Sexual Taboos - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32997215]Beastiality falls under animal abuse, not consent.[/QUOTE] Same as how rape comes under abuse. Beastiality is illegal because animals cannot consent, thus making any act of sex towards them essentially rape and thus, abuse. It's the same reason that having sex with a child is illegal.

What I really, really [I]hate[/I] in western society is how sex is constantly censored in the media whereas gore gets a pass [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997266]Same as how rape comes under abuse. Beastiality is illegal because animals cannot consent, thus making any act of sex towards them essentially rape and thus, abuse. It's the same reason that having sex with a child is illegal.[/QUOTE] dolphins can consent :v:

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997266]Same as how rape comes under abuse.[/QUOTE] Rape is a violation of consent. If it were a violation of abuse, then I should be able to rape someone in their sleep and get away scott free as long as I didn't physically harm them. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997266]Beastiality is illegal because animals cannot consent,[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Legal_status]Beastiality falls under animal abuse, not consent violation.[/url] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997266]thus making any act of sex towards them essentially rape and thus, abuse.[/QUOTE] Rape isn't primarily abuse, it's a consent violation, thus making it irrelevant towards animals because they are unable to consent to anything. concede plz, bcuz u no im rite

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32997490]Rape is a violation of consent. If it were a violation of abuse, then I should be able to rape someone in their sleep and get away scott free as long as I didn't physically harm them. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Legal_status]Beastiality falls under animal abuse, not consent violation.[/url] Rape isn't primarily abuse, it's a consent violation, thus making it irrelevant towards animals because they are unable to consent to anything. concede plz[/QUOTE] But then if you're just going to allow things on the base that anything can be done to them since they cant consent, you might as well start allowing all forms of animal abuse through. Shagging an animal can hurt it, allowing it will just make easier for people to essentially abuse animals.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997524]But then if you're just going to allow things on the base that anything can be done to them since they cant consent, you might as well start allowing all forms of animal abuse through.[/QUOTE] Beastiality should be allowed because their consent is irrelevant [i]and[/i] it doesn't harm the animal, unless you make it harmful. If you want to argue that we should be allowed to harm animals, make another thread for it.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32997611]Beastiality should be allowed because their consent is irrelevant [i]and[/i] it doesn't harm the animal, unless you make it harmful. If you want to argue that we should be allowed to harm animals, make another thread for it.[/QUOTE] It does harm the animals, a human dick is far too big for that of a cat thus causing harm.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997266]Same as how rape comes under abuse. Beastiality is illegal because animals cannot consent, thus making any act of sex towards them essentially rape and thus, abuse. It's the same reason that having sex with a child is illegal.[/QUOTE] Are you really putting children on the same level as an animal? It's one of the things I fail to understand why do people put animals at the same metaphoric level as humans. That is a bad Idea. How many Animal species are there? And how many human ones? You can't compare them. Now my best guess why you are saying that Animals need to have consent is that you are trying to protect them. But against what?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997524]But then if you're just going to allow things on the base that anything can be done to them since they cant consent, you might as well start allowing all forms of animal abuse through. Shagging an animal can hurt it, allowing it will just make easier for people to essentially abuse animals.[/QUOTE] No, kicking a dog and breaking their ribs is illegal because it harms them. There's no way to kick a dog and break it's ribs without causing harm. But sex doesn't have to be harmful. You say it will create loopholes, fair enough. But really, people who would harm animals would do so anyways. [QUOTE]It does harm the animals, a human dick is far too big for that of a cat thus causing harm. [/QUOTE] If you are trying to force large objects inside a cats hole, you are obviously causing physical harm with violence. That example is equal to kicking it or standing on it. Sex doesn't [I]have[/I] to be harmful. Your example is shit, because in your example you have both sex AND violence involved. Being violent to a cat like that is already illegal, so even without laws against beastiality, forcing a dick inside a cat would [I]still[/I] be animal abuse and therefore illegal.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997685]It does harm the animals, a human dick is far too big for that of a cat thus causing harm.[/QUOTE] That is stupid. Having sex does not mean hurting.

[QUOTE=commander204;32997696]Are you really putting children on the same level as an animal? It's one of the things I fail to understand why do people put animals at the same metaphoric level as humans. That is a bad Idea. How many Animal species are there? And how many human ones? You can't compare them. Now my best guess why you are saying that Animals need to have consent is that you are trying to protect them. But against what?[/QUOTE] Against potential harm from rape, I feel it is far better to just keep it under a legal blanket term like beastiality and prevent any possibility of people getting away with what is effectively animal abuse.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997685]It does harm the animals, a human dick is far too big for that of a cat thus causing harm.[/QUOTE] If your dick is too big and you're hurting the animal, then it's bad and you'll know it's bad. If you have a big animal or a small dick and you're not hurting it, then it's fine. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997735]Against potential harm from rape, I feel it is far better to just keep it under a legal blanket term like beastiality and prevent any possibility of people getting away with what is effectively animal abuse.[/QUOTE] Beastiality isn't animal abuse. You're not necessarily harming the animal by having sex with it.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997735]Against potential harm from rape, I feel it is far better to just keep it under a legal blanket term like beastiality and prevent any possibility of people getting away with what is effectively animal abuse.[/QUOTE] The moment you put 'potential' in your wording you already lost. And what you think is right should not stop anyone from doing anything.

[QUOTE=commander204;32997782]The moment you put 'potential' in your wording you already lost. And what you think is right should not stop anyone from doing anything.[/QUOTE] I dislike the treatment of animals as it is, I only go along with it because it is necessary such as in regards to killing animals for food, the last thing I want is for animals to lose even more rights.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997831]I dislike the treatment of animals as it is, I only go along with it because it is necessary such as in regards to killing animals for food, the last thing I want is for animals to lose even more rights.[/QUOTE] You're being arbitrary. If they lost that right and people are allowed to have sex with them, it wouldn't harm them at all. In the cases of animals who have sex for pleasure, it would be beneficial.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32997879]You don't want them to lose rights that would otherwise do them no harm? You're being arbitrary.[/QUOTE] Animals should have the right not to have sex forced on them.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997898]Animals should have the right not to have sex forced on them.[/QUOTE] Provide reasoning.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997898]Animals should have the right not to have sex forced on them.[/QUOTE] Is there any reason for that? Is it because Sex always has this 'Domination' concept to it?

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32997915]Provide reasoning.[/QUOTE] Same reason a person shouldn't have sex forced on them

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997941]Same reason a person should have sex forced on them[/QUOTE] Which is?

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32997966]Which is?[/QUOTE] The main reason why rape is illegal?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32997998]The main reason why rape is illegal?[/QUOTE] Yeah. Do you believe that the main reason rape is illegal is because it violates someone's right to consent?

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998064]Yeah. Do you believe that the main reason rape is illegal is because it violates someone's right to consent?[/QUOTE] yes, although I'd say that beastiality laws have more in common with that of child protection laws.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998112]yes[/QUOTE] Ok, so you believe animals should not be raped because it violates their right to consent. Following that logic, animals should not be ridden, killed, moved, forced to wear something, held in confinement, or harmed in anyway because it violates their right to consent. Is this what you believe?

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998162]Ok, so you believe animals should not be raped because it violates their right to consent. Following that logic, animals should not be ridden, killed, moved, forced to wear something, held in confinement, or harmed in anyway because it violates their right to consent. Is this what you believe?[/QUOTE] Children can be forced to wear things, held in confinement and moved yet are not allowed to be raped. And if it weren't for it being necessary to kill animals for food, I would be very much against the killing of them as well.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998222]Children can be forced to wear things, held in confinement and moved yet are not allowed to be raped.[/QUOTE] It's a yes or no question.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998242]That wasn't the question.[/QUOTE] the point is, you can apply much the same logic to children.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998258]the point is, you can apply much the same logic to children.[/QUOTE] You could apply the same logic to a tin can.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998258]the point is, you can apply much the same logic to children.[/QUOTE] You're avoiding the question. It's either yes or no.

[QUOTE=commander204;32998291]You could apply the same logic to a tin can.[/QUOTE] A tin can isn't alive so no you actually can't.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998222]Children can be forced to wear things, held in confinement and moved yet are not allowed to be raped.[/QUOTE] Which is why your argument is bullshit. All of this [I]doesn't[/I] revolve around consent. This "right to consent" that you're talking about only exists because people tend to get fucked up when people try to have sex with them without consent. This holds true for both adults and children, sex fucks them up when there is no consent. [I](And in children's case it does so either way because different discussion)[/I] But it doesn't work the same way for animals, as they don't give a shit, and if they are bothered by something they show it, sex doesn't harm them (if it is done in a way that it [I]does[/I] harm them, then it would be illegal anyways) and we already do much worse things to them. The argument you just presented shows exactly why you can't use consent and only consent. Just as you said, forcing a child to wear things, confining them and moving them [I]does[/I] break their right to consent, yet it isn't harmful, so it doesn't matter.