to the same thing with a human? If anything a human who is worried about consent may be a more patient partner, less likely to pressure her into an action before she is ready to get his nuts off then a male dog who literally doesn't care about the female's emotional needs at all when mounting her.

I know some will say that it's okay because it's necessary to produce puppies, but I feel that argument is flawed in two key ways. First, the animals don't know their producing children. They know they want to do something that their instincts say will be pleasurable. Many are unaware of how that act is related to any eventual pregnancy that may happen.

More importantly though, animals do plenty of sexual activity with each other that is not geared towards reproduction. Homosexual intercourse is quite common across numerous species for example. Inter species intercourse, even with species that can't produce hybrid, is rare but it does happen. A female bonobo is often the first person to have sex with her own son, to help teach him how to mate so that he is better at pleasing the ladies later (they stop mating with their son when they meet sexual maturity, which is the only limit the bonobo have, they do every other kind of sex you can imagine). Is it rape if two animals engage in homosexual mating? is it rape if a neutered male mounts and penetrates a female in heat who is looking for sex just because he can't impregnate her? Should I go to jail if I witness a neutered dog mount a female and I don't stop him because I allowed her to be raped?

No, that's nonsense right. The two animals clearly desired the sex, the female was in heat and begging, the male wanted it even if spayed. There is no harm there right? but if there isn't then why does it change if you replace a male dog with a male human? Doesn't it just come down to is thinking humans are somehow different, more 'special' then a mere animal? if so what makes us so special that we must be treated different then any other animal? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:6491:17bd:8942:96ca:fbd8:9a1e / talk / contribs}

Page history shows constant reverting of arguments people don't like. We need better criteria for what can and can't be added as an argument to prevent such censorship

Looking through the fossil record, and ignoring tiny inconsequential changes, it looks like all the changes fall into one of two categories, either removals dealing with the consent argument, which is thoroughly addressed in another part of this talk page, or situations where a user added a defense (or counter argument to an argument against) bestiality which is almost immediately removed. In every case the comments for removal generally boil down to "eww, that's gross". The only one time some attempt to make an argument for the removal of a defense came up it seems a potential counterargument that could be included in the arguments against, but insufficient to warrant completely removing the original argument; it also arguable was a false equivalency, justifying removal of an argument about physical safety of an act with an argument that boils down to one of consent seems imprefect, especially after the wiki seems to have agreed that consent arguments are ineffectual when talking about animals.

By contrast every attempt to add arguments against bestialities have been accepted without any discussion or undoing. It seems clear to me there is an inherent biased censoring arguments against that which people find icky.

Now let me make it clear, I'm not saying I'm pro bestiality, I'm practically ace so I can safely say I'm not looking to go out and have sex with any type of animals, even those of the hominid variety. However, on a rational site focused on critical thinking I'd much rather see legitimate arguments, both for and against, a topic which allow someone to consider the facts and come to their own conclusion. Seeing rationalwiki censoring arguments they don't like is abhorrent to me, and a clear violation of very principals rationalwiki is suppose to stand for, regardless of what the actual argument is about. I'd rather no arguments, for or against, be in the article then some claim at rational debate that seems to have failed

Thus I propose we need a real system in place, in this article and perhaps across all of the wiki, that clearly defines the type of arguments, for or against, we consider to be rational and explicitly forbids removal of an argument one doesn't like without discussion and consensus that it is pointless or counterproductive, as appears to have happened with arguments about consent. ^{— Unsigned, by: 65.195.224.222 / talk}

My suggestion is to simply make better arguments. This is not a strong case. My revert for instance doesn't even address consent. Would underage sex (like let's say with 13 and younger) be okay if the underage party said "yes" and was taken good care and wasn't hurt? Most people would say no. The section above, it's also a pretty stupid analogy too that I couldn't really entertain a response. Calling this "censorship", especially over a taboo topic like this, is really really overblown, so please tone that down a few notches. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you really compare animals to children though? Many species are more than capable of surviving on their own and defending themselves in the wild (at least when they're fully developed), which is not the case for children. Informed consent is also a human concept, not an animal one; there are plenty of examples of sexual coercion amongst species. Animals breed based on very different criteria to humans. Most of the time they're simply fulfilling an urge to procreate. You could argue that animals have very different ways of communicating compared to humans; ergo, we can make a decent guess as to what's going on, but we can't be sure. Then again, that applies to lots of things, including domestication, breeding and slaughtering (things which also contain an inherent power imbalance; there's a reason that people who have pets are referred to as "owners").

I'm not arguing the issue one way or another, just bringing up some thoughts I had. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5000:9D0A:5D33:4CED:FC5B (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)