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 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 279
  1. #21
    Morality Games
    Guest

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    It is logically flawed because they are two different issues and have no correlation between each other. Children are not sexually mature (physically/emotionally) and I am talking about dogs that are sexually mature.
    Sexual maturity does not confer the capacity for consent on animals. Brainpower does that. The cognitive abilities of a human baby and a dog are about equivalent. You seem to think any indication given by a being that they want something passes for consent. Consent, psychologically and legally, is more sophisticated process than that. Consent entails the agent comprehend the situation effectively enough to make an informed decision -- that is why it is illegal to have sex with children even if they say, "Yes." They don't really comprehend the whole concept of sex. An eleven-year old, even if they indicate they want sexual release, isn't aware of the risks involved in sex (pregnancy, disease, emotional attatchment, etc). So it goes with animals. They may indicate they want sexual release, but we know from their cognitive abilities they don't really comprehend the concept well enough for their indications to pass for consent.

    So, don't say animals can consent to anything -- that power is chemically (and thus psychologically) impossible for them. Consent encompasses indication, but indication does not encompass consent.

    However, if you want to argue sex with animals is acceptable by some other criteria, I will give you a fair hearing.
    Last edited by Morality Games; April 8th, 2008 at 10:00 AM.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad
    Appeal to authority.

    Having a Ph.D. does not mean what these individuals say is correct or that their opinion is at all supported by the consensus of the field.
    It's not an appeal to authority. KevinBrowning claimed that zoophilia was a mental disorder, dogssup provided evidence (or at least the names of books of evidence) to the contrary. Rather, your argument is a strawman, as she never stated that those individuals were correct because they had Ph.Ds.
    "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do"
    -Isaac Asimov

  3. Thanks Soren thanked for this post
  4. #23
    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 dogssup View Post
    One of the main attacks against bestiality/zoophilia is the issue of consent.
    animals do have the ability to consent for sex

    As I said before, the consent issue is really a smoke screen for the icky factor.

    (1) Do animals consent to locking them in a cage?
    (2) Do animals consent to being slaughtered and killed in the millions every year for food?
    (3) Do animals consent to being tested on by chemicals?
    (4) Do animals consent to being 'fixed'?
    This subject has been discussed before, at great length, in a previous thread.

    Before I go any further, I will inform you that I am a vegetarian, AND I am also opposed to animal testing.
    So, #2, and #3 would not apply to me personally.
    I am also a Certified Veterinary Technician, and pet groomer, with 20 years experience.

    This post, from the other thread, pretty much sums up my argument against zoosexuality:
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...=12573&page=24
    (POST #116)

    I am not using "lack of consent", as my primary argument, but consent is a secondary factor.

    I am, and have, argued, that zoophilia poses a risk of HARM to the animal, while having no benefits for the animal whatsoever.
    Go my post in the previous thread to read my full response about how this poses a real risk of harm to the animal.

    If you ask me how sex IS NOT a benefit, I will tell you that sex is NEVER a benefit, IF IT IS NOT DESIRED.
    And, I can tell you from 20 years of experience working with animals, THAT HUMANS CAN NEVER TELL, WITH 100% CERTAINTY, what an animal is thinking or feeling.
    You don't want to go there with me.

    As for your #1 question above, I will reply that being confined in cage can be beneficial to an animal, because it can provide a sense of security.
    And, it definitely provides protection for the animal, and prevents the animal from doing something, or ingesting something, that may harm it.

    As for your #4 question, I will reply that sterilization has many benefits for an animal, including a lowered risk of certain cancers, and health conditions.
    Sterilization also eliminates the animals desire to roam around, become lost, and possibly be injured or killed.

    Your theory about the "ick factor" doesn't hold water.
    There are many sexual activities that I personally find disgusting, such as fetishes for fecal matter, and golden showers, but I have no objections to other human beings participating in said activities.
    Human beings know, or SHOULD know, about the risks involved in such activity.

    Animals do not have the cognitive ability to realize the risks entailed in sexual activity with humans.

    And that is why humans should not be using animals for their own selfish gratification.
    Last edited by Scarlett44; April 8th, 2008 at 11:37 AM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  5. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    This post, from the other thread, pretty much sums up my argument against zoosexuality:
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...=12573&page=24
    (POST #116)
    Alright, thank you for this link. I will be quoting you here in this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    See my previous post that I am quoting below.
    I KNOW it causes harm, because I am a Veterinary Technician, and I HAVE PERSONALLY seen animals that it caused injury to.
    And, just for your information, it is a known fact that a human being can transmit the HIV virus to chimps and gorillas.
    As for human beings transmitting the AIDS virus to other humans, may I again remind you that WE ARE NOT DEBATING HARM TO HUMANS.
    WE ARE DEBATING HARM TO ANIMALS!!!!
    I know a few doctors who have seen the harm caused to human rape victims, sometimes even requiring stitches in places you'd never want to have a needle go. Humans having sex with other humans can do it in basically two ways: (1) One that doesn't cause physical harm (2) a way that does cause physical harm. Having sex with an animal there are these two possibilities as well. Just as sexual activity with humans can be abusive or not, so can the sexual contact with animals. If I may quote for a minute: "Andrea M. Beetz, PhD. in her book "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002) reports: "In most [popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration."

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    They are aware, or should be aware, of the risks of disease, from taking part in these activities.
    Animals are not aware that they could possibly contract a disease, as a result of sex with a human being.
    That is why with any proper sexual relationship (human-human/human animal) the human should be aware of their own STD status. But I was joking just thereHIV transmission is possible in primates but not canines. Human STDs are not carried or transfered commonly in animals, though it is possible but rare. In fact having sex with animals is far safer in terms of STDs than having sex with a human (1/4 girls has an STD now). Now as you are a vet tech you should be aware that the chance of contracting a disease from having sex with the family dog is very rare. In addition, the few baddies that you might catch with sexual contact with an animal (such as Q fever) are easily treated with antibiotics; or you can go a step further and even get an intradermal vaccination. Now if we're talking about the real nasties like brucellosis the CDC clearly reports it is extremely rare in Northern America, and only about ~475,000-525,000 cases worldwide. I'd much rather take my chances with bruc. than HIV. Humans are vastly more infected with sexual diseases than your typical healthy K9.

    We don't make sure our dogs know the risks about swimming in lakes either (a place for all kinds of nasties which could infect them). Somehow sexual contact seems relevant however.

    I also have to go to your quote directly: What possible diseases can an animal CONTRACT from a human? What if this human did not have any diseases that an animal could contract?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    A dog, or any other animal, does not seek out sex with a human being of it's own accord.
    Is this always true? I don't think so. My dog seeks sex on its own accord all the time. And before you talk about behavioral conditioning I have to explain to you that he actually initiated it the first time...

    PS: I'm not impressed that you're a vet tech, a pet groomer, with 20 years of experience. It is just that: your experience. I know two vets (and a vet tech) who do have K9 sexual partners. Does that matter either? Not really --- but goes to show that two sides (anti and pro zoo) exist on the SAME educational spectrum you are coming from. I find that important to point out because I don't want others to be misled into thinking that because you come from a vet background that ALL vets are inherently against zoophilia, that simply is not the case.

    I argue that animals can give informed consent but animals are not recognized in being able to give informed consent in the legal sense; more for the morality and potential of abuse over the actual ability for the animal to strongly agree and even solicit such activity. Again, morality is often subjective (and really in the US judged by that idiot Miller) and the potential of abuse exists in every single possible sexual relationship: humans-humans/humans-animals. Zoophilia does not imply force, restraint, rape, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    If you ask me how sex IS NOT a benefit, I will tell you that sex is NEVER a benefit, IF IT IS NOT DESIRED.
    What if the animal does desire sex? Plenty of animals do. Orgasm is a benefit for the animal, both for males and females. In fact sex is such a benefit to animals that is why they have sex in the first place (1) for pleasure and (2) to spread the genes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    And, I can tell you from 20 years of experience working with animals, THAT HUMANS CAN NEVER TELL, WITH 100% CERTAINTY, what an animal is thinking or feeling.
    You don't want to go there with me.
    I do know one thing: An orgasm feels good for humans and animals. And I don't care if you had 50 years of experience: You can't even be sure 100% what human beings are thinking or feeling either!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Animals do not have the cognitive ability to realize the risks entailed in sexual activity with humans.
    This is little if any risk to the animal if the sexual interaction is done with care. The animal contracting some disease is pretty much null.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    And that is why humans should not be using animals for their own selfish gratification.
    The problem here is that you believe all sexual interaction between a human and their animal partner is selfish in nature. Let's look at what selfish means exactly:

    –adjective
    1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
    2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

    Someone who has sex with their dog would be selfish if they (1) do not satisfy the dogs sexual needs (2) satisfies their own sexual needs while restraining the animal or otherwise causing some bodily harm. Like any sexual relationship (lets use human-human as an example) there is the potential to be selfish: the guy who demands oral from his wife without ever giving it in return, and on and on. It would be highly incorrect to suggest that ALL sexual activity between humans and animals is selfish. Plenty of zoos' enjoy giving their animals oral sex for example without anything in return because pleasuring their partner brings them joy. If we look at the definition above we can see that not everyone involved in a human-animal relationship is only seeking their own self (sexual) interests. You'd be a fool to suggest I don't care for my dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    An eleven-year old, even if they indicate they want sexual release, isn't aware of the risks involved in sex (pregnancy, disease, emotional attatchment, etc). So it goes with animals.
    You're absolutely right: an 11 year old isn't aware of the risks involved with sex (pregnancy, disease, emotional attachment, and so on). Animals however don't have to worry about becoming pregnant (or getting us pregnant), worry about disease anywhere near what human-human sexual encounters would involve. Quite simply there are no risks to the animal if s/he is with a human being who is compassionate, understanding, and takes their needs into consideration as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    [Animals] may indicate they want sexual release, but we know from their cognitive abilities they don't really comprehend the concept well enough for their indications to pass for consent.
    So animals when they mate are not consenting because they don't have the cognitive ability to comprehend the concept well enough. I have to ask you: how difficult do we need to make sex? How intelligent do you have to be exactly to have these cognitive abilities?

    Quote Originally Posted by SarahConnor View Post
    Does it really matter? You are speaking of having sex with animals here, can you not see anything wrong with that?
    I see nothing wrong with it. Apparently you do without any particular reason other than "it just is". And this:

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    That is terribly disgusting and I sincerely urge you to get professional help if you are a zoophile.
    So I need professional help because you believe something I do is disgusting? A lot of things are disgusting. I never liked meat but that doesn't mean I need professional help over it. The DSM-IV is corrupt anywhoo and is heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies, like I'd trust them to say who is mentally stable or not!
    Last edited by dogssup; April 8th, 2008 at 04:10 PM.

  6. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Sexual maturity does not confer the capacity for consent on animals. Brainpower does that. The cognitive abilities of a human baby and a dog are about equivalent. You seem to think any indication given by a being that they want something passes for consent. Consent, psychologically and legally, is more sophisticated process than that. Consent entails the agent comprehend the situation effectively enough to make an informed decision -- that is why it is illegal to have sex with children even if they say, "Yes." They don't really comprehend the whole concept of sex. An eleven-year old, even if they indicate they want sexual release, isn't aware of the risks involved in sex (pregnancy, disease, emotional attatchment, etc). So it goes with animals. They may indicate they want sexual release, but we know from their cognitive abilities they don't really comprehend the concept well enough for their indications to pass for consent.
    You are confusing the idea of consent with legal consent. Consent basically means to agree, comply, or yield to something. Animals can and do consent to sex - they consent to have sex with each other all the time.

    Legal consent, especially where it comes to entering contracts and things like that, entails the concept of adequate knowledge of consequences, maturity, etc. The concept of legal consent is irrelevant when it comes to animals since legal consent only applies to humans.

    Furthermore, as dogssup argued in the OP, we do not even seek basic consent for many other things we do to animals, such as killing them for their meat, let alone legal consent.
    Trendem

  7. #26
    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 dogssup View Post
    "In most [popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration."
    Even if sex between animal and human is consensual, there is a risk of injury to that animal.
    Injury to the animal can happen by accident.

    The sexual organs of other species DO NOT SAFELY CONFORM TO HUMAN ANATOMY.

    This is especially true of the male dog's penis, which has a broad bulb at the base.
    The male dog also has an actual bone, called the "os penis", which is located in the penile shaft.
    During sex with a human, there is a real risk of the "os penis" sustaining a fracture, AND there is also a risk of a male dog becoming "stuck" inside of a human vagina or rectum.
    This was the case with one of the dogs I mentioned previously.
    He survived, but the bone in his penis was broken, AND he had to be castrated in order for his penis to be removed from the human woman he had penetrated.

    This male dog may have desired, initiated, and even enjoyed sex with the human female, but do you think he realized his risk of injury before engaging in sex?

    No. Of course not.
    Even if an animal desires sex with a human, and the sex act is not forcible, there is a significant risk of injury to the animal. (AND the human, also.)

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    We don't make sure our dogs know the risks about swimming in lakes either (a place for all kinds of nasties which could infect them). Somehow sexual contact seems relevant however.
    Dogs do not have the mental capability, to become aware of the possible risks of any given activity.
    That's why it is our responsibility, as guardians of our dogs, to protect them from harm as best we can.

    A dog swimming in a lake, because said dog wants to do so, is hardly comparable to a dog having sex with a human being.

    The first instance is something the dog is doing, because it decided to do so, OF IT'S OWN ACCORD.
    In the second instance, the dog is being encouraged to do something by a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    I also have to go to your quote directly: What possible diseases can an animal CONTRACT from a human? What if this human did not have any diseases that an animal could contract?
    There are many species of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa that can possibly be transmitted from HUMAN to ANIMAL.

    This is by no means a complete list, but the following microorganisms can be SEXUALLY transmitted from human to animal, via human feces, human seminal fluid, human urine, human vaginal secretions, human blood, and human saliva.

    Rabies--Theoretically possible, but I haven't heard of any cases where this took place.

    Brucellosis, Leptospirosis, Campylobacter, Criptosporidium, Giardia, Salmonella,
    Candida (yeast), Strongyloide worms, numerous species of Staph bacteria, and Pasteurella bacteria.

    Herpesvirus and HIV virus-transmissable only to primates.

    You ask "what if this human had no diseases that an animal could contract?"
    I would reply that there is still a significant risk of accidental injury to the animal, as I mentioned above, concerning the male dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    My dog seeks sex on its own accord all the time. And before you talk about behavioral conditioning I have to explain to you that he actually initiated it the first time..
    Of course he's seeking sex all the time, if he's an intact male dog!!

    He "initiated" with you, because you were readily available to him.
    However, if a female dog had been available, that would have been his preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    PS: I'm not impressed that you're a vet tech, a pet groomer, with 20 years of experience. It is just that: your experience.
    I didn't say it to impress you....
    Experience speaks for itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    I know two vets (and a vet tech) who do have K9 sexual partners. Does that matter either? Not really --- but goes to show that two sides (anti and pro zoo) exist on the SAME educational spectrum you are coming from.
    I have no doubt that a good number of people working in the veterinary field are zoophiles.
    It makes a certain amount of sense that zoophiles would enter a career field that would allow them easy access to animals.

    Just as pedophiles often choose a career that allows them easy access to children.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    I argue that animals can give informed consent
    Interesting....

    Normal adult human beings have the mental capacity to comprehend the risks they are taking by participating in sexual activity.
    And if they don't know the risks, they are certainly capable of finding out.

    Animals may initiate, and enjoy sex with a human being.
    They may even have orgasms.
    BUT AN ANIMAL DOES NOT HAVE, AND NEVER WILL HAVE, the mental capacity to understand
    the risks they are taking by having sex with a human being.
    An animal cannot comprehend that it may contract a disease, or be accidentally injured, during sexual activity with a human.

    Knowing the possible risks of an activity before you participate, is informed consent.

    Animals are not capable of it.

    And that is the crucial element here.
    A normal adult human being having sex with a dog, is ethically and morally equivalent to said normal adult human, having sex with a PROFOUNDLY RETARDED adult human.
    (Except for the risk of impregnation occuring with the retarded human)

    As far as sexual activity goes, a dog and a severely retarded human are remarkably similiar.

    ~Both are physically mature and capable of having sex.
    ~Both may initiate sex
    ~Both may enjoy sex, and have orgasms.

    But, do either one of them COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND their risks, concerning sexual activity?
    No.
    And neither one of them will EVER have the capacity to comprehend the fact that they are risking injury or disease.

    Neither one HAS ANY IDEA WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM, and therefore, CANNOT MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    You can't even be sure 100% what human beings are thinking or feeling either!
    I do agree with you on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    This is little if any risk to the animal if the sexual interaction is done with care
    I would say the risk factor is moderate, as opposed to low, given the anatomical differences of the two participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    The animal contracting some disease is pretty much null.
    The risk is low, but I wouldn't say it's 0%. A risk does exist.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  8. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Even if sex between animal and human is consensual, there is a risk of injury to that animal.
    Injury to the animal can happen by accident.
    Accidental injury can happen in any number of sexual possibilities including human to human. This does not imply that consensual sexual activity is inherently wrong to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    The sexual organs of other species DO NOT SAFELY CONFORM TO HUMAN ANATOMY. This is especially true of the male dog's penis, which has a broad bulb at the base. The male dog also has an actual bone, called the "os penis", which is located in the penile shaft.
    During sex with a human, there is a real risk of the "os penis" sustaining a fracture, AND there is also a risk of a male dog becoming "stuck" inside of a human vagina or rectum...
    That case is very rare indeed. I have safely been penetrated thousands of times with no such thing ever happening. I want to point out that human males also have the potential of fracturing their penis during sex (especially common with girl on top, coming off the penis, going back down and crushing the penis). Not for the faint of heart!
    FYI, it isn't very difficult to control the depth of the male so there is virtually no risk of becoming "stuck".
    And if you are talking about human-bitch (female dog) sex you might bring up the 45 degree angle point. With proper human positioning there isn't a problem, trust me on that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Even if an animal desires sex with a human, and the sex act is not forcible, there is a significant risk of injury to the animal. (AND the human, also.) Dogs do not have the mental capability, to become aware of the possible risks of any given activity.
    Dogs don't have the need to care about such things. Dogs mate with each other all the time and don't have this capability. That is why as humans (guardians) it is our job, as you said, to minimize all risks and take very good care of our animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    A dog swimming in a lake, because said dog wants to do so, is hardly comparable to a dog having sex with a human being.The first instance is something the dog is doing, because it decided to do so, OF IT'S OWN ACCORD.
    In the second instance, the dog is being encouraged to do something by a human being.
    Once again you are wrong to think that ALL dogs are somehow persuaded into sex with a human. They are sexual beings, just like you and I, and do solicit such behaviors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    There are many species of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa that can possibly be transmitted from HUMAN to ANIMAL.
    Just because a potential of these exist does not suggest the activity itself is inherently wrong. I could go have sex with 20 people in NYC right now and I can assure you I have a higher chance of getting an STD. Plenty of zoophiles have had their animals live well within their accepted life expectancies with no serious complications like fractured dog penis or strange infections/disease. Are there some that have not been so lucky? I'm sure there are but I haven't known of any personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    You ask "what if this human had no diseases that an animal could contract?"
    I would reply that there is still a significant risk of accidental injury to the animal, as I mentioned above, concerning the male dog.
    The "significant" risk is highly reduced when the human knows how to do things correctly. There is a significant risk in a novice riding a horse, not only to himself but also to the animal. That risk decreases with a few things (1) knowledge (2) experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Of course he's seeking sex all the time, if he's an intact male dog!! He "initiated" with you, because you were available to him. If a female dog had been available, that would have been his preference.
    You may or may not be right, neither of us will know now. Regardless if there were another female dog present, it doesn't necessarily negate the fact he could have initiated sexual contact with a human even though he had other options.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    I have no doubt that a good number of people working in the veterinary field are zoophiles.
    It makes a certain amount of sense that zoophiles would enter a career field that would allow them easy access to animals. Just as pedophiles often choose a career that allows them easy access to children.
    Point taken, both of these are fairly true. More for the benefit of others reading this who may not know the distinction between the two (perpetuated by media influences that say those who have sex with animals also have sex with children), there is no correlation between zoophilia and pedophilia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Animals may initiate, and enjoy sex with a human being.
    They may even have orgasms.
    BUT AN ANIMAL DOES NOT HAVE, AND NEVER WILL HAVE, the mental capacity to understand
    the risks they are taking by having sex with a human being.
    An animal cannot comprehend that it may contract a disease, or be accidentally injured, during sexual activity with a human.
    Animals don't do that with each other, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Knowing the possible risks of an activity before you participate, is informed consent.
    Read above. So animals who mate are not evoking their informed consent, either. Ie the male dog who has sex with a bitch is raping her.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    As far as sexual activity goes, a dog and a severely retarded human are remarkably similiar.

    ~Both are physically mature and capable of having sex.
    ~Both may initiate sex
    ~Both may enjoy sex, and have orgasms.

    But, do either one of them COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND their risks, concerning sexual activity?
    No.
    And neither one of them will EVER have the capacity to comprehend the fact that they are risking injury or disease.

    Neither one HAS ANY IDEA WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM, and therefore, CANNOT MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
    Mentally retarded human beings should be prevented to having sex?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    I would say the risk factor is moderate, as opposed to low, given the anatomical differences of the two participants.
    You first said the risk was significant. Have you finally decided on which it is yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    I would reply that there is still a significant risk of accidental injury to the animal, as I mentioned above, concerning the male dog.

  9. #28
    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 dogssup View Post
    Accidental injury can happen in any number of sexual possibilities including human to human. This does not imply that consensual sexual activity is inherently wrong to do.
    You don't seem to understand my point.
    Humans are AWARE, or capable of BECOMING AWARE, of the risks involved in sexual activity.

    Therefore, consensual sexual activity between two normal adult humans, means that they BOTH know what can happen, and BOTH are aware that they are taking a risk.

    Is sexual activity REALLY consensual, if one of the participants is unaware of the risks involved?
    In other words, if one of the participants is UNINFORMED of the possible risks, and is INCAPABLE OF BECOMING INFORMED, can we really say such sexual activity is consensual?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Dogs don't have the need to care about such things. Dogs mate with each other all the time and don't have this capability
    If a dog is copulating with another dog, it is acting on instinct to reproduce, which is necessary for the survival of it's species.
    If an action must be carried out to survive, risk factors don't really matter, because said action will be have to be performed anyway, no matter what the risk is.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    That is why as humans (guardians) it is our job, as you said, to minimize all risks and take very good care of our animals.
    For dogs, having sex with a human being IS NOT a necessary risk it must take in order to survive.
    If a dog has no possible way of comprehending the risks of UNNECESSARY sex with a human being, sex with a human being is NOT CONSENSUAL.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    They are sexual beings, just like you and I, and do solicit such behaviors.
    True, but only if there are no other members of their species available.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Just because a potential of these exist does not suggest the activity itself is inherently wrong. I could go have sex with 20 people in NYC right now and I can assure you I have a higher chance of getting an STD.
    That's true, BUT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE RISK YOU ARE TAKING, and SO ARE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

    When one of the participants in a sexual act is UNAWARE that they are taking a risk, IT IS INHERENTLY WRONG.
    THE DOG IS NOT AWARE, and WILL NEVER BECOME AWARE of the risks it is taking by participating in sex with a human being.

    Therefore, the dog's "consent" CAN NEVER BE INFORMED.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Is the male dog who has sex with a bitch is raping her?
    No.
    They are both performing an instinctual action which is NECESSARY for the survival of their species.
    IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THEIR SPECIES' SURVIVAL, TO HAVE SEX WITH HUMAN BEINGS.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Mentally retarded human beings should be prevented to having sex?
    In general, a severely retarded human being (I.Q. of 20-40), or a profoundly retarded human being (I.Q. below 20), who cannot care for themselves, are probably incapable of having a consensual sexual encounter.
    However, mildly retarded adults (I.Q 60-80), may be capable of consensual sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    You first said the risk was significant. Have you finally decided on which it is yet?
    Moderate=medium=50%.
    A 50-50 chance of something happening IS significant.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  10. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Is sexual activity REALLY consensual, if one of the participants is unaware of the risks involved?
    In other words, if one of the participants is UNINFORMED of the possible risks, and is INCAPABLE OF BECOMING INFORMED, can we really say such sexual activity is consensual?
    No.
    I'm human and have the knowledge that in your words there is a "significant risk" between sexual activity with an animal (possibly to me and the animal in question). I'm informed, the animal is not and therefore according to you this is wrong. Is it this particular knowledge itself that I own which causes the sexual activity between an animal to be wrong? Taking your claim that a mentally retarded human is on the same level as a dog, would it be okay for those two to engage sexually? The thing is we do a number of things to our animals that by according to your definition of informed consent and uninformed risks, these animals don't actually give us that informed consent. Our dogs, are they aware of the risks involved with lower quality dog food? Not getting their shots? What about the potential risks of being spayed or neutered? There is a significant risk in taking our dogs through extensive hikes where they run up and down hills, too. Are they aware they could break their legs? Since we are, maybe we should restrict these activities with our dogs.

    I also want to point out that your argument means that two dogs who have sex are not consenting because in your own words dogs don't have the mental capacity to realize sex brings risk. I don't think you mean to prevent sex between animals themselves but that is what you're doing. You are escaping the consent issue between two mating dogs. Are they consenting? You say they mate because the dogs are acting on instinct to reproduce, as if it was some process which neither of them enjoyed much. Because it feels good they are doing it. I don't think many species would survive if sex was as exciting and pleasurable as brushing teeth. Dogs don't have sex with the absolute intention of producing offspring, its first and foremost about the pleasure. It just so happens offspring is a byproduct. I don't think dogs are confused if no offspring is produced after sexual contact. Dogs consent to the pleasure which sex brings them ultimately and dogs are very capable of receiving pleasure from humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    If a dog is copulating with another dog, it is acting on instinct to reproduce, which is necessary for the survival of it's species.If an action must be carried out to survive, risk factors don't really matter, because said action will be have to be performed anyway, no matter what the risk is.
    That is to say if humans did not go in and remove their sexual reproductive organs. Were the animals giving informed consent there? Were they aware of the risks of surgery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    If a dog has no possible way of comprehending the risks of UNNECESSARY sex with a human being, sex with a human being is NOT CONSENSUAL.
    A dog doesn't have any possible way of comprehending "necessary" sex either. How does a male dog judge between a dog vagina and a human vagina in the greater goal of furthering the species? The dog doesn't, it simply knows what feels good and a vagina is after all just a vagina. To a dog that is all that matters, sexually speaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    When one of the participants in a sexual act is UNAWARE that they are taking a risk, IT IS INHERENTLY WRONG.
    THE DOG IS NOT AWARE, and WILL NEVER BECOME AWARE of the risks it is taking by participating in sex with a human being.
    The risks are pretty small as I've said before. Many things in life are a risk. Driving to the store is a risk, flying in an airplane is a risk, drinking coca-cola and eating pop rocks is a risk I've heard. Should we restrict these things from our lives? Dogs hurting themselves while having sex with a human is NOT a common occurrence. I argue that dogs don't really need to worry about these particular potential risks. They obviously don't do it already for a reason, why should they be required to do so to satisfy our human cognitive abilities and demands?

    Pleasurable activities should not just cease because they are risks in the activity. If you want to say human-animal sexual relations are wrong because the animal isn't capable or knowing the risks the following should be thought about:

    1) Running our dogs on trails because the risk of bone/muscle damage is great.
    2) Having an owner who works 40 hours a week and isn't able to exercise the dog. Did the dog consent to such a situation? German shepherds/huskies/large breeds can't simply be "walked" for 30 minutes or let outside in a yard. They need to be pushed, worked, ran 2-7 intense miles every day. How many dog owners actually do that? Sadly I know far too many dog owners who fall into this pathetic category.
    3) Some surgical procedures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    True, but only if there are no other members of their species available.
    Only if? Hardly. Plenty of zoos have both sexes of dogs and both sexes still solicit sexual activity with their human partner.
    Last edited by dogssup; April 9th, 2008 at 02:26 PM.

  11. #30
    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 dogssup
    The thing is we do a number of things to our animals that by according to your definition of informed consent and uninformed risks, these animals don't actually give us that informed consent.
    *SIGH*
    Animals are INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING potential risks, OR benefits, to their well-being, just as very young children are incapable of understanding what may harm them, and what's beneficial for them.

    We, the parents and pet owners, are responsible for doing what's in the best interest of our children, and our pets.
    We decide what benefits them, and what does not, because they are UNABLE to assess risk factors for themselves.

    It's true that everything has some risk involved.
    Animals will never be capable of comprehending what's bad for them, and what's beneficial, so animal owners must decide if a particular activity is a necessary, or unnecessary, risk.

    Apparently, you have decided that having sex with you is a necessary risk for your dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Were the animals giving informed consent there? Were they aware of the risks of surgery?
    As I stated above, animals are INCAPABLE of giving INFORMED consent.
    Human beings decide what's best for them.
    But spaying and neutering have many positive benefits, that outweigh the risks involved, as do vaccinations.

    What it boils down to is, are you going to decide what's best for your dog, or what's best for you?
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  12. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    First I want to comment on something you said in a previous posting about potential risks with human-animal sex:

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Moderate=medium=50%.
    A 50-50 chance of something happening IS significant.
    You're saying there is a 50% chance that something will happen. If I have sex with a dog 100 times, I can expect roughly 50 bad results. Where did you come up with that number exactly? I have probably had sex over 900 times and have yet to encounter any problem either to myself or to my animal partner. I'm not suggesting it could never happen but what I am saying is that the risk is extremely small. Many more normal (non-sexual) activities pose a risk to a dog than sex with a human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    *SIGH*
    Animals are INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING potential risks, OR benefits, to their well-being, just as very young children are incapable of understanding what may harm them, and what's beneficial for them.
    Why do we need to place human capabilities and demands on an animal? Animals clearly consent to sex within their own mental and physical capacities and this should be good enough.

    You still have ignored my question about two mating dogs. Are they consenting or are they being raped (like you are implying I'm doing with an animal because the animal can't give consent).

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Apparently, you have decided that having sex with you is a necessary risk for your dog.
    A much, much smaller risk than my dog breaking a leg while running. Should I not run the dog?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    As I stated above, animals are INCAPABLE of giving INFORMED consent.
    Human beings decide what's best for them.
    Is there any bending of this rule? Are we really the 'lords over animals'? Are animals not sentient beings to make their own choices within their mental and physical capacities?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    What it boils down to is, are you going to decide what's best for your dog, or what's best for you?
    Very clever wording you have there, Scarlet. I think what you said speaks for itself but I won't mind to explain if asked.


    PS.: This is a hypothetical question but I'm interested in what you'd say. Let's assume there is absolutely NO risk to the animal in having sex. That is to say there is no possibility of broken penis' or disease or any other bodily harm. Would sex between an animal be okay at that point?

  13. #32
    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

    dogssup,
    I did not ignore that question.
    This was my reply to your question about whether a male dog rapes a female dog when he mates with her:
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    No.
    They are both performing an instinctual action which is NECESSARY for the survival of their species.
    IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THEIR SPECIES' SURVIVAL, TO HAVE SEX WITH HUMAN BEINGS.
    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Is there any bending of this rule? Are we really the 'lords over animals'? Are animals not sentient beings to make their own choices within their mental and physical capacities?
    Do we let them run around loose wherever they please?
    Do we let them eat whatever they want?
    Do we let them urinate or defecate wherever they want to?
    Do we let them chew up anything they want to play with?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Animals clearly consent to sex
    Yes, but you claimed earlier that they give "informed consent" (POST #24)
    Are you still suggesting animals are capable of becoming "informed"?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    PS.: This is a hypothetical question but I'm interested in what you'd say. Let's assume there is absolutely NO risk to the animal in having sex. That is to say there is no possibility of broken penis' or disease or any other bodily harm. Would sex between an animal be okay at that point?
    I will answer this question with another question:

    Suppose a 12 year old boy, who happened to be sexually mature, propositioned you to have sex with him, and you found him attractive.
    Would you have sex with him?

    He meets all the requirements:
    ~He is physically mature and capable of having sex.
    ~He would enjoy sex.
    ~He initiated sex with you.
    Last edited by Scarlett44; April 10th, 2008 at 10:31 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  14. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    First things first Scarlet. I'd appreciate if you would avoid the caps or significantly reduce them as it creates difficulty reading. Use the underline or italics or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    They are both performing an instinctual action which is NECESSARY for the survival of their species. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THEIR SPECIES' SURVIVAL, TO HAVE SEX WITH HUMAN BEINGS.
    Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition, or learning. Something being not necessary does not suggest the activity is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Yes, but you claimed earlier that they give "informed consent" (POST #24)
    Are you still suggesting animals are capable of becoming "informed"?
    They are informed completely within their mental capacity (assuming they are sexually mature). Do animals give informed consent in the LEGAL understanding of the term? No, largely informed consent is applied to humans but not animals.

    The risk of harm is extremely small to the animal who has sex with a human. The dog has a greater chance of breaking a leg or getting cut on a branch while running in the woods than to break their penis or contracting a disease during sex. Just because a potential risk is present in XYZ activity does not always mean the activity shouldn't occur. 250-600 children a year die in swimming pools in the United States, should we ban swimming pools? The vast majority of children are NOT drowning in swimming pools. The benefit (exercise for good health) far outweighs the small risk of drowning. Likewise, the benefit for the animal (sexual release, closer bond to their human partner) far outweighs the small risk of breaking a penis or contracting some disease.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    I will answer this question with another question:
    I think I know exactly where you're going here and I refuse to answer it. You apparently see it too by how I phrased my first hypothetical question. Let's drop both of these questions.
    Last edited by dogssup; April 10th, 2008 at 03:02 PM.
    I'd rather be screwed than stewed

  15. #34
    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 dogssup
    PS.: This is a hypothetical question but I'm interested in what you'd say. Let's assume there is absolutely NO risk to the animal in having sex. Would sex between an animal be okay at that point?
    No, because it would be wrong to have sex with a creature who possesses the judgemental capabilities of a child, even if said creature is sexually mature.

    The word "exploitation" comes to my mind when I think of zoophilia.

    Exploitation basically means "to utilize, in an unjust, cruel, or selfish manner, for one's own gratification or advantage."

    If you wouldn't mind answering my question, it would be much appreciated.....
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  16. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    No, because it would be wrong to have sex with a creature who possesses the
    The word "exploitation" comes to my mind when I think of zoophilia.

    Exploitation basically means "to utilize, in an unjust, cruel, or selfish manner, for one's own gratification or advantage."
    I explained in previous posts that not all zoophilia involves exploitation. It is possible for heterosexual to be exploitable but that doesn't mean heterosexual sex by its nature is wrong.
    I'd rather be screwed than stewed

  17. #36
    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 dogssup View Post
    It is possible for heterosexual to be exploitable but that doesn't mean heterosexual sex by its nature is wrong.
    That is totally irrelevant, since we are talking about human/animal sex, and not sex between two humans.

    When two human beings have sex, they have the mental capacity to understand all of the risks involved in sex.
    Therefore they enter into the act as equals.
    This mental capacity, which is unique to humans, is called discernment.

    Discernment or "sapience" is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment, in making social or life decisions.

    Animals do not possess this ability.

    With a couple of exceptions, among some species of non-human primates, animals do not have sex for fun.
    Canines, in their natural state, have sex only for reproductive purposes.

    In wolf packs, only the dominant pair is permitted to mate.
    There is no sexual activity amongst the other members of the pack.

    A human who is having sex with an animal, is utilizing that animal's reproductive drive to satisfy themselves.

    The human being is not having sex with an animal because it benefits the animal in some way.
    The human is using the animal, a sentient being, as if they were an object, in order to satisfy their own sexual desire.

    The animal does not know the risks it is taking, but the human being is well aware of all said risks.

    Zoophiles cannot claim they are doing this ONLY because the animal enjoys it.
    That is not the case.
    They are doing it because they, themselves, enjoy it.

    Using a sentient being as a recreational sex toy is wrong, if that being is not aware of it, and not aware of the risks involved.
    Last edited by Scarlett44; April 11th, 2008 at 07:55 AM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  18. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    That is totally irrelevant, since we are talking about human/animal sex, and not sex between two humans.
    Both are sexual activities between two sentient beings able to consent to sex. To say that all human/animal sexual contact is exploitive is incorrect as I have shown in previous posts which you have clearly ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    When two human beings have sex, they have the mental capacity to understand all of the risks involved in sex.
    I argue that it is impossible for even a human to understand all the risks involved with sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Therefore they enter into the act as equals.
    Human beings are rarely equal in their mental capabilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Discernment or "sapience" is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment, in making social or life decisions. Animals do not possess this ability.
    So without human intervention animals would eventually become extinct as they are not able to make their own social, life, and sexual decisions. They are puppets that we control. Is this what you're saying?


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    With a couple of exceptions, among some species of non-human primates, animals do not have sex for fun.
    Canines, in their natural state, have sex only for reproductive purposes.
    At times I think you suffer from some abstract removal from the real world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    In wolf packs, only the dominant pair is permitted to mate.
    There is no sexual activity amongst the other members of the pack.
    Very clever of how you phrased this fact.

    But I will clarify what is missing: the instinct to have sex often drives many wolves away from their pack to search out partners of their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    A human who is having sex with an animal, is utilizing that animal's reproductive drive to satisfy themselves.
    And the animal absolutely receives no satisfaction from this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    The human being is not having sex with an animal because it benefits the animal in some way.
    The human is using the animal, a sentient being, as if they were an object, in order to satisfy their own sexual desire.
    But mutual sexual pleasure does indeed benefit both the animal and the human.

    To use the animal as a sexual object would mean the human doesn't take into concern the animals sexual needs. Obviously this can happen just like any other sexual relationship including human-human. But your argument falls flat when there are many zoos who ONLY give their animals oral sex and don't receive anything in return.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Zoophiles cannot claim they are doing this ONLY because the animal enjoys it.
    They are doing it because they, themselves, enjoy it.
    I don't know where you came up with the word "only".

    I think it is pretty obvious both parties have the ability to enjoy sex.
    I'd rather be screwed than stewed

  19. #38
    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 dogssup View Post
    Both are sexual activities between two sentient beings able to consent to sex
    If you are going to use this definition, an adult human having sex with a sexually mature 12 year old also fits this description.
    And, by the way, you never answered my question.

    My feeling is that you would not have sex with a sexually mature 12 year old.
    The reason that you would not engage in sex with said 12 year old, is the same reason that sexual activity with animals is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    impossible for even a human to understand all the risks involved with sex.
    Adult humans know that they can possibly contract a disease , or be physically injured, during sexual activity.
    Animals have no such knowledge, nor are they even capable of attaining it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    Human
    beings are rarely equal in their mental capabilities.
    All adult humans, except those who have severe mental retardation, are capable of analytical thinking.
    In other words they can compare the "pros" and "cons" of any given action, and decide if they are going to carry out said action, based on the comparison of positives and negatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    without human intervention animals would eventually become extinct as they are not able to make their own social, life, and sexual decisions. Is this what you're saying?
    They are able to make their own decisions within their same-species social groups, but interaction with human beings requires much more sophisticated thinking skills, that animals will never possess.

    Actually, I believe that animals would be much better off WITHOUT human intervention.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    At times I think you suffer from some abstract removal from the real world.
    What, exactly, do you mean by that statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    To use the animal as a sexual object would mean the human doesn't take into concern the animals sexual needs. Obviously this can happen just like any other sexual relationship including human-human. But your argument falls flat when there are many zoos who ONLY give their animals oral sex and don't receive anything in return.
    This sounds like a pedophile, who is trying to defend his actions.
    Let me rephrase the statement, as a pedophile would say it:

    To use the child as a sexual object would mean the human doesn't take into concern the childs sexual needs. Obviously this can happen just like any other sexual relationship.
    But your argument falls flat when there are many pedophiles who ONLY give children oral sex and don't receive anything in return.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogssup
    both parties have the ability to enjoy sex.
    It seems that this is your only criteria for choosing sexual partners.
    Is it?
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  20. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    If you are going to use this definition, an adult human having sex with a sexually mature 12 year old also fits this description.
    And, by the way, you never answered my question.My feeling is that you would not have sex with a sexually mature 12 year old.
    The reason that you would not engage in sex with said 12 year old, is the same reason that sexual activity with animals is wrong.
    Sex with a child is wrong because s/he will grow up with a high probability of emotional/mental problems and so on. Animals do not have this risk!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Adult humans know that they can possibly contract a disease , or be physically injured, during sexual activity.
    Animals have no such knowledge, nor are they even capable of attaining it.
    That is not the whole truth. Many cultural/religious beliefs can cloud these judgements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    All adult humans, except those who have severe mental retardation, are capable of analytical thinking.
    In other words they can compare the "pros" and "cons" of any given action, and decide if they are going to carry out said action, based on the comparison of positives and negatives.
    Again read above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    What, exactly, do you mean by that statement?
    I don't want to embarrass the vet tech, pet groomer, with 20 years of experience that many animals (and not just non human primates) frequently have sex for pleasure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    This sounds like a pedophile, who is trying to defend his actions.
    Let me rephrase the statement, as a pedophile would say it: To use the child as a sexual object would mean the human doesn't take into concern the childs sexual needs. Obviously this can happen just like any other sexual relationship.
    But your argument falls flat when there are many pedophiles who ONLY give children oral sex and don't receive anything in return.
    From this point on I refuse to talk about pedophilia. There is a connection with what you wrote here and your hypothetical question previously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    It seems that this is your only criteria for choosing sexual partners.
    Is it?
    My criteria for sex:

    (1) No physical, emotional, or mental harm will be caused.
    (2) Consent.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    We're both going in circles with our arguments.

    We will never agree.

    I'm refusing to go back and forth with you for now until perhaps others engage in the debate.
    Last edited by dogssup; April 11th, 2008 at 09:42 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    I'd rather be screwed than stewed

  21. #40
    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 dogssup View Post
    Sex with a child is wrong because s/he will grow up with a high probability of emotional/mental problems and so on. Animals do not have this risk!
    How do you know?
    Support.

    I'm asking you again to support or RETRACT the above claim.

    If you do not answer, I WILL report you for trolling.
    Last edited by Scarlett44; April 12th, 2008 at 09:30 AM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

 

 
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... 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
  •