Poll: Is bestiality wrong if it's consensual?

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

How.. What... Why...

I need to sit down.

...

Animals cannot communicate their thoughts on our level and bestiality is always wrong in my eyes.

 

[TheIronRuler]

No, no concent here. It lies at animal rights, if you don't care you can go and fuck it, or if you do care you don't.
There isn't a clear front about animal rights, but I advocate - "do not fuck your pets".
Besiudes, it might be dangerous. A woman in her 40s in Ireland died out of an alergic reaction she had to dog semen.
Yes.
I am not making shit up.

 

[TheLiham]

I c wut was done here.
On topic: Consent is an impossibility because of the animal's limited intelligence and inability to communicate wishes. Also: even if they could communicate, it would probably always be a no because generally animals only have sex to create offspring.

Actually, there are quite a few animals that have sex recreationally such as Dolphins and Chimpanzees.

OT: It's probably wrong without any form of consent being available.

 

[zehydra]

.......

Yes. Wrong in every way shape and form.

Animals cannot give consent in this matter. And other than that, it's a vile act.

EDIT: I'm going to quote a guy, so pardon the language
*Ahem*

Spoiler: Warning:Language

they will claim that their dog (or other animal) "consents" to being fucked in the ass. I disagree. Until your dog can speak forth an English sentence consenting to being fucked in the ass, your dog does not consent to being fucked in the ass, you sick ************. Another rationalisation often used is that the animal "just came onto me". "It was his idea!" they will say - if a dog starts licking your balls, your dog is broken and should be put down and so should you.

Of course you're absolutely correct that an animal can't consent.

Perhaps what's more alarming though, is that whether or not you perceive it to be a "vile" act has really any bearing on the morality of this issue. After all, many people still consider homosexuality to be "vile" and therefore "wrong".

 

[zehydra]

My answer is no, but it doesn't really matter because an animal cannot consent.

 

[OpticalJunction]

It is pretty funny though that butchering and eating an animal is perfectly ok, but 'making love' to it is apparently the height of barbarity. It's kind of like how in games, shooting and maiming people in every possible way is fine, but nudity? That is unacceptable!

 

[ZeroMachine]

Yes consent is impossible because there is no mutual intelligence or language.

Animal cognition is widely recognized and if language is a barrier to consent then is having sex in a foreign country wrong?

No. Even with language boundaries, there are certain things that we can show to each other that make it fairly obvious that we want to do the down and dirty, as well as if we don't. It's all in the body language.

I don't know if you're playing devils advocate or what, but really, a lot of human language is shown, not spoken, and fully understood.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I c wut was done here.
On topic: Consent is an impossibility because of the animal's limited intelligence and inability to communicate wishes. Also: even if they could communicate, it would probably always be a no because generally animals only have sex to create offspring.

Actually, there are quite a few animals that have sex recreationally such as Dolphins and Chimpanzees.

OT: It's probably wrong without any form of consent being available.

PAY. ATTENTION. TO. THE. LANGUAGE. USED. It might be useful.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

.......

Yes. Wrong in every way shape and form.

Animals cannot give consent in this matter. And other than that, it's a vile act.

EDIT: I'm going to quote a guy, so pardon the language
*Ahem*

Spoiler: Warning:Language

they will claim that their dog (or other animal) "consents" to being fucked in the ass. I disagree. Until your dog can speak forth an English sentence consenting to being fucked in the ass, your dog does not consent to being fucked in the ass, you sick ************. Another rationalisation often used is that the animal "just came onto me". "It was his idea!" they will say - if a dog starts licking your balls, your dog is broken and should be put down and so should you.

Of course you're absolutely correct that an animal can't consent.

Perhaps what's more alarming though, is that whether or not you perceive it to be a "vile" act has really any bearing on the morality of this issue. After all, many people still consider homosexuality to be "vile" and therefore "wrong".

Trust me: I doubt GLBT rights groups want you comparing their issues with people who have sex with animals.

 

[5t3v0]

This brings me to remember one of the early cutscenes in GTA Vice city Stories

 

[zehydra]

I c wut was done here.
On topic: Consent is an impossibility because of the animal's limited intelligence and inability to communicate wishes. Also: even if they could communicate, it would probably always be a no because generally animals only have sex to create offspring.

Actually I doubt that much. I don't think animal sex-acts are out of any other form of thought other than instinct. Kind of like us, but without the pleasure aspect. (with a few exceptions)

 

[zehydra]

.......

Yes. Wrong in every way shape and form.

Animals cannot give consent in this matter. And other than that, it's a vile act.

EDIT: I'm going to quote a guy, so pardon the language
*Ahem*

Spoiler: Warning:Language

they will claim that their dog (or other animal) "consents" to being fucked in the ass. I disagree. Until your dog can speak forth an English sentence consenting to being fucked in the ass, your dog does not consent to being fucked in the ass, you sick ************. Another rationalisation often used is that the animal "just came onto me". "It was his idea!" they will say - if a dog starts licking your balls, your dog is broken and should be put down and so should you.

Of course you're absolutely correct that an animal can't consent.

Perhaps what's more alarming though, is that whether or not you perceive it to be a "vile" act has really any bearing on the morality of this issue. After all, many people still consider homosexuality to be "vile" and therefore "wrong".

Trust me: I doubt GLBT rights groups want you comparing their issues with people who have sex with animals.

I don't care if they don't want me comparing the two. The truth is, they share a common problem, and THAT is undeniable. The source of all bigotry is disgust.

 

[Izakflashman]

No, no concent here. It lies at animal rights, if you don't care you can go and fuck it, or if you do care you don't.
There isn't a clear front about animal rights, but I advocate - "do not fuck your pets".
Besiudes, it might be dangerous. A woman in her 40s in Ireland died out of an alergic reaction she had to dog semen.
Yes.
I am not making shit up.

I hear of people dieing because they get fucked by bee's as well.
But seriously, I heard that story to. That was pretty messed up. How do you tell people that at the funeral? How did it even get leaked to the media? It's not something you go posting about on facebook. "Died of dog cum Lolz. (3 likes)"

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I c wut was done here.
On topic: Consent is an impossibility because of the animal's limited intelligence and inability to communicate wishes. Also: even if they could communicate, it would probably always be a no because generally animals only have sex to create offspring.

Actually I doubt that much. I don't think animal sex-acts are out of any other form of thought other than instinct. Kind of like us, but without the pleasure aspect. (with a few exceptions)

From what I know, most people have sex for pleasure, NOT making babies. Just look at the thread this one is parodying.

 

[Laser Priest]

"Hey, Mr. Whiskers. Let's get it on."

Yeah, I think that's pretty much demented. It's disgusting even if you do somehow bypass the lack of intelligent communication and get consent.

 

[zehydra]

I c wut was done here.
On topic: Consent is an impossibility because of the animal's limited intelligence and inability to communicate wishes. Also: even if they could communicate, it would probably always be a no because generally animals only have sex to create offspring.

Actually I doubt that much. I don't think animal sex-acts are out of any other form of thought other than instinct. Kind of like us, but without the pleasure aspect. (with a few exceptions)

From what I know, most people have sex for pleasure, NOT making babies. Just look at the thread this one is parodying.

I know. What I'm saying is that Animals don't have sex for making babies either. The outcome of course is the same regardless.

 

[Izakflashman]

It is pretty funny though that butchering and eating an animal is perfectly ok, but 'making love' to it is apparently the height of barbarity. It's kind of like how in games, shooting and maiming people in every possible way is fine, but nudity? That is unacceptable!

Yeah, but you don't want to screw your food do you? Or food that's been recently screwed. That's why I only eat virgins.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

.......

Yes. Wrong in every way shape and form.

Animals cannot give consent in this matter. And other than that, it's a vile act.

EDIT: I'm going to quote a guy, so pardon the language
*Ahem*

Spoiler: Warning:Language

they will claim that their dog (or other animal) "consents" to being fucked in the ass. I disagree. Until your dog can speak forth an English sentence consenting to being fucked in the ass, your dog does not consent to being fucked in the ass, you sick ************. Another rationalisation often used is that the animal "just came onto me". "It was his idea!" they will say - if a dog starts licking your balls, your dog is broken and should be put down and so should you.

Of course you're absolutely correct that an animal can't consent.

Perhaps what's more alarming though, is that whether or not you perceive it to be a "vile" act has really any bearing on the morality of this issue. After all, many people still consider homosexuality to be "vile" and therefore "wrong".

Trust me: I doubt GLBT rights groups want you comparing their issues with people who have sex with animals.

I don't care if they don't want me comparing the two. The truth is, they share a common problem, and THAT is undeniable. The source of all bigotry is disgust.

But not all disgust is bigotry. Square/Rectangle

I can name about a dozen things that disgust me that no sane person would try to argue with me about.

Fact of the matter is, if detesting and despising people who want to have sex with animals makes me a biggot, then so be it. I'll gladly be called that if it means I oppose this kinda sick shit.

 

[Rabid Chipmunk]

I see what you did there, OP. So for the sake of facetiousness, the answer is "Yes."

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I c wut was done here.
On topic: Consent is an impossibility because of the animal's limited intelligence and inability to communicate wishes. Also: even if they could communicate, it would probably always be a no because generally animals only have sex to create offspring.

Actually I doubt that much. I don't think animal sex-acts are out of any other form of thought other than instinct. Kind of like us, but without the pleasure aspect. (with a few exceptions)

From what I know, most people have sex for pleasure, NOT making babies. Just look at the thread this one is parodying.

I know. What I'm saying is that Animals don't have sex for making babies either. The outcome of course is the same regardless.

Yeah, they probably don't think through it, but that in the end is why its done. Unless I'm wrong and animals just like fucking all the time.