CDZ Zoophilia and Necrophilia

[Onyx]

I could care less about what people do with dead bodies and truly don't want to know about it....but it's an object, not a life.

Humanity has a long history of respecting and sanctifying the dead.

Back in the day, robbing a grave would of incurred more stigma than killing a man. Imagine the outrage if someone had sex with a corpse.

But an animal can not give consent.

I wonder about this.

I find bestiality to be incredibly strange and off putting, but I believe there might be legitimacy to the argument that a human and animal can consent, considering you have different species in nature screwing each other.

 

[Coyote]

In order to animals to consent, they must have an understanding of human ethics and culture and consequences for behavior - be capable of understanding what they are consenting to. If we gain their "consent" by the use of hormones or physical actions - it is not concent but a form of coercion. Animals can't consent for the same reason children can't. Humans are alway in a position of authority with domestic animals, thus we have a responsibility to them - it would be an abuse of that sexually abuse them.

Different species might screw in nature but it's infrequent. Most animal species screw for procreation. A small number of species - social species that include humans - use sex or sexual play for social bonding/stress reduction.

 

[Onyx]

Animals can't consent for the same reason children can't. Humans are alway in a position of authority with domestic animals, thus we have a responsibility to them - it would be an abuse of that sexually abuse them..

Position of authority? So the fact that all sex psychology is based on the simple concept of dominant and submissive means nothing to you?

There is a deeper primal complex going on when we have have sex. That is why there is a distinguishable difference between an orgasm and forced ejaculation.

 

[Coyote]

Animals can't consent for the same reason children can't. Humans are alway in a position of authority with domestic animals, thus we have a responsibility to them - it would be an abuse of that sexually abuse them..

Position of authority? So the fact that all sex psychology is based on the simple concept of dominant and submissive means nothing to you?

There is a deeper primal complex going on when we have have sex. That is why there is a distinguishable difference between an orgasm and forced ejaculation.

Has nothing to do with dominant/submissive.

 

[Toronado3800]

Animals can't consent for the same reason children can't. Humans are alway in a position of authority with domestic animals, thus we have a responsibility to them - it would be an abuse of that sexually abuse them..

Position of authority? So the fact that all sex psychology is based on the simple concept of dominant and submissive means nothing to you?

There is a deeper primal complex going on when we have have sex. That is why there is a distinguishable difference between an orgasm and forced ejaculation.

Is that attributing a quote to me I did not make?

 

[Onyx]

Has nothing to do with dominant/submissive.

That is the obvious implication of position of authority.

 

[Onyx]

Is that attributing a quote to me I did not make?

It is a bug that happens when you reply and minimize a quote

Interestingly it only occurs when you do it to someone that was not quoting someone else.

I fixed it though

 

[Coyote]

Has nothing to do with dominant/submissive.

That is the obvious implication of position of authority.

From my perspective, dominance and submission have particular meanings in animal behavior.

When I think of human sexuality - it goes beyond physical responses, into the the realm of ethics. Authority is also "responsibility for" - if you are in a position of authority with children for example - a parent, a teacher, etc - you have a responsibility to keep them safe, and to not take advantage of them. It's the same way with animals.

 

[Onyx]

When I think of human sexuality - it goes beyond physical responses, into the the realm of ethics. Authority is also "responsibility for" - if you are in a position of authority with children for example - a parent, a teacher, etc - you have a responsibility to keep them safe, and to not take advantage of them. It's the same way with animals.

Okay, let me explain why your argument is confusing.

You are claiming that an animal cannot consent because human beings have an ethical duty to protect animals (reference end quote). The definition of consent is to give permission.

If an animal were capable of giving permission, then how could they be violated or taken advantage of?

Animals can't consent for the same reason children can't. Humans are alway in a position of authority with domestic animals, thus we have a responsibility to them - it would be an abuse of that sexually abuse them.

If you were to argue that animals did not have the mental capacity to consent to a human, then that would make for a better case. For example, modern society does not view human beings as being mentally capable of giving consent until they are ages 14-18, depending on where you live.

 

[anotherlife]

Necrophilia is everywhere and nationally encouraged on TV. They call it the zombi movies.

Specifically American too.

Everyone else hates it.

 

[Votto]

As no animal can give consent to someone having sex with it, as no corpse can give consent to someone having sex with it, then of course you then must be against?

I believe there is no way of knowing if an animal can consent, although the one Zoophile I knew claimed that there was.

What if someone consented to be used for necrophiliac sex acts before death? Like how some individuals give their bodies for medical research, except these people would be paid money.

It is a better alternative to having necrophiles raid cemeteries and kill people to have sex with.

With all due respect Onyx, I'll leave this thread to others now who might like to comment, I'm just uncomfortable with these two subjects that I feel are beyond depraved and very disturbing and would prefer not to get in-depth with either of them.

Get used to it. Western Civilization is going down the crapper fast.

The whole argument that animals need to give their consent is meaningless. After all, when do they give their consent to be beasts of burden, or jailed in a zoo, or put on your dinner table. No, soon this sort of thing will be normalized as well because society has become depraved and Godless.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If one perverted sexual orientation is legal, they should all be legal. Some animals that have been raped have to be euthanized they are too badly injured to survive. So perhaps that should not be legal.

Sex robots will fix it all.

Perhaps?

PERHAPS ????

'Legalize all sexual perversions'? Who gets to decide what is perverted?

As to the OP, bestiality harms innocent animals. There can be no consent.

There can be no consent with necrophilia either but it harms no one.

IMO, both are repugnant.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As no animal can give consent to someone having sex with it, as no corpse can give consent to someone having sex with it, then of course you then must be against?

I believe there is no way of knowing if an animal can consent, although the one Zoophile I knew claimed that there was.

What if someone consented to be used for necrophiliac sex acts before death? Like how some individuals give their bodies for medical research, except these people would be paid money.

It is a better alternative to having necrophiles raid cemeteries and kill people to have sex with.

With all due respect Onyx, I'll leave this thread to others now who might like to comment, I'm just uncomfortable with these two subjects that I feel are beyond depraved and very disturbing and would prefer not to get in-depth with either of them.

Get used to it. Western Civilization is going down the crapper fast.

The whole argument that animals need to give their consent is meaningless. After all, when do they give their consent to be beasts of burden, or jailed in a zoo, or put on your dinner table. No, soon this sort of thing will be normalized as well because society has become depraved and Godless.

Well, I know that some high school girls have it off with their dogs because they say that way they will not get pregnant. They love German shepherds especially.

"..I know that some high school girls have it off with their dogs.."

No you don't.

 

[Onyx]

Legalize all sexual perversions'? Who gets to decide what is perverted?

Apparently you.

See the quote in reference at the bottom.

to the OP, bestiality harms innocent animals. There can be no consent.

You need to justify that argument a little further. Simply asserting it to be true only works when it is a universally agreed premise.

There can be no consent with necrophilia either but it harms no one.

What about society and its reverence for the sanctity of the dead?

IMO, both are repugnant.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As no animal can give consent to someone having sex with it, as no corpse can give consent to someone having sex with it, then of course you then must be against?

I believe there is no way of knowing if an animal can consent, although the one Zoophile I knew claimed that there was.

What if someone consented to be used for necrophiliac sex acts before death? Like how some individuals give their bodies for medical research, except these people would be paid money.

It is a better alternative to having necrophiles raid cemeteries and kill people to have sex with.

With all due respect Onyx, I'll leave this thread to others now who might like to comment, I'm just uncomfortable with these two subjects that I feel are beyond depraved and very disturbing and would prefer not to get in-depth with either of them.

Get used to it. Western Civilization is going down the crapper fast.

The whole argument that animals need to give their consent is meaningless. After all, when do they give their consent to be beasts of burden, or jailed in a zoo, or put on your dinner table. No, soon this sort of thing will be normalized as well because society has become depraved and Godless.

No its not. There is very little different now except the technology that makes it easier to see/learn/know. Society is not more "depraved" now than at any other time in history. As to being 'godless", atheism is more common now but open discussion of it is.

Animals have always been used and abused and some people always will use and abuse them. The same is true of children. Both deserve better than they get from this world but it has nothing at all to do with believing in a god. The bible absolutely revels in cruelty to animals, children, women ...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Legalize all sexual perversions'? Who gets to decide what is perverted?

Apparently you.

See the quote in reference at the bottom.

to the OP, bestiality harms innocent animals. There can be no consent.

You need to justify that argument a little further. Simply asserting it to be true only works when it is a universally agreed premise.

There can be no consent with necrophilia either but it harms no one.

What about society and its reverence for the sanctity of the dead?

IMO, both are repugnant.

She said that all should be legalized. I ask, rhetorically, who decides what should be legal. Point being, most have an agenda - which agenda should be followed?

Non-human animals cannot consent and they are often/usually/always harmed. You are correct that some say its not harmful. I don't agree.

"...society's sanctity of the dead..."

Not every one feels anything like "sanctity". Some see the dead as a shell to be disposed of. While I'm not an authority, I daresay that sex with the dead takes place in secret. Therefore, "society" probably never knows about it.

IMO, both are repugnant.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

BTW, there are many places - towns, counties, etc - in the US where bestiality is not illegal.

 

[Onyx]

BTW, there are many places - towns, counties, etc - in the US where bestiality is not illegal.

Not sure about that.

While there may not be specific laws on bestiality, most offenders would be prosecuted under animal cruelty charges.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

BTW, there are many places - towns, counties, etc - in the US where bestiality is not illegal.

Not sure about that.

While there may not be specific laws on bestiality, most offenders would be prosecuted under animal cruelty charges.

in 14 [13] states ([Alabama], Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming) there are no laws against bestiality.

=============

Table of State Animal Sexual Assault Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center

Map of the Day: Bestiality-Friendly States

=====

AL to outlaw bestiality, but it's still legal to rape a sheep in 13 states - Watchdog.org

 

[Coyote]

When I think of human sexuality - it goes beyond physical responses, into the the realm of ethics. Authority is also "responsibility for" - if you are in a position of authority with children for example - a parent, a teacher, etc - you have a responsibility to keep them safe, and to not take advantage of them. It's the same way with animals.

Okay, let me explain why your argument is confusing.

You are claiming that an animal cannot consent because human beings have an ethical duty to protect animals (reference end quote). The definition of consent is to give permission.

If an animal were capable of giving permission, then how could they be violated or taken advantage of?

Animals can't consent for the same reason children can't. Humans are alway in a position of authority with domestic animals, thus we have a responsibility to them - it would be an abuse of that sexually abuse them.

If you were to argue that animals did not have the mental capacity to consent to a human, then that would make for a better case. For example, modern society does not view human beings as being mentally capable of giving consent until they are ages 14-18, depending on where you live.

I would argue they aren't mentally capable of giving consent - yes. Thus we are responsible for their welfare as their "owners".