Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 279
  1. #201
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Right where you think I am
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by shishomiru04 View Post
    This is a topic for a different thread, and I HIGLY disagree, sex is NOT just for reproduction...if it was our reproduction rate would go down, because mother nature would have made us evolve and slow down our reproduction because we already have too many humans on this earth as it is.
    Sex has many purposes but the primary purpose of it in the wide spectrum of things is to reproduce offspring so that a race will continue to exist.

    I would comment on the overpopulation of humans thing but that would be going way off topic so I’ll just be quiet.
    Just to let you know, I love playing devil's advocate.


    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.


    I know I may not be the smartest person in the world but don't call me stupid just because I disagree with you.

  2. #202
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire Moon View Post
    Sex has many purposes but the primary purpose of it in the wide spectrum of things is to reproduce offspring so that a race will continue to exist.
    I would suggest people have sex more, for pleasure than to reproduce, therefore the claim that the primary purpose is to reproduce would be highly unjustified.
    .::The Swindall::.

    "...In the beginning, man created god"

  3. #203
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Right where you think I am
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Swindall View Post
    I would suggest people have sex more, for pleasure than to reproduce, therefore the claim that the primary purpose is to reproduce would be highly unjustified.
    Yes, people have sex usually to have bodily pleasure but when it comes to nature sex is just a way to reproduce and add to a species population.

    The point I was trying to make is that if humans were really supposed to have sexual relations with animals than we would be able to reproduce with dogs or horses, etc.

    Honestly, if it was natural than it wouldn’t even be an issue right now. Instead everyone would be doing it with their dog. Since I don’t really see or hear about this happening often and the fact that this thread even exists tells me that it must not be too natural because if it was we wouldn’t even be debating about it.

    If humans were meant to have sexual relations with animals than we would be genetically programmed to not just be attracted sexually to the opposite sex but to animals as well. That is obviously not the case. A human sexual attraction to animals is an unnatural phenomena.

    Anyway, if you want to debate with me on this subject further than please just PM me. I don't want myself or any of you guys to get into trouble just because we got off topic and decided to debate it all out on the thread.
    Last edited by Sapphire Moon; May 4th, 2008 at 08:03 PM. Reason: Adding something and making the post a bit more revelant to the thread.
    Just to let you know, I love playing devil's advocate.


    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.


    I know I may not be the smartest person in the world but don't call me stupid just because I disagree with you.

  4. #204
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    The morality of sex with animals is not being debated here, see OP.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Well, just because it is off topic doesn't mean it is not entirely wrong.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7379554.stm

    This should dispel thoughts that interspecies sex are human exclusive and naturally wrong.
    Last edited by BionicSeahorse; May 4th, 2008 at 08:57 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

  5. #205
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    Communication in this respect is entirely accidental. There is no "conversation" or "opinions" being exchanged.
    I agree, and that's exactly my point.....Animals communicate by exchanging information through chemical substances, but they do not use language as human beings use it.

    The definition of biological communication is "an action on the part of one organism, that alters the probability pattern of behavior in another organism."

    Or, more simply put, "communication occurs when one animal's behavior can be shown to have an effect on the behavior of another animal".

    (The above definitions were direct quotes from "Animals in a Chemical World"
    http://assets.cambridge.org/97805214...80_excerpt.pdf)....... (Page 3 of PDF)

    "Language" is a form of "communication" used by humans, but all forms of "communication" cannot be classified as "language", the way human beings utilize it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    Care to support this?
    The statement you refer to is a direct quote from the source I posted.

    But here is the link to said source, once again:
    http://www.dogstuff.info/scent_reaso...ing_white.html.......(Under the heading "1. THE SENSE OF SMELL" )

    I'm merely trying to say that a dog's sense of smell is much more acute than a human's sense of smell.
    And, our power of reasoning is much higher than a canine's reasoning power.


    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    This would need support, there is no reason to assume they do not assign their own symbols, but fail to articulate them in a way we understand.
    I did not say that animals do not use symbols.

    I stated that "animals can make sounds and gestures with symbolic meaning", which is almost a direct quote from the source posted below.

    Source: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/perm.../language2.php

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    You ignore possibilities that are not consistent with your beliefs, such as an animal initiating the interspecies act.
    I meant to address that earlier.

    The only point of view that's available to us, regarding human /animal sex, is from the point of view of the human.
    That's indisputable.

    In the scenario you posted, that took place between two human beings, the viewpoints of both humans could be obtained, even if they spoke different languages.

    If a zoophile says that his animal initiated sex with him, we really have no positive proof one way or the other, as to what actually occured.

    We have to take the zoophile's word for it, that he's telling the truth, don't we?

    Because there is no possible way of determing how the animal felt about a human being having sex with said animal.

    As chad said earlier, this is like asking a rapist how his victim felt about the rape, with no possible way to determine how the victim felt about said rape.



    Also, there is a way of training an animal to perform a certain action, and it's called "operant conditioning"-a fairly simple training method.

    http://answers.com/topic/operant-con...ing?cat=health

    Operant conditioning, as a training concept, can be defined as "any behavior that is rewarded(reinforced) will be strengthened, and the likelihood that it will appear will be increased."

    Conversely, "any behavior that is punished will be weakened, and the likelihood that it will appear will decrease."

    Mounting or humping is a fairly common dominance gesture utilized by canines.
    Some dogs will hump humans, other dogs, other non-human species, and even inanimate objects.

    But canines do not wander about, seeking human beings to penetrate sexually, of their own accord.

    Most dog owners do not like mounting and humping behavior in their pets, and said dog owners definitely do not encourage mounting and humping in their dogs, by rewarding them for it.

    Using the "operant conditioning" principle, a zoophile may attempt to increase the dog's mounting and humping behavior, by rewarding the dog with a food treat every time it exhibits the behavior.

    Rewarding the animal for said behavior, increases the chance that said behavior will increase in frequency.

    Eventually, the actual food reward may be eliminated by saying "Good dog", or a similiar phrase, immediately before giving the treat.
    By using this method, the words "good dog", will eventually become the reward, instead of the food treat.

    By using this training method, the dog can be conditioned and induced, to mount and penetrate a human being, or the dog can be conditioned and induced to stand still while a human being penetrates them.

    In either case, the resulting human/animal sex act is not spontaneous, voluntary or consensual, but

    induced (brought about by artificial means.)

    Induced behavior is not consensual.

    In either case, the human/animal sex that takes place is not voluntary or consensual, but induced by the anticipation of a reward.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    A normal adult is having sex with a dog. I do not accept that these activities are undertaken by "normal" people
    By normal, I don't mean to imply that they are "psychologically normal", but merely that they have normal intelligence.

    Sorry, I should have clarified.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    Retarded people can not have consensual sex?
    Re-written: We have laws against the mentally handicapped getting laid?
    I am unfamiliar with the laws regarding this, but if they are severely or profoundly retarded, having the cognitive abilities of a toddler, and cannot even be responsible for their own safety, is it responsible to allow them to have sex, with each other, or someone of normal intelligence?

    It's possible that a mildly retarded person could understand enough to have consensual sex, but that's very different from a severely or profoundly retarded individual, which is what I'm referring to here.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    the one interacting with the mentally handicapped will be aware of using deceit or force to get what they want. If they had used those tools, I would form the opinion that it was not truly consensual (morally speaking).
    Agreed....


    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    not offering resistance could be a learned response
    If an animal is induced or trained, through operant conditioning, not to offer resistance, or is induced or trained, through operant conditioning, to mount and penetrate a human, it is not consensual behavior, but induced, or learned, behavior.


    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    but did you like how I responded to inquisitional statements?
    Whether or not my statements were inquistional is a matter of opinion, but you are a formidable debate opponent.

    That is certain....
    Last edited by Scarlett44; May 5th, 2008 at 11:18 AM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  6. #206
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Right where you think I am
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    The morality of sex with animals is not being debated here, see OP.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Well, just because it is off topic doesn't mean it is not entirely wrong.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7379554.stm

    This should dispel thoughts that interspecies sex are human exclusive and naturally wrong.
    The article you produced just proved to me all the more that coercion between different species is unnatural. Coercion between different species is uncommon and rare. If it wasn’t unnatural than this article wouldn’t have even been written. What would be the point? I mean if seals humped penguins everyday then there would have been no point in writing this article.

    It actually supports some of the statements that I posted earlier. That animals usually only attempt to have sexual relations outside of their species because they are either having difficulty finding or acquiring a mate or as the article suggested they are young and inexperienced.

    It could even be argued that zoosexuals whether knowingly or unknowingly take advantage of this situation and construe their animal’s sexual confusion as consent.
    Last edited by Sapphire Moon; May 5th, 2008 at 09:36 AM. Reason: Because I am never satisfied.
    Just to let you know, I love playing devil's advocate.


    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.


    I know I may not be the smartest person in the world but don't call me stupid just because I disagree with you.

  7. #207
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    I am low on time, my responses in red

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    I agree, and that's exactly my point.....Animals communicate by exchanging information through chemical substances, but they do not use language as human beings use it.
    Then we agree that dogs can not talk, progress.

    The definition of biological communication is "an action on the part of one organism, that alters the probability pattern of behavior in another organism."
    This definition seems to work for verbal communication too.

    Or, more simply put, "communication occurs when one animal's behavior can be shown to have an effect on the behavior of another animal".
    People (as animals) communicate in such a manner as well.

    "Language" is a form of "communication" used by humans, but all forms of "communication" cannot be classified as "language", the way human beings utilize it.
    Human beings have vocal cords and a much more developed language center. Complexity aside, the ability to associate ideas and symbols is not exclusively human.

    The statement you refer to is a direct quote from the source I posted.
    I read the section indicated and the 5 that followed it, no mention of this quote, much less support for it.

    I'm merely trying to say that a dog's sense of smell is much more acute than a human's sense of smell.
    And, our power of reasoning is much higher than a canine's reasoning power.
    This sounds like a more agreeable way to write the claim, but I still do not see the impact.

    I did not say that animals do not use symbols.
    Then clarify the quote I responded to.

    I stated that "animals can make sounds and gestures with symbolic meaning", which is almost a direct quote from the source posted below.
    This obviously was not the section that needed support, as I was arguing they could create symbols of their own.

    The only point of view that's available to us, regarding human /animal sex, is from the point of view of the human.
    That's indisputable.
    That is completely fine. Did you think I was arguing that ALL interspecies sex was consensual?

    In the scenario you posted, that took place between two human beings, the viewpoints of both humans could be obtained, even if they spoke different languages.
    The point was it is obvious what we both intend to do, and a translator is not necessary. If we continue and she smiles and squeals, I form different assumptions than if she screams and castrates me.

    If a zoophile says that his animal initiated sex with him, we really have no positive proof one way or the other, as to what actually occured.
    Agreed.

    We have to take the zoophile's word for it, that he's telling the truth, don't we?Yes, we would, and they could be terrible liars.

    Because there is no possible way of determing how the animal felt about a human being having sex with said animal.

    As chad said earlier, this is like asking a rapist how his victim felt about the rape, with no possible way to determine how the victim felt about said rape.
    Depends on the rape. If it was violent, forced, and public rape, I would bet the rapist could guess how the victim felt. Alternatively, if it was date rape on senior prom and the girl decides it is rape after she sobers up, the rapist may have a conflicting story about the victims views. This would not be a problem if this lovely woman did not give every indication that she was interested in sex in the first place.

    Also, there is a way of training an animal to perform a certain action, and it's called "operant conditioning"-a fairly simple training method.
    Operant conditioning, as a training concept, can be defined as "any behavior that is rewarded(reinforced) will be strengthened, and the likelihood that it will appear will be increased."
    Conversely, "any behavior that is punished will be weakened, and the likelihood that it will appear will decrease."
    I am glad you agree with me, but do you see how it does not apply universally?

    Mounting or humping is a fairly common dominance gesture utilized by canines.
    Some dogs will hump humans, other dogs, other non-human species, and even inanimate objects.

    But canines do not wander about, seeking human beings to penetrate sexually, of their own accord.We do not release chemicals indicating we are fertile, so it depends on if you mean "sexually" for pleasure or reproduction. I agree for reproduction, not for pleasure.

    Most dog owners do not like mounting and humping behavior in their pets, and said dog owners definitely do not encourage mounting and humping in their dogs, by rewarding them for it.
    Good move

    Using the "operant conditioning" principle, a zoophile may attempt to increase the dog's mounting and humping behavior, by rewarding the dog with a food treat every time it exhibits the behavior.
    This relates back to "sex for personal gain." This is a form of consent. It is a task (possibly an unwanted one) completed for personal gain (treat). It would be much harder to teach a dog to repeatedly jump off a building or roll around in broken glass for a treat.

    Rewarding the animal for said behavior, increases the chance that said behavior will increase in frequency.
    But always the reward must be worth the effort

    Eventually, the actual food reward may be eliminated by saying "Good dog", or a similiar phrase, immediately before giving the treat.
    By using this method, the words "good dog", will eventually become the reward, instead of the food treat.
    Sounds fine.

    By using this training method, the dog can be conditioned and induced, to mount and penetrate a human being, or the dog can be conditioned and induced to stand still while a human being penetrates them.
    I imagine this being terribly hard, but definitely not impossible. This still sounds consensual (definitively) to me, but for the sake of argument, we can label this "rape".

    In either case, the resulting human/animal sex act is not spontaneous, voluntary or consensual, but
    induced (brought about by artificial means.)
    Induced behavior is not consensual.
    In either case, the human/animal sex that takes place is not voluntary or consensual, but induced by the anticipation of a reward.
    Do you have some evidence showing that all occurrences of interspecies relations happen in strictly this manner, or otherwise violently?

    I am unfamiliar with the laws regarding this, but if they are severely or profoundly retarded, having the cognitive abilities of a toddler, and cannot even be responsible for their own safety, is it responsible to allow them to have sex, with each other, or someone of normal intelligence?

    It's possible that a mildly retarded person could understand enough to have consensual sex, but that's very different from a severely or profoundly retarded individual, which is what I'm referring to here.
    Is responsible really the issue here? Regardless of how retarded they are, the point is moot if retard sex is legal.

    Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    the one interacting with the mentally handicapped will be aware of using deceit or force to get what they want. If they had used those tools, I would form the opinion that it was not truly consensual (morally speaking).

    Agreed....
    Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    the one interacting with the animal will be aware of using deceit or force to get what they want. If they had used those tools, I would form the opinion that it was not truly consensual (morally speaking).


    If an animal is induced or trained, through operant conditioning, not to offer resistance, or is induced or trained, through operant conditioning, to mount and penetrate a human, it is not consensual behavior, but induced, or learned, behavior.
    Again, this still is consensual, but we will call it "rape" so we can continue.

    Whether or not my statements were inquistional is a matter of opinion, but you are a formidable debate opponent.
    Well, they ended in question marks.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire Moon View Post
    The article you produced just proved to me all the more that coercion between different species is unnatural. Coercion between different species is uncommon and rare. If it wasn’t unnatural than this article wouldn’t have even been written. What would be the point? I mean if seals humped penguins everyday then there would have been no point in writing this article.

    It actually supports some of the statements that I posted earlier. That animals usually only attempt to have sexual relations outside of their species because they are either having difficulty finding or acquiring a mate or as the article suggested they are young and inexperienced.

    It could even be argued that zoosexuals whether knowingly or unknowingly take advantage of this situation and construe their animal’s sexual confusion as consent.
    Even if you managed to correct me, surprise: still off topic!

    I need support that coercion between different species is unnatural. Before you get carried away, my rebuttal to your support:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

    Odd, interspecies sex IS natural.

    As for the second paragraph: we are debating if animals are capable of consenting to sex, not if those having sex with animals are losers.

    Finally, paragraph three: This seems fair and somewhat on-topic. The OP wishes to argue that animals are able to consent to sex. The OP makes no claims saying every interspecies act ever committed was consensual.
    Granted that animal rape probably happens more than I am comfortable with, I still find it positively inane to claim that a pet is unable to consent to sex. It surprises me that anyone could think otherwise, which is why my first post here states plainly that I believe those in disagreement with the OP do not own pets themselves.
    Last edited by BionicSeahorse; May 5th, 2008 at 01:15 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

  8. #208
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Right where you think I am
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    Even if you managed to correct me, surprise: still off topic!
    Ok, so every paragraph in a post has to be extremely on topic? Since when?? If the paragraphs lend support and strength to an overall statement that is relevant to the topic of the thread than it being on or off topic shouldn't be important anymore.

    Besides the fact that you are continuing to debate with me on this statement on whether or not coercion between animals is natural means you are not being on topic as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    I need support that coercion between different species is unnatural. Before you get carried away, my rebuttal to your support:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
    If you look up unnatural on that same site it fits with what I’m saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    Odd, interspecies sex IS natural.
    Not to me. As I have said before. Animals usually just gravitate to their own species for sex unless they are young and inexperienced or is having difficulty finding a mate.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    As for the second paragraph: we are debating if animals are capable of consenting to sex, not if those having sex with animals are losers.
    Did I say that I thought people having sex with animals are losers? (Starts reading through previously made posts) No, didn’t think so. I would appreciate it if you would not make unfounded assumptions of what I believe in. I will admit that I do not agree with the zoosexual or beastiality lifestyle but that does not give you the right to put words in my mouth.

    My second paragraph was used as a way to support that coercion between different species is unnatural and at the same time leading to the suggestion that I made in the last paragraph. It was not used as a way to insult people of any sort of lifestyle but simply stating reasons why animals divert from having sexual relations with their own species.


    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    Finally, paragraph three: This seems fair and somewhat on-topic. The OP wishes to argue that animals are able to consent to sex. The OP makes no claims saying every interspecies act ever committed was consensual.
    Granted that animal rape probably happens more than I am comfortable with, I still find it positively inane to claim that a pet is unable to consent to sex. It surprises me that anyone could think otherwise, which is why my first post here states plainly that I believe those in disagreement with the OP do not own pets themselves.
    The OP also argues that an animal is able to consent through body language which is not strong enough proof to me.

    Yes, maybe a pet could consent to sex but there is no sure fire way of being able to tell that at this point in time. Body language is simply too easy to misconstrue in my opinion. Why? As it has been mentioned, every species has a different way of communicating with each other. I also think it would be fair to say that body languages differ as well between species.

    That is why body language should not be the used as a way to judge if whether or not you have gained consent from an animal to have sexual relations. It is too easy to misunderstand and can be too easily manipulated by the human partner whose side is the only side we are really getting.

    And as a matter a fact I do own pets. 2 dogs and 8 cats. Believe me I have seen my fair share of weird things. One thing would be that one of the dogs tried to hump my arm. Does that mean he wants to have sex with me? No. It is most likely due to the fact that there is simply no female dogs his size that are in my neighborhood so he is now averting his attention elsewhere.
    Last edited by Sapphire Moon; May 7th, 2008 at 02:09 PM. Reason: rewording
    Just to let you know, I love playing devil's advocate.


    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.


    I know I may not be the smartest person in the world but don't call me stupid just because I disagree with you.

  9. #209
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    clarify the quote I responded to(regarding animals using symbols to communicate)
    Animals do use symbols to communicate, but they tend to use a fixed set of symbols, which is very different from the unlimited combinations of symbols that all human languages involve.

    http://brainskills.co.uk/LanguageAquisition.html

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    the point is it is obvious what we both intend to do, and a translator is not necessary
    What I meant to convey, was the fact that the opinions and thoughts of both parties involved could be determined by an impartial third party, through a translator, if necessary,, even though two different languages were spoken.

    In the case of a human/animal sexual encounter, obviously only the thoughts and opinions of the human, could be determined by a third party.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    Depends on the rape
    The scenario you posted could not possibly occur with a human/animal sexual encounter, because the animal could not tell anyone that it had been assaulted, in the first place...

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    Agree for reproduction, not for pleasure
    Basic sexual behavior in canines, and all animals, are innate or biological,
    meaning that these behaviors are not learned or induced.

    Male and female canines do not have recreational sex.
    An adult male and adult female dog, only engage in sex, when the female is in a fertile condition.

    In fact, the only species of animals, other than humans, where the male and female willingly and regularly engage in sexual activity, when the females are in a non-fertile condition, are bonobo chimps, and dolphins.
    (I don't have time to find the link right now, but I will find it tomorrow.)

    A dog does not suddenly make a decision that it wants to SEEK OUT a human to have sex with.
    A human being has to be physically present with the dog, in order to induce the dog to have sex with them.
    A dog does not anticipate, or look forward to, having sex with a human.

    A dog thinks about sex when it smells pheremones produced by another dog, or when a human zoophile stimulates it by touching it's reproductive organs.

    In other words, if a dog is not in the presence of a human being, it is not thinking about sex with a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    Do you have some evidence showing that all interspecies relations happen in strictly this manner, or otherwise violently?
    I neglected to bring up the fact that human/animal sex cannot strictly be defined as "interspecies", as it occurs in the wild.
    (unless a human has sex with a chimp or gorilla.)

    Interspecies sex, when it occurs in nature, happens with members of the same Genusor Family, as defined by Zoological taxonomy.

    In other words, even though the two participants are different species, they are physically very similiar in most aspects, such as a wolf and a dog.
    Both are members of the same Family, and the same Genus --("Canidae" Family, and "Canis" Genus.)

    There are lion/tiger hybrids, horse/donkey hybrids, grizzly bear/brown bear hybrids,
    llama/camel hybrids, and many others, but there has never been a documented case of a non-human animal that has participated in sex with an animal of an entirely different zoological Order.

    Human beings are members of the Order of Primates, and dogs are members of the Order "Carnivora".

    I'm saying all this to make the point that HUMANS are the only species that have sex with members of a different zoological Order.

    A human having sex with a dog, is like a monkey attempting to have sex with a rabbit.
    No species of monkey would go to that length to have sex.

    I can vaguely see a lion and a tiger being sexually drawn to each other, or a horse and a zebra being sexually drawn to each other, or even a rat and a guinea pig being drawn to each other....

    But there is no possible way that a dog (Carnivore) would be sexually attracted to a human (Primate).
    A dog has to be induced or conditioned to have sexual intercourse with a human being.

    I realize it's almost purely anecdotal, but that's the only way I can think of, to explain it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    they ended in question marks
    I have always thought of the word "inquistion", to mean a very harsh, demanding kind of questioning, and I was unaware that my questions sounded that way....

    No big deal, though.....
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  10. #210
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    I can vaguely see a lion and a tiger being sexually drawn to each other, or a horse and a zebra being sexually drawn to each other, or even a rat and a guinea pig being drawn to each other....
    It was SO worth coming back by this site to see how it was doing.

    I nearly died laughing at this quote, happy debating everyone!


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Oh, and my rebuttal will be the same as my opening argument...

    For your pondering:

    "I ask again what is less monstrous and appalling about forcing your dog to submit to a friend's affections (nonsexual), versus the heinous crime of PBing up your P&B, closing your eyes, and whistling?"

    Since there is not much content, you should be able to stay on track.
    Last edited by BionicSeahorse; June 15th, 2008 at 02:58 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

  11. #211
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    It was SO worth coming back by this site to see how it was doing.
    I don't know why you did, since you obviously feel that you are so superior to all of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionic Seahorse
    Since there is not much content, you should be able to stay on track.
    This comment is a near-flame, and flinging insults only destroys your credibility.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  12. #212
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Not all of you, sweetheart.

    Since you wont answer the direct question that threatens your stance, would you highlight the quotes I insulted you with? I am curious as to what you are talking about.
    I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

  13. #213
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse View Post
    Not all of you, sweetheart.
    Then you feel you are superior to at least some us, I take it?

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    I nearly died laughing at this quote
    Not to mention that you left out the related information, in which I listed documented interspecies hybrids.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    would you highlight the quotes I insulted you with? I am curious as to what you are talking about.
    Certainly. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse
    Since there is not much content, you should be able to stay on track.
    Last edited by Scarlett44; June 18th, 2008 at 10:03 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  14. #214
    cocopie
    Guest

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup View Post
    Only a virgin would confuse such a situation
    So, we're relying on personal attacks? Being a virgin is usually revered as a moral accomplishment. Virginity has nothing to do with this, and I think you were being highly inappropriate and strangely bitter.

    I think that intercourse with animals just shouldn't happen. Not because of morals, really, but because it's simply unnecessary. Horny? Have sex with a human partner. Nobody available for whatever reason? Masturbate. Think about animals. Pretend. It's not necessary to have sex with animals because regardless of whether humans have sex for pleasure or reproduction, I believe that animals generally only have sex to reproduce. It is just an instinct to mate. Why don't we see tons of female animals orgasming during sex? Why don't we see more forms of foreplay, as it would be?

    I'm not an expert and I don't need titles of books or doctors and Ph.Ds thrown at my face. There is also lots of literature on people who believe Hitler and the rest of the Nazis live in a hollowed out Earth, awaiting an Armageddon. So please spare me.

  15. #215
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Of course animals cannot consent to sex - certainly not with humans - and I don't know why anyone would think they would.

    Consent to me means saying 'yes' or 'no' and an animal cannot do this. Animals consent to sex with other animals in different ways than humans. Humans consent by saying yes or no, animals don't. Cats, for instance, can 'call' for a mate by meowing loudly - a cat used to come up from a neighbours house and stand outside the house and meow loudly at night in the hope my cat would meet it.
    Different species of animal have different ways of showing consent to sexual activity, just as human beings have their own way of consenting to a sexual act.
    Humans cannot justify having sex with an animal because it is impossible for that animal to consent to sexual activity with that person - however, the animal is capable of consenting to sex with another of it's species.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  16. #216
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I am the monster under your bed
    Posts
    887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Consenting does not necessarily mean someone SAYING yes or no. Ive had sex before and never once remember them asking "can I have sex with you" then me saying yes. We just started kissing and it lead to that, I never once SAID yes, but I still consented because I never walked away or said no.

    Humans dont consent by SAYING yes, they consent by not saying anything or walking away. Like I said, Ive never been asked to have sex, except for the "wanna go to my place' line *rolls eyes*.
    The truth about forever is forever never comes. The truth about today is that it only last until tomorrow. The truth about tomorrow is that its just another day.
    Keep sayin' my name baby, 'cause haters make me FAMOUS
    Jayson Micheal was born April 6, 2009 :-D

  17. #217
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    485
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post

    Humans cannot justify having sex with an animal because it is impossible for that animal to consent to sexual activity with that person - however, the animal is capable of consenting to sex with another of it's species.
    Animals don't consent to their slaughter for mass food production, either, but we do it anyway.

    And honestly, I think the most explicit way for an animal to consent to sexual activity is to attempt sexual activity. That's more than enough to qualify as a "yes."
    ----------
    Libertarianism has also been defined with some plausibility as the form taken by liberalism as common sense asymptotically approaches zero.
    --Richard Carnes

  18. #218
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Fangrim View Post
    Animals don't consent to their slaughter for mass food production, either, but we do it anyway.
    I'm opposed to factory farming, which is why I'm a vegetarian.
    I'm also opposed to zoophilia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fangrim
    the most explicit way for an animal to consent to sexual activity is to attempt sexual activity. That's more than enough to qualify as a "yes."
    Ever heard of operant conditioning?
    An animal can easily be taught to mount a human being through this process.
    Animals do not actively and voluntarily seek out sex with human beings.

    They are taught to have sex with humans through operant conditioning.
    Learned behavior does not equal consent.

    And what about animals that are sodomized or vaginally raped by humans?
    How do you know they "consented"????
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  19. #219
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Fangrim View Post
    And honestly, I think the most explicit way for an animal to consent to sexual activity is to attempt sexual activity. That's more than enough to qualify as a "yes."
    So if an animal came up to me and started humping my leg, I can take that to mean the animal to consenting to sexual activity with me?

    Quote Originally Posted by leeshaforeverr View Post
    Consenting does not necessarily mean someone SAYING yes or no. Ive had sex before and never once remember them asking "can I have sex with you" then me saying yes. We just started kissing and it lead to that, I never once SAID yes, but I still consented because I never walked away or said no.
    This is different. You had sex with someone of your own species, another human. It would be different if the sex were with an animal not of your species, as the consent issue would be completely different.
    As I said, humans consent to sexual activity in much different ways than animals.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  20. #220
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I am the monster under your bed
    Posts
    887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post
    So if an animal came up to me and started humping my leg, I can take that to mean the animal to consenting to sexual activity with me?
    You can take it however you want to take it. Some can and will say that it is them consenting, others will say "stupid dog".
    The truth about forever is forever never comes. The truth about today is that it only last until tomorrow. The truth about tomorrow is that its just another day.
    Keep sayin' my name baby, 'cause haters make me FAMOUS
    Jayson Micheal was born April 6, 2009 :-D

 

 
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •