Is having sex with an animal a crime or even wrong?

[jeager106]

I read recently a 20 year old woman had been having sex with her dog since age 13.
She made selfie and Fido video and showed her boyfriend who was shocked and turned her into cops & she was charged with beastiality, later amended to
a crime against nature.

An odd charge in light of global warming, pollution, rising ocean levels and no one is charged with a criminal offense of a crime against nature.

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?
No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.
Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?
Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?
Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?
Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)
Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?
What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?
There are a lot of really keen minds here & I respect them so.
I value those opinions.

If you must have documentation there are many on line articles.
Here's is but one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 ... 12694.html

[jeager106]

Pet stores advertising the best dog for stimulating women ( men )?
New books for sexually frustrated people " Cum 'er Fido ".

Using you questionable quasi ligic & hiding behind your intellectual opinions don't make it right.
I'm done, this thread went way beyond sick.

[jerryxplu]

even though I would agree that it is personally disturbing to me but then so is obese people. BUT I don't see it being a crime or wrong in the sense that she is not hurting anybody and probably not the dog either. I think we got too much real problem in the world to worry about (like people dying left and right all around the world). At most this is some sort of mental issue like some sort of weird sexual fetish that she may have and should maybe seek help from a doctor (if she wishes to) instead of being lock up or put in prison for.

[jeager106]

[Replying to post 12 by jerryxplu]

I just posted similar to what you just did.
I'm not sure jail is right but arrest for these kinds of things bring behavior to the courts where it is hoped a judge would see that intervention would be a good idea.
Not intervention in jail.
Can you imagine the hard time she would have in jail with criminals who would know she has a sexual problem?

[bluethread]

Do I understand that you think having sex with animals is o.k.?

I already stated that I don't personally consider this particular event to be "having sex".

OK, I'll bite, excuse the pun. What about penetration, it's just a different body part? Also, if a being with diminished mental capacity can be said to be giving consent via egger participation, why would pedophilia be wrong? Though I do not consider psychologists to be the high priests of morality, would you consider it a valid argument in support of these activities, if psychologists did find them to be acceptable?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

My understanding is that the issue with paedophilia is that age is the easiest way to judge experience, which is in turn the easiest way to judge whether or not someone is capable of making an informed decision to be involved in sexual activities - hence if a minor encourages and 'starts' sexual relations with another, if the other continues it is considered statutory rape (of the minor).

Of course, the legal age of consent varies, in developed countries I believe it's typically 13-18. And naturally, plenty of teenagers engage in consensual (literal not legal) intercourse themselves before the legal age. (I'm not sure if this is still legally counted as statutory rape, but mutual rape seems somewhat oxymoronic) Another thing that likely varies between countries is what exactly constitutes a sexual act, or as I'd rather (and more generally; esp. without needing labels) put it, what consent can and can't be reasonably assumed - for instance, is it safe to assume someone is comfortable with you shaking their hand? Depending where you live, possibly or even probably. It's certainly safe to assume they likely won't have a significant problem with it. Grabbing a different part of their body on the other hand, probably not.

I'm not sure if there really are any relevant consequences for an animal that come from a decision to have sex. Plus, age of consent doesn't really apply when you're presumably allowing animals to have sex with each other at that age.

With regards to the topic, and other taboos in general:
I understand that many people have an immediate gut reaction or instinctive dissuasion to this sort of thing, but unless they can demonstrate some effectively resultant harm or some other good reason, "it's just wrong", "I feel sick", etc don't cut it. They aren't reasonable discourse. It's the exact same reaction that people of their time had to interracial marriage, equal rights, marriage equality now, etc.

I generally just think, if there's no harm, and there are attempts to mitigate any potential risks, let people have sex however they want and with whatever they want. As a fictional allegory - what constitutes bestiality? In Lord Of The Rings, would an elf and a human count? Is there some degree of anthropomorphism required?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

My understanding is that the issue with pedophilia is that age is the easiest way to judge experience, which is in turn the easiest way to judge whether or not someone is capable of making an informed decision to be involved in sexual activities - hence if a minor encourages and 'starts' sexual relations with another, if the other continues it is considered statutory rape (of the minor).

That may be the case, but DI was using willingness to participate as in indicator of consent in cases of diminished capacity. If that is indeed a valid standard, should that also apply to all life forms with diminished capacity, ie children?

Of course, the legal age of consent varies, in developed countries I believe it's typically 13-18. And naturally, plenty of teenagers engage in consensual (literal not legal) intercourse themselves before the legal age. (I'm not sure if this is still legally counted as statutory rape, but mutual rape seems somewhat oxymoronic) Another thing that likely varies between countries is what exactly constitutes a sexual act, or as I'd rather (and more generally; esp. without needing labels) put it, what consent can and can't be reasonably assumed - for instance, is it safe to assume someone is comfortable with you shaking their hand? Depending where you live, possibly or even probably. It's certainly safe to assume they likely won't have a significant problem with it. Grabbing a different part of their body on the other hand, probably not.

So, what is the standard that is appropriate to differentiate between which body parts are acceptable and which are not?

I'm not sure if there really are any relevant consequences for an animal that come from a decision to have sex. Plus, age of consent doesn't really apply when you're presumably allowing animals to have sex with each other at that age.

As you apparently said above, physical age is an indicator of gestational age. So, why use physical age as the moral standard, when gestational age is available? With regard to animals the gestational age of consent is practically nonexistent. So, why would gestational age of consent with humans be significant. Remember we are working under the assumption that willingness to participate is a sufficient indicator of consent, when there is no other indicator of consent.

With regards to the topic, and other taboos in general:
I understand that many people have an immediate gut reaction or instinctive dissuasion to this sort of thing, but unless they can demonstrate some effectively resultant harm or some other good reason, "it's just wrong", "I feel sick", etc don't cut it. They aren't reasonable discourse. It's the exact same reaction that people of their time had to interracial marriage, equal rights, marriage equality now, etc.

So, what do you propose as an acceptable standard for determining morals in sexual matters? By the way, it is my understanding that comparing bestiality to marriage equality is considered uncivil on this site.

I generally just think, if there's no harm, and there are attempts to mitigate any potential risks, let people have sex however they want and with whatever they want. As a fictional allegory - what constitutes bestiality? In Lord Of The Rings, would an elf and a human count? Is there some degree of anthropomorphism required?

Fictional is the operative term here. The fact that science fiction/fantasy has desensitized us to such nonexistent situations does not justify similar existent situations. The philosophy behind that fiction is romanticism, ie hedonism, which is really the underlying basis of this discussion. So, to justify romanticism, because it has been glorified in romantic fiction is really circular reasoning.

Given your "if there's no harm, and there are attempts to mitigate any potential risks" standard, what is to stop one from engaging in necrophilia, or any sexual interaction in general. Also, what constitutes harm and is it sufficient to just attempt mitigation? "I didn't mean any harm, . . . really!" "OK, that's fine then."

[Divine Insight]

Do I understand that you think having sex with animals is o.k.?

I already stated that I don't personally consider this particular event to be "having sex".

OK, I'll bite, excuse the pun. What about penetration, it's just a different body part? Also, if a being with diminished mental capacity can be said to be giving consent via egger participation, why would pedophilia be wrong? Though I do not consider psychologists to be the high priests of morality, would you consider it a valid argument in support of these activities, if psychologists did find them to be acceptable?

I openly confess that I have no problem being a God among humans.

And why should I have a problem with this? It's seems that all humans basically play this game.

You ask me if I would agree the conclusions of psychologists. My answer is simple, "I would only agree with them if their conclusions were in line with my opinions."

Moreover, the hypothetical scenario that you have described isn't realistic to begin with. There are many reasons why using a child in this situation would be objectionable. In fact, let's not forget that YOU are the one who is assuming that a human child is no different from a dog.

I disagree with that premise right off the bat, and I'm confident than any "real world" psychologist would as well.

So your hypothetical proposal that human psychologists are going to postulate that a human child is no different from a dog is unrealistic to begin with.

~~~~~~

However, just to put things in perspective. Many women do indeed breast feed their young infants. This as natural as can be. But no one has a problem with a mother allowing her young baby boy to suck on her breasts. But they would have a problem with this if the mother continued having her boys suck on her breasts as they grew though their teen years.

So this is quite strange. We have a perfectly natural act that after a certain age becomes a perverted sexual immorality.

I personally think our society in general has extremely perverted sex. They have perverted it to such a point that they have actually created huge sexual inhibitions within themselves. And much of this comes from religious dogmas that claim that sex acts are immoral sins. Even after marriage, it's considered sin to actually enjoy sex without the intent of procreation.

We (because of religion dogmas) have actually made sex out to be something filthy.

I personally think it's disgusting. It's disgusting that we have perverted such a beautiful and natural thing.

It's no wonder that young girls are turning to dogs to obtain sexual satisfaction. Humans have perverted the whole thing by demeaning that everything is a taboo sin.

There was a time when it would be considered absolutely immoral and disgusting for a women to even masturbate, much less use a mechanical vibrator to aid the process.

Today, women are doing this on a regular basis and no one thinks twice about it.

[Divine Insight]

That may be the case, but DI was using willingness to participate as in indicator of consent in cases of diminished capacity.

This is absolute hogwash Bluethread. I never said anything about any "diminished capacity". You are grossly misrepresenting my position on things.

What I said is that the dog was just doing what comes natural to the dog and the dog obviously has no problem with the situation at all.

YOU are the one that then proposed that a human child is no better than a dog.

Not me!

That's not my position at all. I totally renounced the conclusions that YOU are jumping to here.

Your claim that a human child is no different from a dog, is your own. I do not agree with your position on this at all. On the contrary I passionately reject your views on this. I consider your conclusions on this to be extremely poor judgment on your part.

Nowhere did I ever suggest that a human child should be considered to be like a dog.

That's disgusting, and I can't believe that you jumped to such a disgusting conclusion and then tried to twist it around like as if it was my idea.

I totally renounce your way of thinking. And I do not support your conclusions at all.

[Divine Insight]

Pet stores advertising the best dog for stimulating women ( men )?
New books for sexually frustrated people " Cum 'er Fido ".

Using you questionable quasi ligic & hiding behind your intellectual opinions don't make it right.
I'm done, this thread went way beyond sick.

It wasn't long ago that people would have said the same thing about a woman merely masturbating on her own.

Using an electronic vibrating dildo was considered to be truly sick by many people.

Yet today it's fair to say that this practice is mainstream, and not a considered to be a serious moral or mental issues at all.

If you want to know the truth, I could actually see pet stores selling dogs and advertising them as great sexual stimulator. In fact, this very lawsuit against this girl may actually spark things to move in that direction. There is going to be a lot of support for this girl whether you like it or not. And it could potentially lead to movements that have these kind of things taken off the books.

If there's no harm to the dog where's the argument that it should be outlawed?

Outlawed based on what? Simply because some people think it's disgusting?

Outlawed on religious moral grounds. The secularists would fight against that even if they aren't interested in being sexually stimulated by dogs.

I personally feel that it's absolutely ridiculous. If this girl wants to let her pet dog lick honey off her crotch whilst she had orgasms over it, why should anyone care?

What business is it of ours?

The dog enjoys the honey treat, the girl enjoys the orgasms. Who should care?

I mean seriously. Who should care?

If there's a God who is upset about this let him damn this girl to eternal hell fire.

That's his business.

But if it's up to me, I say let the girl do whatever she wants. No one is being harmed in the process.

She may have a problem with being addicted to sex in general and she should look into curbing that if that's an issue.

But using the dog to stimulate her to orgasm? Pft.

It's not likely to bother the dog. He probably enjoys it.

Like someone else said. We have a world filled full of real problems, like ISIS, the Middle East crisis, Syria, etc.

And here we are worried about condemning or making a criminal out of a girl who has her dog lick her virgina?

Why are we so obsessed with making criminals out of people who are just doing their own thing and not hurting anyone else?

Aren't there enough problems in this world that we need to go around making criminals out of people who are doing nothing more than trying to find a little pleasure in this life?

Who is being served by chastising this girl?

[Jashwell]

Of course, the legal age of consent varies, in developed countries I believe it's typically 13-18. And naturally, plenty of teenagers engage in consensual (literal not legal) intercourse themselves before the legal age. (I'm not sure if this is still legally counted as statutory rape, but mutual rape seems somewhat oxymoronic) Another thing that likely varies between countries is what exactly constitutes a sexual act, or as I'd rather (and more generally; esp. without needing labels) put it, what consent can and can't be reasonably assumed - for instance, is it safe to assume someone is comfortable with you shaking their hand? Depending where you live, possibly or even probably. It's certainly safe to assume they likely won't have a significant problem with it. Grabbing a different part of their body on the other hand, probably not.

So, what is the standard that is appropriate to differentiate between which body parts are acceptable and which are not?

What's meant by "appropriate"?
The problem is not that their body is being touched in a bad place, the problem is that they want their body not to be touched there (I phrase it this way, and not 'don't want their body to be touched there', to distinguish from indifference - i.e. if they don't care, there isn't really a problem).
For some people, any contact might be too much.

The distinction here is between whether it's reasonable to assume that they permit it. And where you can and can't be touched is itself an entirely personal choice.

I'm not sure if there really are any relevant consequences for an animal that come from a decision to have sex. Plus, age of consent doesn't really apply when you're presumably allowing animals to have sex with each other at that age.

As you apparently said above, physical age is an indicator of gestational age. So, why use physical age as the moral standard, when gestational age is available? With regard to animals the gestational age of consent is practically nonexistent. So, why would gestational age of consent with humans be significant. Remember we are working under the assumption that willingness to participate is a sufficient indicator of consent, when there is no other indicator of consent.

I don't remember saying willingness was sufficient, though if the act is sufficiently inconsequential it probably is.
If we could practically do some kind of magic exam on whether or not you understand and can reason with any consequences sex has, that'd be better than age.

With regards to the topic, and other taboos in general:
I understand that many people have an immediate gut reaction or instinctive dissuasion to this sort of thing, but unless they can demonstrate some effectively resultant harm or some other good reason, "it's just wrong", "I feel sick", etc don't cut it. They aren't reasonable discourse. It's the exact same reaction that people of their time had to interracial marriage, equal rights, marriage equality now, etc.

So, what do you propose as an acceptable standard for determining morals in sexual matters? By the way, it is my understanding that comparing bestiality to marriage equality is considered uncivil on this site.

I didn't compare the two or liken one to the other, I compared the gut reaction to the two. The point is that the gut reaction isn't enough, else those would have been put on that list, now would they?

I propose that if neither party is bothered by it, having understood any relevant and significant consequences (and attempting reasonable mitigation of any external risk), then there's no problem with it.
In general, you assume something is right, moral or permissible until someone gives you reason not to.

I generally just think, if there's no harm, and there are attempts to mitigate any potential risks, let people have sex however they want and with whatever they want. As a fictional allegory - what constitutes bestiality? In Lord Of The Rings, would an elf and a human count? Is there some degree of anthropomorphism required?

Fictional is the operative term here. The fact that science fiction/fantasy has desensitized us to such nonexistent situations does not justify similar existent situations. The philosophy behind that fiction is romanticism, ie hedonism, which is really the underlying basis of this discussion. So, to justify romanticism, because it has been glorified in romantic fiction is really circular reasoning.

I don't see that as the case.
If an elf were real, would engaging in sexual acts with it be bestiality? Would it be permissible? If not, how do we determine whether it is bestiality or not?

That is what I'm getting at.

Given your "if there's no harm, and there are attempts to mitigate any potential risks" standard, what is to stop one from engaging in necrophilia, or any sexual interaction in general. Also, what constitutes harm and is it sufficient to just attempt mitigation? "I didn't mean any harm, . . . really!" "OK, that's fine then."

Necrophilia can be harmful to relatives, family (and indirectly to everyone's sense of rights)... but of course, if the deceased were to have permitted it, I would have no problem with it.

It depends not just on whether mitigation is attempted, but whether a reasonable form of mitigation is attempted. In a different context, obviously an upright stick isn't a reasonable mitigation for a flood, at best if it's attempted earnestly then you might say that they were simply misguided. There is some degree of subjectivity as to what is enough.