If someone has sexual and/or intimate relations with an animal (the animal is not showing any signs of resistance or harm), is this (By Peritwinkle MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamondBronze Crown 5 years ago)

OR
169 votes
23 comments
image
Peritwinkle says No, I'm not sexually attracted to owls.

Votes by gender

Guys
48 votes
29.2%
70.8%
Girls
24 votes
16.7%
83.3%
Unknowns
97 votes
23.71%
76.29%

Votes by country map view

United States
101 votes
30%
70%
Australia
17 votes
18%
82%
United Kingdom
16 votes
13
87%
Unknown
6 votes
17%
83%
Canada
3 votes
67%
33%
Ireland
3 votes
33%
67%
Sweden
3 votes
100%
Saudi Arabia
2 votes
100%
Netherlands
2 votes
100%
Bulgaria
2 votes
100%
Turkey
1 vote
100%
South Africa
1 vote
100%
Romania
1 vote
100%
Unknown
1 vote
100%
China
1 vote
100%
Singapore
1 vote
100%
Iraq
1 vote
100%
Taiwan
1 vote
100%
Saint Martin
1 vote
100%
Costa Rica
1 vote
100%
France
1 vote
100%
Greece
1 vote
100%
Mongolia
1 vote
100%
Finland
1 vote
100%
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    The animal still doesn't know any better, plus it's sick
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    madgeundersee FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Queensland, Australia
    Bestiality.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    President_Bob Silver MedalSuper Star from Telford and Wrekin, United Kingdom
    It's kind of wrong to do this. I mean you first have to have sexual relations with it before you know if it resists or not!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    There are some sexual acts in which the animal is consenting. For example, let's say a dog enjoys giving a woman oral sex. The dog is free to come and go as he/she pleases and is not being abused. Bestiality is weird but I can't find a moral objection to it in cases like this. That being said, I can't call it either moral or immoral, but rather it's pretty neutral. Maybe 'morally permissible' would be the proper term.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +6
    Tough one. I think that it is immoral to use a lesser creature for your sexual gratification, when it may have no idea what's going on. By the same logic, having sex with a heavily retarded girl or a small child is also immoral, even if they seem willing/indifferent. The harm done is just spiritual rather than physical.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    What is spiritual harm and how can you know what causes it? How can something be non-physical? What does that even mean?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +5
    It probably is, but I wouldn't recommend it, since we don't know enough about animal psychology to be sure that it is signalling that it consents.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    Beastiality of any kind is immoral. Animals must only breed or have sexual relations within their own species.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Gareth_Bale11 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Maryland, United States
    You see, that's why he he has a diamond
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    Why?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Because that's how it's dictated by nature.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    This is an absurd argument. If morality is dictated by nature, then every natural behavior would be morally permissible. Murder, rape, slavery, genocide, etc are all very natural human behaviors but that does not make these things morally permissible. I can't believe people still make this argument.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    You make an interesting point. Genocide and rape aren't dictated by nature, neither are slavery and murder. These are simple urges or the outcome of man' free will if you like. When I talk about nature, I talk about nature in its very core basis and not simply natural instinct or behavior. Species can only interbreed and reproduce among their own kind and not with other species. This isn't my opinion it's biological law. Morality is a very subjective term and depending on who you talk to, their basis of morality is completely different. If you're a meat eater then you too are a murderer whether you prefer to admit to it or not. You kill animals that are below you in the food chain because you can. My point from that is that what you consider murder may be different to what someone else does.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Sure, by definition species can only successfully reproduce within their own species, but that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether bestiality is morally acceptable. What you claim to be 'biological law' does not dictate morality. By that reasoning, homosexuality and sex with contraception would be immoral (maybe ? I'm still confused on what you think the basis for morality should be). As to your comment on subjective morality, sure, people have differing opinions on moral behavior but I think to a certain extent morality is objective. As moral agents, rational beings that inflict suffering upon other beings have committed a moral wrong. For example, a human having sex with a non-human animal (or another human, of course) when they clearly do not consent is immoral because the extreme suffering of the victim dictates that the action is immoral. But in certain cases, such as the one I described above, the animal isn't suffering and perhaps even enjoys it, so I cannot say it is immoral. How can an action be immoral if no party suffers from it?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Well, like I mentioned previously morality is completely subjective and your opinion on this issue is the very proof of that. We all develope a sense of morality from different roots, whether it be religion, laws of nature and simply past teachings etc. The animal may not be suffering, sure, but (i think) the same thing can be said about a 10 year old girl consenting to sex with a much older man. Yes, she might've consented to it, but does that really mean that it was a moral act? Well maybe, that depends on the person's moral perspective, but the way I see it is that the girl didn't know any better at the time and that the act could be seen as 'taking advantage' or perhaps as a result of a party's innocence and negligence at the time. All this said, I respect your opinion on this because of the very reason that I said different people have different codes of morality and there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    False anthropomorphism. Nature does not dictate anything.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    You couldn't be more wrong on thinking I said what I said from a religious POV. I was talking completely scientifically and would love for you to prove me wrong! Species can ONLY interbreed within their kind as a result of their biological properties. And I don't agree with what you say about "nature does not dictate anything". Nature dictates every physical, chemical and biological property in the world!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I never referenced religion. Interbreeding is totally irrelevant to the topic. We were talking about sex, not breeding. When I said "dictate" I meant "it dictates nothing about what humans ought to do".
  • image
    11 months ago
    ico
    MustaKrakish Gold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Pennsylvania, United States
    Racist
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    That is as long as the animal and the human both agree to it.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    guest from Cheshire, United Kingdom
    You f..king kidding me! The f.ck is wrong with people!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I don't see what's wrong with that, to be honest. They have each other's consent. So then what happens next is up to them.
  • image
    11 months ago
    ico
    MustaKrakish Gold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Pennsylvania, United States
    Exactly