Beastiality

[Caitriona]

Dogs don't lap the pussies of women spontaneously. The sexual smell is different. So the animal must be trained to do it. It's easy to train them, but it isn't something they do on their own, as a rule.

We train animals to do all kinds of things they might not ordinarily do on their own. What makes this potentially abusive and say, "fetching a ball" not?

I've heard all the "It's animal abuse' theories before, but we spay and neuter animals all the time. Isn't that abuse to the dog? We do all kind of things that interfere with the 'natural order' of being a dog. Are all of them actually animal abuse? Or just the possible sexual uses?

I'm not promoting this, but it seems to me this is a poor excuse to claim it is animal abuse or that the dog has to be trained. We train dogs all the time, and that means enforcing our will over that of the animal. No one screams about that.

 

[The Question]

as far as I remember it's not illegal to bang animals in mesa)

Considering the looks of most of the women there, I don't see how they could justify making it illegal, or tell the criminals from the married guys.

 

[The Question]

I don't see how it can be a form of animal abuse anymore than keeping an animal as a pet is abusing it.

We could ask a pet psychologist as to whether or not having a relationship like that is healthy for it but then again, being a pet isn't healthy for it in the first place.

But is it healthy for the human?

 

[Tyrant]

But is it healthy for the human?

Is homosexuality healthy for the human?

 

[The Question]

Is homosexuality healthy for the human?

Do you always answer questions with questions?

 

[Tyrant]

Do you always answer questions with questions?

Do you always shift to irrelevant tangents?

 

[The Question]

Didn't you start it by asking a question about homosexuality when the original question was about health risks involved with beastiality? Are you unaware that beastiality and homosexuality are different subjects?

 

[jack]

Sex with dogs isnt inherently "dangerous", but in ordinary situations, a dog will not respond to a human sexually unless they are trained.

That's abuse.

 

[Caitriona]

Sex with dogs isn't inherently "dangerous", but in ordinary situations, a dog will not respond to a human sexually unless they are trained.

That's abuse.

That's just a piss poor excuse in my opinion, we domesticated these animals to serve us. That's what domestication means. It's certainly abuse to sterilize animals for our convenience.

Like I said, I'm not promoting this, just come up with a better reason for NOT doing it. We use these animals anyway we see fit now. We experiment on them for science for crying out loud. Hell in some countries they eat them. That's not abuse, but letting some dog get his kink on and have some ejaculatory fun is?

 

[Sarek]

I think this should be moved to Hambil's forum. One, it takes a rather liberal position on interspecies sexuality, and two, he's a rodent.

But he's sleeping with a cat. Weird? Yes. But I don't think it qualifies as beastiality.

 

[The Question]

^^Well, it's definitely interspecial. Or some kind of "special" in any case.

 

[The Question]

That's just a piss poor excuse in my opinion.

Well, how about this one? Dogs tend to do what they're trained to do without consideration for the human interactions in their surroundings. If a woman trains a dog to "go down" on her when she's alone, there's no surefire guarantee the dog won't "seize the moment" and do what he's trained to do if she happens to be entertaining company in a skirt or a bathing suit. Now the consequences for the dog would probably be immediate but fairly short-term. The consequences for the woman, on the other hand -- especially if the dog is extremely persistent and preferential in his "treatment" -- would almost certainly be more damaging and more long-term. One occurrence she might put down to a fluke -- but dogs can be either lackadaisical in doing what they're trained to do, or very, very persistent. Repeat occurrences of the dog trying to get his groove on with his owner, especially if they occur over a span of different social calls, would almost certainly lead the woman's friends to guess that she had trained the animal to do it. The damage to her reputation could be minor, or it could be severe.

Now you could say (not you personally, Cait, the general "you") that if only we didn't follow these puritanical social codes, it wouldn't be an issue. But we do, and it is.

Just trying my hand at finding a good excuse.

 

[Caitriona]

Well, how about this one? Dogs tend to do what they're trained to do without consideration for the human interactions in their surroundings. If a woman trains a dog to "go down" on her when she's alone, there's no surefire guarantee the dog won't "seize the moment" and do what he's trained to do if she happens to be entertaining company in a skirt or a bathing suit. Now the consequences for the dog would probably be immediate but fairly short-term. The consequences for the woman, on the other hand -- especially if the dog is extremely persistent and preferential in his "treatment" -- would almost certainly be more damaging and more long-term. One occurrence she might put down to a fluke -- but dogs can be either lackadaisical in doing what they're trained to do, or very, very persistent. Repeat occurrences of the dog trying to get his groove on with his owner, especially if they occur over a span of different social calls, would almost certainly lead the woman's friends to guess that she had trained the animal to do it. The damage to her reputation could be minor, or it could be severe.

Now you could say (not you personally, Cait, the general "you") that if only we didn't follow these puritanical social codes, it wouldn't be an issue. But we do, and it is.

Just trying my hand at finding a good excuse.

Better. The whole taboo element is a good reason. Social humiliation, and even legal concerns [child custody, job, etc] are generally ALL good reasons to 'behave yourself'.

I just didn't want everyone to hide behind the old "it's animal abuse" excuse, when it is really the social taboo that sets off everyone's squick factor. It's just a more honest discussion if we cut to the chase and get real.

 

[The Question]

^^There is, though, an abuse element for the animal due to the social taboo, as well.

If a woman trains the dog to do something in private, and then punishes the dog if it does that same thing in less than discreet conditions, she would probably be imparting no small amount of trauma on the animal.

Yes, getting his bits snipped is also a form of abuse, but the mental abuse may actually be more damaging to the animal than a surgical procedure.

 

[Caitriona]

Ah, but I never argued that it was/wasn't abuse, only that if it was, all the other things we do to domesticate animals *are* also abuse.

That's the whole point of domestication. They are trained to function to meet 'our' needs. They no longer function [once trained] to go by their own instincts. You think a dog has instincts to stop and sit, and wait on command? No of course not. They are trained through a series of rewards and punishments to do so. I'd imagine this would be very similar.

Is it abuse to take over their pack instincts to serve our needs? What those needs are is almost irrelevant to that ethical question.

 

[Geedis,]

a dog will not respond to a human sexually unless they are trained.

Or unless you dose them with illegal dog vitamins prior to cornholing them.

 

[The Question]

Ah, but I never argued that it was/wasn't abuse, only that if it was, all the other things we do to domesticate animals *are* also abuse.

That's the whole point of domestication. They are trained to function to meet 'our' needs. They no longer function [once trained] to go by their own instincts. You think a dog has instincts to stop and sit, and wait on command? No of course not. They are trained through a series of rewards and punishments to do so. I'd imagine this would be very similar.

Is it abuse to take over their pack instincts to serve our needs? What those needs are is almost irrelevant to that ethical question.

Oh, no, I get all that -- my particular point on the domestication/abuse angle is that it's more abusive to reward and punish an animal for exactly the same behavior, when the dog can't possibly understand the contexts under which the owner's response varies. It's a form of abuse that rises above conditioning through physical discomfort or surgical modification for the owner's convenience, and crosses the line into something that could cause psychological damage to the animal. That, actually, brings with it a very tangible negative potential to the owner and other human beings, because if the animal becomes psychologically unstable as a result of the abuse, it could pose a very real physical threat to the human beings that interact with it.

 

[Caitriona]

Ah, OK I see your point.

That remains a potential problem with all trained animals doesn't it? And I suppose it depends on the consistency of the training as well. Some dog owners are good, while others are terrible above an beyond whether or not the pets are used for sexual gratification.

 

[Bladev1]

LMAO Very Very true
It's a sad sad day when your sheep has more teeth than your wife

Considering the looks of most of the women there, I don't see how they could justify making it illegal, or tell the criminals from the married guys.

 

[The Question]

Ah, OK I see your point.

That remains a potential problem with all trained animals doesn't it? And I suppose it depends on the consistency of the training as well. Some dog owners are good, while others are terrible above an beyond whether or not the pets are used for sexual gratification.

True, yeah. But the subject of the training would pretty much make consistency either very difficult to achieve or a very bad idea, unless the owner were a complete social recluse, for reasons already mentioned. And yeah, I agree, there are already owners out there who shouldn't be allowed to own pets regardless of what they train them for.

Also keep in mind, though, that the results (and the potential for unsafe psychological impact on the animal) can largely depend on the breed. A rottweiler, for example, would be a very poor choice for that kind of activity. lol