Bestiality & Other Interspecies Relationships

[Oryx]

I hope this isn't being directed at me, since I am analyzing the argument of consent, and its definition and using it to explain why bestiality would be wrong/immoral. Plus, that isn't even one of the three interpretations I made. And...I don't have those sorts of fetishes :/

I am making the claim that consent on its own may or may not be sufficient as an answer or explanation as to why beasteality is immoral. And if so, we must define what consenting truly means, and the implications that has within the morality of human-human sexuality. Though, I think it's fair to say, animals don't really have rights and don't consent to much of anything we do to them.

There are these two arguments against consent, and therefore we must broaden the usage of consent, body language or romanticized interpretations aren't really philosophically sufficient:

1) Animals don't give consent to being placed in zoo cages or kept as pets in homes, they certainly don't give consent to being slaughtered for food. If we support those practices, why not sex? Is there any evidence that animals find sex with a human particularly traumatic or even remember it a week later?
2) Animals generally like sex, and are capable of expressing their displeasure if they don't. Many animals also engage in beastiality -- sex with other species -- frequently, so it stands to reason some of them would like it with humans.

For those reasons, I think there are better explanations against the practice of human-animal relations. The difference between the non-consenting behaviors listed above and beasteality is that one is governed by social convention (religious and secular conventions based on intuition), intuitive repugnance (biologically derived), higher disease transmissions (virus, tapeworms, bacterial infections, fleas, rabies), higher chance for injuries and consequently suffering during sex with two different species, and sex is a social function among humans, bestiality would likely disrupt parental/spousal bonding and social structure.

Uh. I didn't say your name, I didn't reference you whatsoever, I just posted in a thread. I'm not sure why you're coming to the conclusion that, despite my post not relating to yours at all, that I must have been trying to talk to you. To be frank, I didn't read your initial post because you put it in three separate spoilers and I decided that was too annoying to open each one and try to figure out why it was formatted in that way.

I don't believe zoos that aren't conservational in nature should exist and I don't think we should kill animals for pleasure, only necessity, so those arguments aren't really relevant to me. Hunting for food as an omnivore is not a question of consent, it's a question of survival.

As far as your third point, this is why I specified in my later post that consent is far more than horniness in the moment. Consent is the ability to understand consequences, the ability to control impulses, and the ability to understand the context of the situation. This is why statutory rape exists, although children as young as 7-8 can sometimes have sexual urges and may "consent" to sex with an older person. They are not developed enough to understand the context and consequences of those actions, so they cannot consent. Likewise, animals will go back and do the very thing that almost got them killed, because they aren't capable of making the connection that "ate glass -> pain and fear 36 hours later". If an animal can't even understand basic cause and effect, it is not on a level of intelligence that allows it to consent.

 

[Kanzler]

Likewise, animals will go back and do the very thing that almost got them killed, because they aren't capable of making the connection that "ate glass -> pain and fear 36 hours later". If an animal can't even understand basic cause and effect, it is not on a level of intelligence that allows it to consent.

Kind of a detour, but I don't think that's an apt characterization of animals, let alone animals people are usually familiar with. My girlfriend's dog ate part of the ball I got him, but he didn't eat the rest because he ended up barfing up what he did eat. Besides, animals don't need to understand cause and effect the way we do in order to protect themselves. I don't think we should assume that consent as a concept should be applied to animals.

 

[Entermaid]

Uh. I didn't say your name, I didn't reference you whatsoever, I just posted in a thread. I'm not sure why you're coming to the conclusion that, despite my post not relating to yours at all, that I must have been trying to talk to you. To be frank, I didn't read your initial post because you put it in three separate spoilers and I decided that was too annoying to open each one and try to figure out why it was formatted in that way.

I don't believe zoos that aren't conservational in nature should exist and I don't think we should kill animals for pleasure, only necessity, so those arguments aren't really relevant to me. Hunting for food as an omnivore is not a question of consent, it's a question of survival.

As far as your third point, this is why I specified in my later post that consent is far more than horniness in the moment. Consent is the ability to understand consequences, the ability to control impulses, and the ability to understand the context of the situation. This is why statutory rape exists, although children as young as 7-8 can sometimes have sexual urges and may "consent" to sex with an older person. They are not developed enough to understand the context and consequences of those actions, so they cannot consent. Likewise, animals will go back and do the very thing that almost got them killed, because they aren't capable of making the connection that "ate glass -> pain and fear 36 hours later". If an animal can't even understand basic cause and effect, it is not on a level of intelligence that allows it to consent.

Oh I was just making sure, because there seemed to be discrepancy above.

Thanks for addressing the possible conclusions of consent. The third interpretation is the weakest I agree, but I wanted to cover all possible combinations:

1) humans can consent animals cannot. 2) No human or animal can consent. 3) All human and animals consent to their behaviors. It seems like you agree with the first interpretation of consent; that there are distinct differences of rationality. But, I am not convinced of that answer (or any of these answers involving consent's importance in this context.)

Though I would say animals, especially highly socialized species of mammals, like elephants, dolphins, and chimps are capable of rationality, as far as causal relationships. Jane Goodall has been at the forefront of observing chimpanzee politics. There is actually a Machiavelli Intelligence theory that biologists have cultivated that demonstrates that in animals that are highly socialized, those organisms that are best able to identify causal relationships are more able to procreate. There are countless examples of her works and Chimpanzee Politics that show learning mechanisms which allow chimpanzees the ability to build relationships, observe other relationships, exploit weaknesses/alliances, and make causal relationships that are long-lasting. With that said, the degree of rationality is far inferior to humans.

I think I have concluded that consent isn't much of an argument in of itself. Like you stated, though we can kill animals for sustenance, own pets, hold animals in conservatories, all in good will, there is a difference between those behaviors and killing animals for fun or bestiality. However, all of those things involve non-consenting animals.

Therefore, when someone uses the consent argument, it is flawed unless they disagree with ALL forms of non-consenting among animals, which doesn't seem plausible. There are other differences in the treatments I have listed ones that should or should not be permissible, and those are the differences in which should be evaluated rather than consent.

Again, I really wasn't sure if it was directed at me or not, that's why I said I hope it wasn't in response to my post, since a few people seemed to not interpret it as intended. Though, reading it again it did sound presumptuous on my part.

 

[Oryx]

Oh I was just making sure, because there seemed to be discrepancy above.

Thanks for addressing the possible conclusions of consent. The third interpretation is the weakest I agree, but I wanted to cover all possible combinations:

1) humans can consent animals cannot. 2) No human or animal can consent. 3) All human and animals consent to their behaviors. It seems like you agree with the first interpretation of consent; that there are distinct differences of rationality. But, I am not convinced of that answer (or any of these answers involving consent's importance in this context.)

Though I would say animals, especially highly socialized species of mammals, like elephants, dolphins, and chimps are capable of rationality, as far as causal relationships. Jane Goodall has been at the forefront of observing chimpanzee politics. There is actually a Machiavelli Intelligence theory that biologists have cultivated that demonstrates that in animals that are highly socialized, those organisms that are best able to identify causal relationships are more able to procreate. There are countless examples of her works and Chimpanzee Politics that show learning mechanisms which allow chimpanzees the ability to build relationships, observe other relationships, exploit weaknesses/alliances, and make causal relationships that are long-lasting. With that said, the degree of rationality is far inferior to humans.

I think I have concluded that consent isn't much of an argument in of itself. Like you stated, though we can kill animals for sustenance, own pets, hold animals in conservatories, all in good will, there is a difference between those behaviors and killing animals for fun or bestiality. However, all of those things involve non-consenting animals.

Therefore, when someone uses the consent argument, it is flawed unless they disagree with ALL forms of non-consenting among animals, which doesn't seem plausible. There are other differences in the treatments I have listed ones that should or should not be permissible, and those are the differences in which should be evaluated rather than consent.

Again, I really wasn't sure if it was directed at me or not, that's why I said I hope it wasn't in response to my post, since a few people seemed to not interpret it as intended. Though, reading it again it did sound presumptuous.

But sex is not murder, and sex is not captivity, and sex is not anything else except for sex. It's not hypocritical to draw a line between how we handle sexual situations and how we handle violent situations and how we handle situations of captivity. It is legal for the government to hold someone in captivity for not following the right rules; however, it is not legal for a government official to rape someone no matter what rules they are or aren't following. None of the situations are morally or legally analogous. While sexual activity almost exclusively centers on consenting, rational adults, the entire world does not revolve around consent, especially not in places outside the United States. For example, it's illegal in many states in the US for an employee to choose to work through a lunch or work through breaks. It doesn't matter if the employee consents to do so, it's illegal regardless. Thus, we can't compare murder and captivity and sex as if they're all the same thing and center on the same issues.

Also, let's be realistic about bestiality here - we're not talking about some person integrating themselves into a jungle-dwelling monkey tribe and forming relationships based on their signals. 99.999% of people in the world will probably never even see a chimpanzee in the wild, let alone become attracted to it and try to mate with it. When we talk about this, we're not talking about those people, because there may be one every few decades. We're talking about cats, dogs, and livestock mainly. Animals that "can't make connections between events and experiences that are separated in time" (similar study on horses). If in some sci-fi future we develop the ability to effectively communicate with chimpanzees and are able to convey the possible consequences of interspecies sexual relations and the chimpanzee still expresses interest, I'd be happy to revisit that. As it stands, we have no way of knowing how they feel - and I have to question someone who, when unsure how something feels, falls on the side of most potential harm to the creature.

 

[Entermaid]

But sex is not murder, and sex is not captivity, and sex is not anything else except for sex. It's not hypocritical to draw a line between how we handle sexual situations and how we handle violent situations and how we handle situations of captivity. It is legal for the government to hold someone in captivity for not following the right rules; however, it is not legal for a government official to rape someone no matter what rules they are or aren't following. None of the situations are morally or legally analogous. While sexual activity almost exclusively centers on consenting, rational adults, the entire world does not revolve around consent, especially not in places outside the United States. For example, it's illegal in many states in the US for an employee to choose to work through a lunch or work through breaks. It doesn't matter if the employee consents to do so, it's illegal regardless. Thus, we can't compare murder and captivity and sex as if they're all the same thing and center on the same issues.

Also, let's be realistic about bestiality here - we're not talking about some person integrating themselves into a jungle-dwelling monkey tribe and forming relationships based on their signals. 99.999% of people in the world will probably never even see a chimpanzee in the wild, let alone become attracted to it and try to mate with it. When we talk about this, we're not talking about those people, because there may be one every few decades. We're talking about cats, dogs, and livestock mainly. Animals that "can't make connections between events and experiences that are separated in time" (similar study on horses). If in some sci-fi future we develop the ability to effectively communicate with chimpanzees and are able to convey the possible consequences of interspecies sexual relations and the chimpanzee still expresses interest, I'd be happy to revisit that. As it stands, we have no way of knowing how they feel - and I have to question someone who, when unsure how something feels, falls on the side of most potential harm to the creature.

Correct. Sex doesn't equal murder but they share a similar attribute. If you want to dispute one over the other, use a different attribute that one possesses and not the other.

Arguing that consent alone is a reason doesn't hold.

What makes sex different from murder in the context of animals?

The argument you just made gives more evidence to the converse argument you are making. Imprisonment vs rape for example both involve taking away consent. Therefore we cannot argue that consent should dictate whether we should or should not implement a policy.

In the case of consenting adult human relationships, we can go back to social contract. Dictating which behaviors are and are not coincidence with the stability and functioning of the society. In the case of human societies, excluding animals that are not a part of social contract, consent functions to ensure we are able to live more freely, but at the same time we also have obligation and laws we have no choice but to consent to or face retribution. We can argue that consent is important as far as human sexuality goes; however, we need to explain why it is important as far as social structure, stability, pain, loss of reproductive freedom, ect.

See though, consent isn't really the core of the argument, it is a means to an end...happiness or avoidance of displeasure/harm. The arguments that stand must link directly either of those two phenomena. You cannot do A because it causes B, which is painful. One doesn't simply argue, rape is not allowed since one cannot consent. That is insufficient. It needs further explanation since that argument alone would have further repercussions to other areas that we tend to agree with non-consent, like imprisonment.

In the case of animals, outside the realm of social contract, we would have to explain the differences of when and when not consent is the matter of importance, yet further we actually have to explain why to avoid the umbrella effect.

Animals are able to learn and change behavior -- survival mechanisms interact with environmental variability. There is tons of experimental evidence on crows and rats in particular if we need to have examples of animals that we will see in our lifetime that have been studied for causal reasoning. The aspca doesn't really hold as a credible scientific source, I am not sure how the article really relates to this discussion.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I believe that society's heart will always bleed. Let me ask you this: Is it worse to beat a dog, kick it, abuse it, throw beer bottles at it, lock it up in a cage so it rests in its own feces? Or for a woman to entice her dog to mount her? A friend once brought up this argument and I was forced to go with the former being the worst of the two.

As always, there are two sides of the coin and you'll have to pick and choose your battles. You cannot stop all of these cases, but if I had to choose between going after the perps who organize cock fights and dog fights or the beast loving folk, I'm going to have to go after Joe Blow and his fighting rings.

If the dog, or horse, or whatever is not being actively harmed, the police are going to have to go after the guy who's been eating the neighborhood cats. Sure, it'd be great to net them all, but the bestiality folks are not a large problem for me, at least when I look at what else is being done to animals, having sex with them is not the same as throwing them in a circle and forcing them to fight to the death. . . like Spock and Kirk.

 

[Silri]

Interesting that this topic pops up after me and some of my other friends have recently been discussing it. I think that it's a shame people immediately dismiss any mature discussion about the topic due to the 'ickiness'.

It seems a little hypocritical to me to automatically condemn certain sexual acts in regards to animals and not also condemn the actions that are mainstream in the livestock industry. I believe most definitely that there is a line to be drawn between the two, but it's a little more grey and harder to make out than I think most people seem to realize.

The whole immoral issue with bestiality seems a little shaky when it's supported only by the reasoning of consent. Consent in this case is almost a non-issue in the context of our society, we do many things to animals without them giving consent. And I'm not just talking about mass slaughter and confinement (both of which are perfectly legal), many of the acts are sexual too! Heck, most of the livestock industry revolves around manipulating animals' sexual lives without their consent purely for our own convenience.
So justification other than consent should be used.

I believe that humans have come up with justifications for our taboo against bestiality for much the same reasons we have taboos against inbreeding and cannibalism: it's biological. If something is dangerous or does not further your chances of producing viable offspring in some way, it's in the creature's best interests to not partake in the activities. It was in society's best interests to come up with regulations that prevented actions that would hinder its biological fitness and survival. People can come up with 'moral' reasons against bestiality, but I think it comes back down to biology.

 

[The Void]

So why is it that no one bothers with humans having relationships with humanoid aliens and mythical creatures yet it's not ok wih humans having relationships with animals (both humanoid and non-humanoid) in the world of fiction? Is there an actual reason why? Please try to keep this is discussion PG rated.

Because it's weird. To engage in such a relationship implies sexual intimacy (eros, as the Greeks term it), which is simply... incompatible between, say, a human and a horse.

Aside from the dilemma with the reproductive organs not fitting, as other have pointed out, sexual relationships require mutual consent. But what if a talking horse stated its desire to engage in a relationship with a human? This is where morality comes into play.

This is different from what we know as familial love or storge, which is the relationship parents have with their children, and trainers have with their Pokemon. I think this sort of love can be expressed through simple acts of appreciation and affection, although I may be oversimplifying.

 

[twocows]

This is a topic that's going inside my mind for a while now, and I thought this is worth discussing as part of the Pokémon fandom because it too is involved with this issue. Bestiality describes romantic relationships between humans and non-human species (mostly animals). It's an act that's frowned upon in society, to the point where it's ruled as legal, because it's a category of animal abuse. When it comes to the Sonic fanbase, the My Little Pony fanbase, and even our own Pokémon fanbase (even the actual games mentioned that humans use to marry Pokémon), they get accused for these acts. But there's something that bugs about this. Animals of two different species have bred together before such as lions and tigers to create ligers, and there various science fiction/fantasy films and literature that include humans having romantic relationships with non-human beings (aliens, mermaids, etc.). Even some video games like Mass Effect allows players to have a relationship with anthromorphic creatures. The only difference is that they're not animals, even though that mindset may be suggestive to some. So why is it that no one bothers with humans having relationships with humanoid aliens and mythical creatures yet it's not ok wih humans having relationships with animals (both humanoid and non-humanoid) in the world of fiction? Is there an actual reason why? Please try to keep this is discussion PG rated.

As far as fiction goes, I don't think there's any problem. People can put what they want in fiction. Fantasy is fantasy; ethics don't apply to things that aren't real. As for having potential consequences, I think that's a bunk argument people use to try to censor stuff they don't like.

As far as real life goes, that's a bit more complicated, doubly so because it's hard for me to think rationally about something I don't really want to be thinking about at all. In the end though, it mostly boils down to animal ethics, so it's similar to the line of reasoning I'd have about violence towards animals.

There are two descriptors that I think matter regarding ethical consideration for animals: semi-intelligent/non-intelligent and pet/not pet. Semi-intelligent animals (of which I don't have a rigid definition) should be protected on the same level as humans where it's not unreasonably burdensome to do so, with the stipulation that if they endanger a human or other semi-intelligent animal (or possibly pet) in any way, they forfeit that protection. So I would think it's unethical for those sorts of animals unless you can somehow work out consent (good luck with that). Pets are even more complicated because the reason why I think they deserve protections to begin with is because of their value to people, so I don't have a good answer for that.

However, I think it's pretty straight forward for non-intelligent animals that aren't pets in light of my general ideas about animal ethics. In my mind, animals that aren't semi-intelligent and aren't pets are basically on the same level as trees or insects; I don't think we should go out of our way to harm them because of their role in nature, but other than that, I don't really care (intellectually speaking). By extension, if I want to be consistent in my beliefs, I'd have to say that I really don't care what people choose to do with those sorts of animals, provided they're not causing ecological harm by doing it.

(It's worth noting I would be bothered by someone harming an animal for no apparent reason even if it didn't harm the environment, but since I can't think of any rational basis for it that satisfies me, I'm pretty much forced to say "I don't care" by my own reasoning. I can say that I would think there's something wrong with the person, though.)

I compared this to the violence against animals issue earlier, but it is a bit different in a couple of ways. First, it's normal to have sexual urges, even ones that seem unusual to most others; on the other hand, it's not normal to have the urge to harm living things. I think the latter probably indicates some sort of mental problem; the former is more normal, relatively speaking. Also, I think outright violence against animals is a lot worse because it pretty much always causes real physical harm, whereas the other thing can cause harm but probably doesn't most of the time (I'm inclined to think that in most cases, the animal probably doesn't really care or even lacks the capacity to care altogether).

Finally, it's easy to say that I don't care because this doesn't affect me and shut my brain off, but I'm guessing this is pretty important to some people out there so I think it's good to have a rational discussion about it, no matter how gross it seems. That most definitely extends to other issues that probably gross people out, too, and I think people should try to think rationally about those issues, too.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I believe that humans have come up with justifications for our taboo against bestiality for much the same reasons we have taboos against inbreeding and cannibalism: it's biological. If something is dangerous or does not further your chances of producing viable offspring in some way, it's in the creature's best interests to not partake in the activities. It was in society's best interests to come up with regulations that prevented actions that would hinder its biological fitness and survival. People can come up with 'moral' reasons against bestiality, but I think it comes back down to biology.

Would the biological issue also apply to anthromorphic animals such as furries and anthromorphic aliens in sic-fi movies, literature, games, and comics?

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I think it's important to note that bestiality is quite a natural process, and inbreeding between species is common enough that hybrids exist. Even bestiality between different biological orders has been recorded. Nature really doesn't care. The taboo nature of bestiality is based in human morality alone.

 

[stp]

I think it's important to note that bestiality is quite a natural process, and inbreeding between species is common enough that hybrids exist. Even bestiality between different biological orders has been recorded. Nature really doesn't care. The taboo nature of bestiality is based in human morality alone.

There's a large difference for a tiger and a lion to engage in sexual intercourse than a dog and a human, though.

Personally, I find bestiality disgusting in any form. However, I do think this - if you want to go at it with a horse, go for it. If the horse isn't liking it, it will do something to get rid of you. But it seems like if you're trying to have some type of sexual intercourse with a dog or cat, there's some kind of obvious power imbalance there, whether or not the animal is being harmed in the process.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

There's a large difference for a tiger and a lion to engage in sexual intercourse than a dog and a human, though.

My original post addressed this already.

...what? You do realize that a dog can easily overpower you, right? Unless it's like a little dog, but they can bite the **** out of you.

And... you're okay with screwing a horse? But you think bestiality is disgusting in any form. I'm confused now.