Beastiality? (1 Viewer)

[Riveroaks]

Still a slow news day.

 

[sangha]

You probably don't need hot alien sex for that happen. Breathing the same air is probably enough.

While it is possible without sex, it generally takes a lot of close intimate (though not necessarily sexual) contact for a disease to jump from one species to the next. In the absence of cross-species sex, there wouldn't be near as much close contact

 

[Aunt Spiker]

All the girlies in the movie "Avatar" looked like kitties and were very pretty.

Real women do not look like that however.

Real women look like you Auntie S. And that's good enough for me.

Awe man! I want to look like The Borg Queen.

I've always had the hots for her.

 

[Riveroaks]

Awe man! I want to look like The Borg Queen.

I've always had the hots for her.

I used to lady like her.

Very skinny like most actresses.

Women like you are better Auntie S.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I used to lady like her.

Very skinny like most actresses.

Women like you are better Auntie S.

You have a thing for the walking stereotypes. You dig the whole blond-haired, blue-eyed, bit-tit thing.

 

[Riveroaks]

You have a thing for the walking stereotypes. You dig the whole blond-haired, blue-eyed, bit-tit thing.

Oh no not at all Auntie S. That was a bad guess on your part.

I have dated a few blondes. But they are my least favorite types.

I preferred dark haired women like Italian or Scottish.

 

[maquiscat]

I am more interested in a plastic doll with AI. Would that be naughty?

Interesting question. Is the AI doll considered a life form? Is our concept of needing concert limited only to life Forms?

 

[maquiscat]

You should ask someone from Texas where they have a lot of steers and cows home on the range.

Which has what to do with the concept of an intelligent sentient animal?

 

[Skruddgemire]

Inter-species sexual activity provides a means for diseases that affect only one of the species to mutate into a form that infects the other species. Being a new form of disease, the previously immune species has no defense against the newly infectious agent. It is how pandemics like chicken pox, small pox, etc get started

Consent is not the only issue that needs to be considered. Given the potential for causing a pandemic, any inter-species sex is irresponsible and immoral.

A bit outside the scope of the conversation dontcha think? This was simply a question of "is this beastiality?" and not going into the full ramifications of immunicological, moral, cultural issues.

And assuming that disease is something that can be dealt with (as such an encounter would be in the future of FTL space travel and medical advances would Mose likely advance as well), is it still irresponsible and immoral?

 

[maquiscat]

Could you potentially reproduce with them?

Would that make a difference? Make your arguments for both possibilities.

 

[maquiscat]

I suppose it would still be beastiality. It is still having sex with a non-human "beast" -- beastiality doesn't necessarily imply the animal's ability to consent.

Allowable? Sure, I guess, if it gets your rocks off. But personally, no thank you.

Define beast.

 

[Skruddgemire]

I suppose it would still be beastiality. It is still having sex with a non-human "beast" -- beastiality doesn't necessarily imply the animal's ability to consent.

Allowable? Sure, I guess, if it gets your rocks off. But personally, no thank you.

But is the other entity still technically a beast? It is an intelligent, sentient being who can think for itself. A beast can not. A cat while clever, lacks the full intelligence of a sentient being and therefor can not consent. A cat-person can.

And if you think of it in your terms...technically we are beasts as well being barely evolved simians ourselves. For the other species, they'd be shagging a hairless primate.

 

[maquiscat]

And assuming that disease is something that can be dealt with (as such an encounter would be in the future of FTL space travel and medical advances would Mose likely advance as well), is it still irresponsible and immoral?

This presumes extraterrestrial origins. I did note that it was possible for them to be terrestrial as well, either previously undiscovered or, trans dimensional. Hey it's a thought experiment!

 

[Riveroaks]

Which has what to do with the concept of an intelligent sentient animal?

You'll need to go to Texas to find out.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Define beast.

Classically, it has typically referred to any fair-sized non-human animal. But being such a layperson's term, it doesn't have an exact definition. It's not part of some kind of medical lexicon or something. Does it matter?

 

[joG]

Interesting question. Is the AI doll considered a life form? Is our concept of needing concert limited only to life Forms?

That is a question that can be discussed all night.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

But is the other entity still technically a beast? It is an intelligent, sentient being who can think for itself. A beast can not. A cat while clever, lacks the full intelligence of a sentient being and therefor can not consent. A cat-person can.

And if you think of it in your terms...technically we are beasts as well being barely evolved simians ourselves. For the other species, they'd be shagging a hairless primate.

I dunno. Since we don't have any existent species of that level of intelligence, apart from ourselves, I don't know how our language would change if we discovered one. I don't see this as being terribly important to the premise, however.

Yeah, basically. I've always found it amusing how so many people want to exclusive themselves from being animals, preferring to imagine humanity as a race of demi-gods instead. Ah, the narcissism of humanity as a species... At the end of the day, one good super volcano could kill pretty much all of us, just like any other animal.

 

[sangha]

A bit outside the scope of the conversation dontcha think? This was simply a question of "is this beastiality?" and not going into the full ramifications of immunicological, moral, cultural issues.

And assuming that disease is something that can be dealt with (as such an encounter would be in the future of FTL space travel and medical advances would Mose likely advance as well), is it still irresponsible and immoral?

No, I don't think it's outside the scope. There's a presumption that consent is the one and only issue that distinguishes beastiality. I do not agree.

And while I'm sure that medical science will advance, I think it's unlikely that it will be able to cure diseases as soon as they appear.

 

[Gathomas88]

Would that make a difference? Make your arguments for both possibilities.

The ultimate aim of sexuality is reproduction. As such, if one can successfully have children with the entities you're describing, it could basically be construed as being roughly the same as having sex with a slightly funny looking human being.

Which kind of goes to another point. Exactly how "bestial" are we talking here? Is it "cute anime girl who simply happens to have cat ears and a tail," or full on "you're having sex with a talking cat that simply happens to walk on two legs?"

Because... Yeah, either way you want to look at it, the latter is still "bestiality," and basically the only thing that could save it from that definition is the potential for reproduction. It's really little better than an incredibly fancy form of masturbation.

 

[blarg]

Ok so this is purely a thought experiment or debate or what have you with certain preconditions imposed. If you don't present your arguments within the context of those preconditions then you're a twat waffle.

Supposition 1: Sentient humanoid life forms exist, maybe terrestrial or maybe extraterrestrial, that are highly resembling animals, like a cat person or badger person.

Supposition 2: While still bearing the shapes of their animal counterpart, there are individuals who are sentient and intelligent, to the point where they could hold their own in science and debate and such. They have the ability to communicate clearly, whether by vocal means, or a device, and telepathy or whatever.

Would you consider sex with individuals from either case to be beastiality? Even if so, would you consider it allowable given the intelligence and ability to give informed consent?

Again, this does not supposed that such a situation is possible based on current knowledge. It is simply to see how people view this particular aspect.

seems they could give consent so i guess its ok if both beings are mature and willing

 

[maquiscat]

Classically, it has typically referred to any fair-sized non-human animal. But being such a layperson's term, it doesn't have an exact definition. It's not part of some kind of medical lexicon or something. Does it matter?

Only in being sure of the context in which you are using the word. Many others have gone with the concept that intelligence and sentience no longer qualifies the individual as a beast.

 

[maquiscat]

The ultimate aim of sexuality is reproduction. As such, if one can successfully have children with the entities you're describing, it could basically be construed as being roughly the same as having sex with a slightly funny looking human being.

No, A goal of sex is reproduction, but not all attempts at such are geared towards that, especially when couples engage in such with no chance of reproduction occurring. Sex is also about pleasure and/or expressing love. Now the ultimate aim of reproduction is to pass one's genes on, where as the ultimate aim of rearing a child is to pass one's values on. These two goals are not mutually dependent upon each other.

Which kind of goes to another point. Exactly how "bestial" are we talking here? Is it "cute anime girl who simply happens to have cat ears and a tail," or full on "you're having sex with a talking cat that simply happens to walk on two legs?"

We could run the entire range here all the way down to a talking cat that is still on four legs. Think Narnia.

Because... Yeah, either way you want to look at it, the latter is still "bestiality," and basically the only thing that could save it from that definition is the potential for reproduction. It's really little better than an incredibly fancy form of masturbation.

So just to be clear, you are saying that sex with a human level intelligence being with the shape of, say, a house cat, or better yet a great cat, is still beastiality? Also what is with the potential for reproduction bit? Are you saying there that any situation where reproduction cannot occur is beastiality?

 

[Paleocon]

Ok so this is purely a thought experiment or debate or what have you with certain preconditions imposed. If you don't present your arguments within the context of those preconditions then you're a twat waffle.

Supposition 1: Sentient humanoid life forms exist, maybe terrestrial or maybe extraterrestrial, that are highly resembling animals, like a cat person or badger person.

Supposition 2: While still bearing the shapes of their animal counterpart, there are individuals who are sentient and intelligent, to the point where they could hold their own in science and debate and such. They have the ability to communicate clearly, whether by vocal means, or a device, and telepathy or whatever.

Would you consider sex with individuals from either case to be beastiality? Even if so, would you consider it allowable given the intelligence and ability to give informed consent?

Again, this does not supposed that such a situation is possible based on current knowledge. It is simply to see how people view this particular aspect.

Such creatures do not exist. It is pointless to engage in moral speculation about impossibilities.

 

[Gathomas88]

No, A goal of sex is reproduction, but not all attempts at such are geared towards that, especially when couples engage in such with no chance of reproduction occurring. Sex is also about pleasure and/or expressing love. Now the ultimate aim of reproduction is to pass one's genes on, where as the ultimate aim of rearing a child is to pass one's values on. These two goals are not mutually dependent upon each other.



We could run the entire range here all the way down to a talking cat that is still on four legs. Think Narnia.



So just to be clear, you are saying that sex with a human level intelligence being with the shape of, say, a house cat, or better yet a great cat, is still beastiality? Also what is with the potential for reproduction bit? Are you saying there that any situation where reproduction cannot occur is beastiality?

Reproduction is the only reason sexuality - or sexual relationships, for that matter - even exist. Otherwise, the whole thing's simply a waste of time and energy.

Hedonisic minded modernists may like to pretend that this isn't the case. At the end of the day, however, that's all it is - pretending. Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, there is no serious debate on this issue. Sexuality exists for the purposes of passing on one's genes, or forming pair bonds which will eventually culminate in the passing on of one's genes, and give the resulting offspring a better chance of survival. Everything else is ultimately tangential.*

Our instincts are geared towards that reality. Granted, instincts can exist which go against it. However, almost by definition, they are abnormal, quite often damaging in some regard, and usually a sign of some biological or psychological wire being "crossed" somewhere in the greater overall system. They tend to have rather limited utility, and only sporadic representation in the general population, for that exact reason.

Sooo... Again, in any eventuality, what the OP describes is bestiality. A "normal" person really wouldn't have the desire to have sex with such a creature in the first place, as the act is biologically pointless, and even potentially dangerous, given the potential for transmitting pathogens involved. A normal person's instincts would tell them as much, which would probably lead to their being actively repulsed by the idea, in point of fact.

As for the kind of person who's not?

Well... If they've got a legitimate attraction to animals, something screwy's going on to begin with. If they don't have a legitimate attraction, but are so focused on pleasure seeking that they do it anyway, as I said before, that's basically little better than really fancy form of masturbation.

Again - either way - in all cases, it's still "bestiality."

*

Spoiler

If one were a Bonobo, I suppose they could argue that sexuality can also work towards the purposes of establishing community bonds. However, that species is very much the exception, rather than the rule, in this regard. Frankly, even in their case, that still involves reproduction. The sphere of "bonding" (and therefore mutual support networks) the sexuality in question is meant to create is simply larger.

That's also completely ignoring the fact human beings are not Bonobos, and do not share those instincts.

 

[Skruddgemire]

No, I don't think it's outside the scope. There's a presumption that consent is the one and only issue that distinguishes bestiality. I do not agree.

What other issues are there? What else defines bestiality in your opinion?

To go by the textbook definition of a beast is as follows...

1. any nonhuman animal, especially a large, four-footed mammal.
2. the crude animal nature common to humans and the lower animals.
3. a cruel, coarse, filthy, or otherwise beastlike person.
4. a live creature, as distinguished from a plant.

Definitions 1 and 4 are the ones that are relevant to the discussion as a person expressing a more bestial side is still "human" and having sex with them is not bestiality.

So now we have to define what divides an animal (a beast if you will) from someone (human/alien/extra-dimensional being/cryptid/etc). True that consent is not the only point that one has to consider. I can make a cat consent to having its claws trimmed (takes time, patience and positive reinforcement). I can also make a human child consent to having its nails trimmed (again time, patience and positive reinforcement). But the kicker is that I can not explain to the cat *why* having its claws trimmed is something that needs doing.

The human child on the other hand...

So when I say to the child "Hey, your toenails are getting long and you're wearing holes in your socks, time to trim them"...the child can understand the concept and can either choose to go along with the trimming or can decide to have a temper tantrum over it. The cat on the other hand just knows that I'm about to do something to its paws and it'll get tuna-flavored Pounce afterwards.

So while both might be considered a form of consent...only one is *informed* consent. Only one of the two examples (human v. animal) has the processing power to do so.

So a sentient, intelligent anthropomorphic critter would have the ability to want to have sex with a human, would have the processing power to understand what it involved and finally to give informed consent. So to my mind...that is not bestiality but an arrangement between two sentient beings. No different than when my wife and I first decided to consent to having our first sexual encounter.

And while I'm sure that medical science will advance, I think it's unlikely that it will be able to cure diseases as soon as they appear.

Ever hear of a condom? Unless the alien species has an illness that is airborne (in which case just being in the same room with one would be a bad idea), or has acidic/caustic/extremely hot or cold secretions from their joy department...a condom reduces that risk.

And yes it is outside of the scope of the argument. At no point did the OP say "and we need to keep diseases in mind". This is simply a philosophical discussion of whether having sex with a being that has traits in common with animals (anthropomorphic beings such as cat-people, sentient beings that look like animals such as an intelligent and sentient horse, or creatures that are a hybrid between the two such centaurs) is bestiality.

If you're interested in the other issues of sex with sentient non-humans...perhaps you might want to consider starting a new thread on such. Like as not it'll generate a very active and interesting discussion.