General Question

meatheadbox's avatar

[NSFW] Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia are frowned upon as ill, Why? What is the reasoning behind it?

Asked by meatheadbox (333 points ) July 21st, 2010

These philias are sexual desires & are not harmful to another creature, whether human or animal alike or an inanimate object(corpse). If one has a sexual desire to show affection by tasting his/her lovers feces (with consent), & if a sexual lover, who gives consent to his partner before death, to allow the partner to use the cadaver for his/her sexual pleasures, (has nothing to do with respect for the dead, as consent was given) or if an animal who is being sodomized by humans or oral play, or visa versa, furthermore, does not show resistance, but pleasure (which is consent), what would be the reasoning by deeming these actions as ill, when there is no physical harm being done & it’s not effecting anyone else as it is not done publicly?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

281 Answers

dpworkin's avatar

There are a lot of sexual practices which are not condoned by the larger community. That does not make them wrong, unless they are non-consensual, or involve behavior in which consent cannot be given, or do life-threatening bodily damage. The law will one day catch up with practice.

meatheadbox's avatar

So it’s justified as ill without reason, but rather for mere emotional distastes?

dpworkin's avatar

Law is inherently conservative, and is well behind societal norms. Who do you imagine is calling these practices ill? I don’t much hear about them except as jokes, such as in a John Waters movie.

meatheadbox's avatar

The psychiatrists of course. As they do for other behaviors, for instance, I enjoy seclusion, well I must be depressed, aloof, perhaps suffer from espergers syndrome, the signs are there.. I must be ill, who knows, the list of goes on with these pseudo-practicing psychiatrists.

tragiclikebowie's avatar

I would equate Necrophilia and Zoophilia as a form of rape.

A dead body was once alive, and that person could have given consent or not. Since the conciousness is now gone and it is now just a body, any defiling of that body can not be given with consent (unless previously arranged). Therefore, I would see it as a form of rape. If consent was given prior to death, then whatever. I’m sure there would still be a lawsuit waiting to happen in there somewhere.

As for animals: Age of consent in humans is anywhere between 14–18 depending on which state you’re in. I would venture to say that most animals are on a human intelligence scale equivalent with a child. Therefore in human terms, they legally can not give consent (if they could communicate with us). Seeing as they can not communicate with us effectively, I would stay it still stands that it is rape.

That is my legal perspective on it.

meatheadbox's avatar

Well, with regards to necrophilia, I wrote consent was given, & no lawsuit would be taken as consent was given prior to death as a form of will contract. As for Zoophilia, you aren’t giving the animals enough credit, look in to how smart dolphins are, and we do communicate with animals, and they communicate with us through physical responses, dogs that lead the blind?

tragiclikebowie's avatar

@meatheadbox I give animals plenty of credit. They have their own kind of intelligence but on a human intelligence scale most animals are still considered in the realm of children. In a case such as this, how can we use the animals own intelligence scale instead of our own? They are not the ones seeking US out for pure sexual pleasure. It is a completely separate issue than “dogs leading the blind”. We are supposed to be stewards to the animals and help protect them and let them lead their lives in peace. Not exploit them for our own sick fetishes.

As for necrophilia; if the dead person had a family, or the person fucking the corpse was found out; you bet your ass there would be some sort of legal action and/or lawsuit.

anartist's avatar

Why? Because they are gross. Tell me shit isn’t gross and I’ll tell you you are crazy.
Fucking dead folk? When? When they are soft and warm and all they have apparently lost is the will to refuse you? Or when they are cold, and stiff, and have lost normal flesh tones and their eyes stare at you? Or
when the maggots have entered and the eyes have rotted and the lips have pulled back exposing too much “long it the tooth” teeth and the body is covered with putrescent lesions? Even if you want to get ‘em while they’re hot, what are you fucking? Something without a will. Something no longer human or even animate? Disgusting.

As for sheep/goat/camel/horse fucking, “chacun à son goût” said Mrs O’Leary as she kissed the cow.—but will you love me tomorrow?

Shit is gross, so are decomposed corpses.
Bestiality may well be cruelty to animals. Did they consent?

meatheadbox's avatar

tragiclikebowie, do show me that an animal has the intelligence of a child? Do show me we must protect animals, you mean how MacDonalds slaughter houses do? When a dog humps someone’s leg, does it not seek out sexual pleasure? If an animal gets sucked of & releases tension does it not put a smile on it’s face, such as a horse? The lawsuit would can swing either way, as a legal contract was formulated.

Your_Majesty's avatar

I can only comment on Cropophilia since feces contain contagious diseases and that is main reason why people didn’t like this particular philia.

(Seems like I have to write the same words again)
– I don’t see Necrophilia as taboo since a corpse is just a material,just like animal bones,skin,carcass,etc. It’s the same like having sex with a doll,a preserved dead animal,etc. It’s not wrong,and it’s legal as along as you own that corpse. Unlike Cropohilia,there’s no potential diseases in Necrophilia as long as the corpse is well preserved.

- I don’t see Zoophilia as taboo as long as we do it with our close-genetic cousin. There’s nothing wrong if you want to have a sex with a gorilla or a chimp,we even share the same ancestor. If a lion can have sex with a tiger and produce fertile/infertile offspring(most would be infertile) we could also do the same thing as long as we do it with other related species(it’s unfair and weird that we can’t produce hybrid like other animals). We’re animals,after all.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
meatheadbox's avatar

anartist, what is gross to you is someones sexual desire, if it isn’t harming you or effecting you in anyway, your opinion is duly noted but does not mean laws should be based on your opinions. Laws are there to protect people.
Doctor_D, what about “scat” “toilet games” in pornography, they don’t swallow it but rather taste it and rub themselves with it, & they have been doing this for years on end, so it must not be as dangerous as you make it?

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Your_Majesty's avatar

@jjmah I have a sense that your opinion refers to me. ‘Materialism’ and ‘Evolutionarism’ is the way I see this world(I don’t think there’s something wrong with it). Please don’t get upset if we’re different in this particular issue.

@meatheadbox There’s no problem if they rub it with their bodies,but if they taste it(with tongue) then there’s no doubt that they would be infected. People who did that usually have already visited a specialist doctor and again after they did that to prevent unnecessary diseases. They certainly know the consequences,like when people do anal sex with out any ‘safety tools’. Will people in this pornography scene tell you if they had taken some sort of necessary medication before and after this particular sex? I don’t think so.

Randy's avatar

There may be traces of feces in certain foods but to say that half of all food in a supermarket is made of pure shit is a more than an exaggeration.

You can argue all you want but the fact is that 99,999,999 out of 100,000,000 find all the things you listed as disgusting, unethical, and just plain wrong. The majority makes the rules.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
meatheadbox's avatar

Randy, you give mankind to much credit, as I said, these philias are performed within closed doors, how do you know that this “majority” don’t mutilate cadavers in the privacy of their own home?

Randy's avatar

@meatheadbox How do you know they do?

Neizvestnaya's avatar

I’ve always believed it’s because objects, animals and corpses aren’t “consentual”. Other than that I don’t think about it too much. ugh.

meatheadbox's avatar

I don’t, some of it makes it to the news, while others don’t, for instance few years ago, I believe a man died due to a horse sticking it’s dick way to far up the guys ass, tearing his organs. Here’s an example,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002384648_farm16m.html
http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4158101.html

Randy's avatar

@meatheadbox well that right there is a great example as to why it’s a bad idea and why no one should do it. The fact that people think to do it is reason enough to have laws against it.

meatheadbox's avatar

Randy, well, it doesn’t always happen. One bad case does not speak for majority. I understand if people were dying left and right, but that’s not the case. I was just pointing out that it exists within closed doors, just like politicians attempt to hide their sexual preferences until they are forced to come out with it. That’s why I’m always cynical of people, as humans have no bound on imagination put into practice.

Randy's avatar

@meatheadbox Not all cars fall off mountain roads either but to ensure the safety of all, guard rails are put up. Sometimes all it takes is one to decide to take precautionary matters.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@meatheadbox We would stand out of the topic if we talk about that,but if I need to answer then the answer is simply “Reproduction control” (this is the soft/positive generalization).

Evolution won’t really can be used to determine a species existence and intellectuality (some aspect/we prevent it to happen. i.e. people built free school/facility for those who can’t afford for education,government still sustain these people,etc. I know I sound like a bad person but I need to do this to clarify this matter).

I prefer to use “Competition” (modernized competition) in this case. Less intelligent(I don’t like the “Idiotic” word) people will eventually diminish from this competitive world from time to time since (well,this is my personal hypothesis) someday in the future religions won’t exist anymore,all people would be more rational for whole. People will have to eliminate each other in order to survive in our ‘modernized human food chain’,only the strongest will exist.

Whether we like it or not we’re animals that live in animalistic world but just in different atmosphere.

meatheadbox's avatar

Doctor_d, well put, but I have a feeling your comment will be deleted. Your thoughts have to be in perfect harmony with everyones ideas & emotions.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Your_Majesty's avatar

@meatheadbox Why? Did I violate some rules here? I don’t think that I offend people here. I might sound like a genocide-person but that is wrong. I value life but just in different way,and I just gave you the fact with any pointless emotional aspects.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Trillian's avatar

@meatheadbox incorrect use of the word “irony”.
The argument which you use to support your assertion of “more than half the food in stores are pure shit” is frivolous and insupportable. In fact, it is glaringly incorrect.
What do you hope to accomplish here?
You have been given reasons by many jellies here. Your continued disputation of these reasons is unseemly and marks your intentions as either being a troll or a need for self justification. If you wish to eat feces, fuck corpses and chickens, feel free to do so. You do not need to come to us and practice your justification, not will you sell the ideas on their merits to the greater percentage of the population.
Bon Appetit!

Your_Majesty's avatar

Actually that is just another spelling differences.

You can put this @ symbol in the beginning of your text in order to make them brighter (i.e. @meatheadbox ).

I wish you a nice day!

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Maybe because to want to have sex with an animal, a corpse or fecal matter is disgusting. IMO, it’s pretty cut and dry. Why would you have the desire to have sex with those things, when perfectly decent, available, breathing human beings surround you? It’s just… nasty.

Luffle's avatar

Incest and pedophilia can be found in nature from animals. They do not discriminate against having sex with their family members or by age. Are you trying to imply that those things which also don’t cause physical harm to anyone and can be consented to shouldn’t be frowned upon?

Animals eat their poop. They can attempt to have sex with inanimate objects or animals they can’t breed with.

We are not animals.

meatheadbox's avatar

Trillian, I did use the word Irony correctly fore he was trying to tell people how to spell properly when he misspelled himself in the same sentence. Food is shit is supportable, as I said, have a look into genetically modified foods without using wikipedia as your source of information & the documentary food inc. I put out a question for opinion not validation, I argue the points made. Now you speculate, yet again, at my intentions of supporting such philias. As I said before, if you can’t argue the points rationally, then it would be best to say nothing as you aren’t following guidelines in being helpful.

WillWorkForChocolate, if you read previous comments, I wrote “what is gross to you is someones sexual desire, if it isn’t harming you or effecting you in anyway, your opinion is duly noted but does not mean laws should be based on your opinions. Laws are there to protect people”

Luffle. We are animals, brush up on your science, we just happen to be a more of a sophisticated animal due to our reasoning abilities. Incest & pedophilia amongst humans has be proven to be harmful, both physically and mentally. However, the philias I mentioned do not.

zophu's avatar

I don’t want to even consider why those things are wrong. They just are. I guess that’s not a very progressive attitude. . . But ew.

I guess if there’s no one being harmed, including the “phile,” it shouldn’t be an issue. But, I’d say that those practices are generally unhealthy for someone or something on some end of the circumstances. . . It’s up to psychology to determine that, I guess.

The rest is mildly offtopic:

@Doctor_D If someone’s got a weak brain, that brain can still behave intelligently. Competition implies condemnation—there’s necessary loss, of course, but does it really have to be in whole human beings? I think that with more scientific social designs, competition would become mostly unnecessary; ideas would become more clearly plausible or not plausible and any competition would involve elegant debate where even the weak-minded (which are probably less numerous than it often seems) could make sense of things. I believe that what you’re seeing as unintelligent people are mostly just insular neurotics; who’s neuroticism can be scientifically defined, detected and treated in unbiased ways.

I think the necessary increase in intelligence lies in how we organize ourselves, not in what people are allowed to persist. It’s tempting to turn contempt better suited for “the system” towards people themselves. We are products of our cultures, and that’s where our criticism should fall—on the cultures or on those cultures’ sources, not on the people. Kind of like the spread of civilization did, but this time we should do it with less assumed righteousness and more scientific reason. that sounded ominous, but you know what I mean.

Okay, enough off-topic rambling.

meatheadbox's avatar

zophu, those same pseudo practicing psychologist that base there diagnosis on generalized behaviors? As I wrote before to dpworkin, “The psychiatrists of course. As they do for other behaviors, for instance, I enjoy seclusion, well I must be depressed, aloof, perhaps suffer from espergers syndrome, the signs are there.. I must be ill, who knows, the list of goes on with these pseudo-practicing psychiatrists.”

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@meatheadbox Yes, I saw your comment, but I can also say that there are many laws in place that protect people who’ve done disgusting things. I won’t get into all that here as it would totally change the subject, my point is that laws are not always right.

downtide's avatar

with coprophilia you can catch unpleasant diseases.
Necrophilia and zoophilia because corpses and animals cannot give consent.

gemiwing's avatar

In the case of rape- pleasure is not consent. Just to clear that bit up.

meatheadbox's avatar

downtide, gemiwing, Read the description of the question again, in coprophilia & necrophilia I wrote with consent of the partner, whether alive or written in will contract before death. As for zoophilia, if an animal does not resist, or does the pleasuring, then it isn’t rape, it is consent for lack of resistance & pleasure for continuing the sexual action & finish with ejaculation.

zophu's avatar

@meatheadbox I was being pretty idealistic, I guess. I think that psychologists now are still too confined to the demands of culture over science. If we looked at what works in the natural world, applied that to make our culture(s) and then worked on helping people work with those “natural” cultures, psychology wouldn’t have to sacrifice so much to adjust people and it could focus much more on actually healing them.

But, regardless, we will always depend somewhat on cultures, (I think so at least,) so we will have to comply with them to a degree. That means that if a “scientifically healthy” culture needs people to not fuck sheep, we should make sure that the practice is discouraged. I don’t know for what reasons exactly fucking sheep would be a bad thing in some kind of super-culture, but I’m going to leave the possibility open that it would be.

Luffle's avatar

@meatbox Luffle. We are animals, brush up on your science, we just happen to be a more of a sophisticated animal due to our reasoning abilities. Incest & pedophilia amongst humans has be proven to be harmful, both physically and mentally. However, the philias I mentioned do not.

Incest and pedophilia are not physically harmful. People can consent to those acts. There is nothing that implies they are always forced.

Although you are asking for the opinion of other jellies, you are forcing your opinions on us. I do not consider myself to be an animal. You can consider yourself to be whatever you like.

meatheadbox's avatar

Luffle, This isn’t my philosophy, it’s science. Covered as early as 7–8th grade biology. Not a science believer, well when you can justify your alternative reasoning or disprove the theories, then I will heed your words that we are not animals. For peace of mind, you can believe what you like.

Luffle, wrote, “Incest and pedophilia are not physically harmful. People can consent to those acts.”

So a toddler who is incapable of reasoning skills can display consent, how exactly? By smiling? Are you f*** kidding me?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Far be it for science to be mistaken.

Luffle's avatar

Do not assume I am not a science believer. Animal has various definitions. Perhaps you’d like to check a dictionary or ask for clarification prior to jumping to conclusions.

You are listing specific circumstances so I am doing the same thing.

Necrophilia is not always consensual. Very few people will tell people they are fine with people having sex with their dead corpse prior to their death.

Pedophilia is not always non-consensual. 17 is still illegal but many 17 year olds are capable of consenting to having sex.

meatheadbox's avatar

Those are american standards, which is absurd, as in other countries it’s set to under the age of reasoning.

zophu's avatar

I think you guys just have a disagreement about the definition of consent. Essentially, willingness is equivalent to consent. You’re focusing on the legal definition of the term, @meatheadbox, which is justified. But there’s no reason to bash @Luffle for using it more generally.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

If humans are animals, then why the distinction between heterosexuality and bestiality?

And, when a human dies, do you still consider it human?

meatheadbox's avatar

zophu, fair enough, I specifically listed with consent in all the philias, for anything without consent may be harmful in numerous ways. I agree to that.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@Luffle We’re actually animals(unless you are a religionist person). We are the product of Evolution.

@zophu Human themselves can influence how competition should take its part on in this world. It is we,who create all those humanized social structure and how it works in society. And again,I always believe in ‘Materialism’ and ‘Evolutionarism’ so the fact that one population of less intelligent people is enough for that particular population to be eaten in our ‘modernized food chain’ (superior population don’t necessarily eliminate them,but they will have the right to exploit these less intelligent people at will,and again,if we/government didn’t interfere with this matter).

Seems like that you have your ‘Fairness theory’ about this issue but whether you believe it or not ‘intense competition’ still happen in this world(not on every aspect,but I believe someday it will corrupt all aspects in our human society),and we won’t survive till these days if we(the human race) didn’t live in competitive lifestyle. We still ‘kill’ each other in order to survive till nowadays( well some ‘lower’ people still live behind the protection of government and the ‘good’ rules of our society,they won’t live there forever,they got the chance but if they don’t use it well then don’t blame other people like me that they would be eliminated from our food chain. I still believe in chance and competition anyway).

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, bestiality is just a form of sexual affection for the beast, & human, by definition, means characteristics of people, if the person dies, then he/she is no longer human, but an inanimate object.

zophu's avatar

Some psychological reasonings behind necrophilia can be anthropomorphic issues, now that I think about it. Same with animal fucking (I don’t like the word zoophilia because it sounds too much like zophu). I bet there’s some reasonable psychological assumptions that can justify the cultural deterrence to those behaviors, even when they are consensual. Maybe they shouldn’t be legal things, but they can be considered medical issues, can’t they? Like obesity. It wont land you in jail to be fat, but it’s not good for you. So, it should be considered ill. Assuming that it can be reasonably believed that the philias listed above are harmful to the phile, beyond the harmful effects of stigmatizm I mean.

Bubblehead's avatar

=___= ewww.. You ask why these acts are seen as ill… well it seems unnatural. Is it really human instinct to have a sexual relation to a dead person, animal, or doing something with excretes…? I think its good that people don’t reveal these acts freely…or publicly… that way they know its wrong. right? therefore by not sharing their beliefs freely they can feel that they’re doing something wrong…

meatheadbox's avatar

Bubblehead, It’s not that they feel it’s wrong, it’s for the same reason that one doesn’t have any kind of sex in public.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@zophu “Same with animal fucking (I don’t like the word zoophilia because it sounds too much like zophu)”

May I ask what “Zophu” means? Why Zoophilia can’t correlate with human-animal inter-sex? Does it sound too ‘positive’ to explain something you think as ‘negative’?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “bestiality is just a form of sexual affection for the beast, & human, by definition, means characteristics of people”

Yeah I know what it is. So will you answer my question? If humans are animals then why the distinction between heterosexuality and bestiality?

You said “human, by definition, means characteristics of people”. Last I checked, animals don’t have em’. So how does “characteristics of people” qualify humans as animal?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And animals have sex in public. Humans, as you note, don’t tend to have such characteristics.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, we are the product of evolution, an advanced product, an animal with characteristics, thus called human. We make the distinction only for this reason alone between man’s reasoning & beast, we are still a beast, & humans do have sex in public, just depends in what environment and the laws of that environment, even with laws, humans have sex in public, they just get arrested for doing so. Just as animals are broken up, when they mate in public.

tragiclikebowie's avatar

Dogs have the intelligence of a 2 year old, on average. I could not find any other concrete statements as such, but there was a lot of speculation of animal intelligence that I found.

Animals are not stupid, but I do not think they can understand abstract ideas such as consent, or morality. In the eyes of the law, this would be equivalent with haveing sex with a child; just because the child doesn’t protest (and in some cases they don’t) does not make it consentual or right. Exhibiting pleasure and not saying “No,” is not the same thing as giving consent.

When dogs jump people’s legs it is a display of agression and dominance; not for sexual pleasure. And I think you’ve been watching too much beastiality porn. I’m sure those horses are well trained and possibly even drugged. You try to do that stuff to a horse who doesn’t know you and see what the reaction is.

And I say we should protect them. I do not eat meat, and I do not buy products made with animal parts. When I have a pet, that animal becomes a part of my family. I care for them as if they were my own child. And sorry, but I would never fuck my own child and I will never see it is as right or acceptable.

zophu's avatar

@meatheadbox Humans regulate their behavior for their own health (survival). That’s the key difference between us and much more passively regulated animals. We use our hands (and other appendages) for many, many things; where as other animals use their parts generally for very specific purposes. We have to spend more energy on keeping track of what we do and why we do it, what it does and whether or not it’s sustainable. Thats where rules like “don’t fuck dead people” come from. It’s not entirely unnatural. It plays a part in evolution. Not that cultures don’t fuck a lot of things up most of the time, but they’re still a part of nature—partially at least.

Pretty off-topic:

@Doctor_D It’s not about fairness so much as just cutting back on the rampant overcompetition that has been fucking with our social systems since the agricultural revolution. Analyze your beliefs more closely. It’s an easy idealogical bug to catch, hyper-competitiveness. Not to disrespect your scientific views on the matter.

I think the key question is this: Are the various scarcities we, the human population, experience necessary? Then we can determine whether or not the competition amongst us is necessary. And if it isn’t, then intense cooperation should be the only acceptable course. Look into planned-obsolescence, waste, food production and distribution, healthcare, education, occupations, the monetary system, etc.. I don’t think you can go far objectively without finding evidence upon evidence of unnecessary scarcity.

Seeing beyond the unnecessary scarcity to a sort of technological cornucopia requires a little imagination, but it is plausible enough to demand much more effort being directed towards it. The problem is, there are powerful cultures that benefit from our unnecessary competition—in fact, it is inevitable in any competitive social system that the more powerful become dependent upon the competition even if it is unnecessary—even if it is unsustainable. Thus it perpetuates itself like a cancer until the host dies a horrible mindless death.

You can see why your view makes me a little uncomfortable. :)

meatheadbox's avatar

tragiclikebowie, having sex with an animal (let say without consent) is in no way harmful physically or mentally as oppose to no consent with a child which is extremely harmful, both physically and mentally, so you can’t even make that comparison. As for animals displaying consent, I wrote, “As for zoophilia, if an animal does not resist, or does the pleasuring, then it isn’t rape, it is consent for lack of resistance & pleasure for continuing the sexual action & finish with ejaculation.” When the dog humps the leg, why does it display a face of enjoyment & wagging of the tail which is when it is exicted? Those horses aren’t trained or drugged, read some articles about it, Horses are very friendly creatures. You can care all you want, the reality of it is, animals get slaughtered by the minute, protect one, only to find thousands of them in the slaughter house/hunted down/animals killin animals, etc.. I hope that you are equip to make distinctions between a human child & “dog child”.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “we are the product of evolution”

Do you supposed their could be a wee bit more to it than that?

And as for humans having sex in public, may I remind you that I said “don’t tend to” and you reminded Randy that ”...it doesn’t always happen. One bad case does not speak for majority.”. Or does that only count for what you say it counts for? You seem to be flip flopping with objective statements to suit your position of the moment. I’m only bringing this up to address why you told @Bubblehead that it’s the “same reason that one doesn’t have any kind of sex in public.”

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, A wee bit more then that, such as? I’m flip flopping, because it’s circumstantial, you can’t generalize this, unless statistics are taken.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

By tossing out objective statements to suit your circumstantial position, then you are in fact generalizing what you say can’t be generalized.

meatheadbox's avatar

Isn’t the entire question circumstantial, as it all involves consent?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And statistics are not designed to support generalizations. They’re designed to provide specifics.

anartist's avatar

@meatheadbox oh the arrogance of ignorance! Faeces is the British spelling [def is from the OED] from the earlier Latinate spelling that used a combined letter form—fæces. Also used in archaic form of hæmmorhage [haemmorhage, hemmorhage] or æsophagus, aesophagus, esophagus.

Don’t be so quick to think you have all the answers.

meatheadbox's avatar

anartist, I noticed that when I scrolled up, Doctor pointed it out. Akward :(

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, that’s what I was saying statistics would stop all this generalization. Would have a better understanding.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Your statement that humans are animals has nothing to do with consent. I’m simply asking you to support that absolute statement, as it is being used as a foundational pillar to support the rest of your argument specifically refuting @Luffle‘s claim that humans and animals are not the same. I’m not interested in your argument until I’ve determined how stable the pillars of logic and science are that you’ve built your argument upon.

It involves much more than consent. As you say, it involves public displays and the criteria that determines humans and animals as being the same or different.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, and so I’ve told you, evolution, which zophu clarified. You asked for a wee bit more then that, and I ask you, such as?

Your_Majesty's avatar

I haven’t found any studies about this,but my rational brain believe that this could happen:
A woman who has been accepted in a group of gorilla can be ‘mated’ by an alpha/silverback gorilla if she get naked and put some concentrate of female gorilla’s pheromone around her anal part at mating season. A alpha gorilla will treat her just like the way he treats his other female members in this situation. So human not the only creature that can do these things,animals can too,we just need the right method.

@zophu It’s not the necessity that give birth to competition. Competition itself is unavoidable. Don’t think that human really have the ‘power’ to prevent it to happen regardless of the situation and circumstances(at least that is how I believe,they may deny that but they just can’t hold the ‘outcome’ to happen).

“Look into planned-obsolescence, waste, food production and distribution, healthcare, education, occupations, the monetary system,etc…”

These are the reasons and signs why competition is exist in our modernized metropolitan culture,Those aspects cannot sustain themselves and go to the next level without competition,competition itself born from there for better and more rational(and less excuses) humanity.

Why competition is unnecessary? How could it unsustainable? The answer could vary depend on what people in what kind of society.
Competition will benefit those who could last in it,whoever can last will take the benefit from it.

I feel sorry if I really makes you feel uncomfortable for my personal comment,but some people can and sometime will experience that if they own different ideology than others.

meatheadbox's avatar

Should I open up an evolution thread? “Discrepancy in evolution theory, survival of Homosexuality, sickle-cell, the weak minded.. etc..Is nature eugenics”?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You act as though there is one unified Law of Evolution, rather than a myriad of different Theories.

Are you speaking of Classic Darwinism, Neo Darwinism, or Wave Genetics? Do you refer to the research of James Schapiro or Wes Warren? Do you support the Random Mutations of Dawkins or the Controlled Mutations of McClintock?

Are you basing your comparisons purely upon physical attributes, and if so, from the coding sequences, or the non coding sequences?

And how does any of that explain poetry?

You say, a human has human characteristics. Will you be so kind as to define those for me, and how they support your conclusion that humans are animals? That should be a fairly easy and reasonable request, as you have built this argument upon that premise.

My main concern is the differences between humans and animals. That being abstract reasoning, fantasy, image/object relationships, language expansion, ability to theorize, etc… How does evolution account for these differences to the degree that you may confidently claim these characteristics were evolved from animals?

GingerMinx's avatar

How is feelign pleasure giving consent??? Some women who are raped feel pleasure, they are also revolted by it, are you telling me that means they are giving their consent?

meatheadbox's avatar

GingerMinx, women resist rape, animals don’t resist, well depending which kind, therefore, the combination of no Resistance with the continuing act of sex is the form of consent, also, as I said, even if an animal is raped, it won’t feel pain or suffer emotional trauma, so it’s no reason to deem it ill, and I said visa versa, implying that the animal does the dominance.

GingerMinx's avatar

Children often do not resist being sexually abused, is that giving consent? How do you know what trauma an animal may suffer?

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
meatheadbox's avatar

GingerMinx, That’s because they don’t know any better, no reasoning ability, you can’t compare animal to child. A child with or without consent is just plain harmful, physically and mentally, while an animal, let’s say a horse, is far greater in physique then a man, have you seen the size of a horses cock? What if it’s the women doing the act with the animal?

jonsblond's avatar

@GingerMinx “Some women who are raped feel pleasure”

Is that really true? I haven’t studied it, but I have been raped twice, and believe me, pleasure was far from my mind. Honest question here, your comment just surprised me.

GingerMinx's avatar

So its alright to have sex with something so long as it is the same size as you? Why can you not compare animals to children? Neither can give informed consent to the act. You say that to children it is harmful why is it not harmful to animals? @jonsblond , yes it is true, think about it, the sexual parts are being stimulated, they can feel pleasure even well feeling disgust at their own bodies.

meatheadbox's avatar

@GingerMinx, not at all, I was just implying that man/women can’t hurt the beast during intercourse, for the beast is equip to take in a much larger object(cock) then man can ever provide. Also sex can be done with the animal doing all the work, not person to the animal.

zophu's avatar

Cruelty to animals is only bad because of its negative effects on human health. We castrate pigs, for example. That can be considered cruel, but it’s not done out of cruelty so it’s generally fine. But then, even if a zoophile doesn’t have sex with animals out of cruelty, there may be legitimate reasons it is unhealthy for the zoophile and maybe their community. I don’t think animal cruelty is the only issue here. It’s a broader than that.

@Doctor_D I see your point, but will have to think about it more before I concede anything.

I believe I was trying to imply not that competition was unsustainable, but that the hypothetical social system I was talking about was unsustainable. One that allows fatal competition to go unchecked. It inevitably falls in on its own weight; the minority survive, but with an unnecessarily loss of much of the majority; social systems like that will ironically fail to compete for long-term success against more efficient systems. I don’t condemn competition, just the systems that depend upon the hyper-competitiveness.

I think I may have used the term too simply. I don’t mean competition so much in an evolutionary way, but in a sociological way. Of course, those two things coincide to a high degree, but evolution is reflective therefore probably shouldn’t be applied to current social concerns as a sort of natural law. I think that may be what you are doing, but I’m not sure. And if you are doing it, I’m not quite sure if it’s wrong to do. But I am sure that the irrational competition in civilization now is probably the primary cause for much of what prevents progress and needlessly causes great suffering and illness—that is definitely unsustainable. That’s why I felt compelled to disagree with your notions, (even though I admit I don’t completely understand them.)

GingerMinx's avatar

Of course they can hurt the beast. Humans can hurt each other if they do it wrong. Plus you say they suffer no emotional trauma how do you know? Do you read animal minds? They can not give informed consent to the act. A lack of resistance or a feelign of pleasure does not mean informed consent, an animal can not do that.

meatheadbox's avatar

@GingerMinx, how can they hurt the beast when the beside size can handle a much larger load then men can offer? They suffer no emotional trauma because the horse still functions as a horse after intercourse. If you say otherwise, what trauma is displayed? & it means exactly that, it just isn’t a consent through speech but rather physical expressions.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “women resist rape, animals don’t resist, well depending which kind, therefore, the combination of…”

See what I mean? You make an absolute statement, admit an objective caveat, but then proceed to your absolute conclusion as if the caveat never existed.

Please, change your user name to FlipFlop.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, I wasn’t basing this question on evolution, I was looking for reasoning to why it was considered ill, luffle took the matter of topic, you took it even more of topic, to which I answered briefly, now you want the whole science behind it, well, alright, give me some time to write it up.

jonsblond's avatar

@GingerMinx I have thought about it because I’ve lived it. I just find that very hard to believe. Thanks for answering though.

GingerMinx's avatar

It has nothing to do with size but how you do it. I see, so if a woman can still function as a woman after being raped she didn’t suffer any emotional trauma? I see so, if a man grabs a woman, gags her and ties her out so she can’t move or talk she is then giving consent to the act?

GingerMinx's avatar

@jonsblond, you’re welcome, I was molested as a child and understand what you are saying. It isn’t a mental pleasure but a physical one which they have no control over. Like stroking a mans penis and having it become erect even though he doesn’t want it to.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, how can I be specific when dealing with humans or animals? All is individual, I don’t have the knowledge of absolute truth that for every women that gets raped will resist, majority seem too, while some might enjoy the rush, as for animals, I said depends which kind for the wild animals, a wear-wolf will tear you apart while farm animals are friendly creatures.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

But humans are animals… remember.

@meatheadbox “I wasn’t basing this question on evolution, I was looking for reasoning to why it was considered ill,”

But supported the whole premise with a vague fallback position of evolution.

Don’t waste your “time writing it all up”. Stay on topic if you wish. Your topic is a spinning top, flipflop flipflop.

meatheadbox's avatar

@Luffle said she doesn’t believe she’s an animal, then you asked the distinction between hetero and bestiality. Yes, vaguely I said, evolution, what does this have to do with why mankind deems these philias ill?

Your_Majesty's avatar

@zophu I think we,at least,understand each other here. That sounds good to me since there’s no actual harm from our different view of points.

Actually,I want to elaborate my comment the best I could there,but my lack of vocabularism in English(I can do it much better in my own language) limits my ability to say anything/more effective words as I wanted so I apologize if I somehow mislead you.

My goodness! I’ve spent 6 hours on fluther. I must take a relaxing bath and go to sleep now. Have a nice day anyway!

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “what does this have to do with why mankind deems these philias ill?”

Because humans and animals are not the same. Differences have been distinguished, and animals do all the stuff you talk about with no reserve. Humans don’t. But you want to believe we are the same, and support it with evo (the evidence of science), then reject the evidence of observation, which of course is the first step in the scientific method.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, Again, if humans & animals are/are not the same, what does this have to do with the reasons for why these philias are frowned upon as ill?

GingerMinx's avatar

@meatheadbox , no response to my questions?

meatheadbox's avatar

GingerMinx, That all depends on the scenario & what type of characteristics the women has, as I was saying, humans are a complex form of animal, because characteristics are involved, If a man doesn’t even present an opportunity to allow the women to give/not give consent, then it is different, fore when you approach an animal without force but merely attempting to feel it out before you precede, then you will see the response it offers, which will be non-resistent for the farm animals are kind to humans.

GingerMinx's avatar

That is the same as what pedophiles do with children. Be nice to them, feel them out, groom them for sex. So because you can manipulate the animals it is alright to molest them?

meatheadbox's avatar

Wrong, the animal has very good animal instincts, it can sense danger, it is not manipulation when that is the core function of the animal, as oppose to a child who has characteristics but is not able to use them yet, therefore, that is solely manipulation.

GingerMinx's avatar

@meatheadbox, So again you are saying because they don’t run they give consent. The core function of animals other than humans is not to have sex with human beings. Animals can not give informed consent, without informed consent it is rape. Or do we only apply that to humans and it is alright to rape other animals?

meatheadbox's avatar

GingerMinx, combination of non-resistence + continuity in the action is consent. The animal isn’t equip to differitiate in sex, as I said we are biologically animals, the animal senses no harm, therefore, no resistence, it continues in this action fore it understands it as sex, regardless of what kind.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, by the way, darwin said man and the higher mammals have the same mental skills, but if you notice, it obviously isn’t true, fore our language is far more superior then that of the animal, as well as abstract thought, self-awareness and self-expression. As I was saying before, intelligent animal, but I know you want a full report, not vagueness.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Finally, an “if”... thank you. Thank you for not being so absolute in your subjectivity.

Just as you earlier told @dpworkin that not all psychological studies deem homosexuality a normative, I’m telling you that not all evolutionary theory concludes humans as animals.

So “if” your fixity of assumption is incorrect, then what are the qualifications that separate humans from animals? I propose that one qualification is that humans have the ability to consider the results of their actions beyond the immediate present and far into the distant future. We can predict and theorize about end results. Animals cannot theorize or contemplate. They have no language structure to do such a thing. They cannot consider the ramifications of their actions beyond the immediate moment. Humans can.

And THAT is why “Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia are frowned upon as ill”. Because not only do we have precedent to form a hypothesis, but we can also predict the final results on a micro and macro level through careful consideration.

The very characteristic that allows you to erroneously consider humans as animals.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “As I was saying before, intelligent animal.”

Dogs are intelligent animals. Evolution does not explain the ability for syntax and semantics expansion at the drop of a dime.

meatheadbox's avatar

I didn’t say they aren’t, I said we are the most intelligent animal.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

There is an entire paradigm shift between the characteristics of what it means to be human vs what it means to be animal. Shall we ignore that monumental chasm and conflate them as the same, simply to support an argument? Or shall we pursue an answer to the argument, in truth, without bias, by acknowledging what is observed?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And again, if you are to press this issue, what is it that makes a human an animal? Humans have characteristics and abilities that no animal can begin to express. But if you wish to break it all down to the flotsam and jetsam of the material substance, and disregard the mind, then by default, we are not animals either… we’re all just stardust.

meatheadbox's avatar

“Because not only do we have precedent to form a hypothesis, but we can also predict the final results on a micro and macro level through careful consideration.”

I don’t see how this shows that these philias are ill, all it shows is we are superior in intellect then the animal?

meatheadbox's avatar

What makes a human an animal cannot be summed up in a few words,

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You didn’t ask “how this shows that these philias are ill”.

You asked “Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia are frowned upon as ill”.

They are frowned upon because they are carefully considered.

meatheadbox's avatar

Can you be a little more specific in that? They carefully considered the philias, and? the conclusion is that the one involved must be ill, for it serves no purpose?

GingerMinx's avatar

“Combination of non-resistance + continuity”.... this is not informed consent and the same idea used by pedophiles, date rapes, to justify their actions. what adults do with informed consent I could care less, but animals can not give informed consent. Implied consent is not good enough.

meatheadbox's avatar

@gingerminx, let me ask you this then, even if consent wasn’t given by the animal, and one forced it into intercourse, what is the issue of illness?

GingerMinx's avatar

You don’t consider rape ill?

meatheadbox's avatar

For humans, yes, for it is harmful, for animals no, for it isn’t harmful, as I explained with what an animal can handle to which a human lacks, and If the women grabs the cock of the animal and toys with it, is that really rape?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “What makes a human an animal cannot be summed up in a few words,”

Then in the spirit of parsimony, I reject your premise.

@meatheadbox “the conclusion is that the one involved must be ill, for it serves no purpose?”

You know as well as I do that purpose is not a requirement for humanity. It is a pursuit at worst, and an exercise in human expression at best.

It’s not a matter of purpose. It’s a matter of considering behaviors and determining the beneficial and destructive properties to each individual, and contrasting that against the well being of society as a whole.

GingerMinx's avatar

So you are saying that raping animals is alright because it doesn’t hurt them? Who are you to say what does or does not hurt an animal? Yes, it is rape, is it rape if a woman grabs a mans penis and manipulates it wihtout asking him?

meatheadbox's avatar

Rape is applied only to humans, fore rape is harm. Anything sexual you do with an animal is not rape for it is not harmful, which is why I brought the question in, if no harm is done, why not just mind your own business, and not deem it as ill.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, you have yet to tell me the destructive properties & the effect it has on society as a whole?

GingerMinx's avatar

Why is it applied only to humans? Ducks rape other ducks. You still have not explained how you know that no harm is done to the animal.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “you have yet to tell me the destructive properties & the effect it has on society as a whole?”

That was never promised or intended. You seem like an intelligent animal. Give it some careful consideration.

meatheadbox's avatar

Zoophilia has been around for a long time, and when you happen to see it pop-up in the media, articles/tv, they analyze everything, and the animal is neither harmed, no presents any trauma, it remains the same.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, well you come to this thread which seeks understanding, yet you refuse to help me? I would rather not assume anything, why don’t you explain to me the details which I’ve been arguing all day with everyone as to how it is destructive and unhealthy for society as a whole? If you want to take this to a scientific level, then allow me the time to present it, or I will open a new thread of this. Perhaps copy pasting would be easier, if you seek immediate validation? Probably far more well written then I could ever forumulate.

GingerMinx's avatar

So you can link me to articles where they have studied the affect of human sexual relations with animals on the animal?

meatheadbox's avatar

Yes, from a scientist, in her bibliography, can’t link though as I don’t think it is online, check out Andrea Beetz, I will quote her, “It is possible animals are traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human. But if the approach is conducted with kindness and care and stopped if the animal shows signs of discomfort, as zoophiles describe ideal sexual interactions with animals, Beetz believes there is no need for trauma to result” Which is what basically I was saying..

GingerMinx's avatar

@meatheadbox I will see what I can find, I would be very interested in knowing how she knows what an animal thinks and feels and how she relates to it when she only has human knowledge and not the knowledge of the animal.

meatheadbox's avatar

GingerMinx, couldn’t tell you, I’m not the expert. Hopefully you will find the answers elucidated in there.

Vincent_Lloyd's avatar

hmm…Since I don’t know of the scientific words you are using I do understand the meaning behind it. If you are asking if there is something wrong I only say yes to one honestly. I mean I think it’s okay to think of having sex with an animal since I honestly think we are animals ourselves. I mean honestly too say I like that kind of stuff (more animal on animal rather than human on animal) but I’m hoping or assuming that is normal since I mean I think some people do and I personally have nothing against it. But if people can’t take who you are or what you like then don’t see their point of view on it (hope I didn’t say that wrong…) It’s how YOU are no body should judge since…NO ONE IS PERFECT.

MRSHINYSHOES's avatar

The reason why such acts are viewed as “sick” is because human beings, living in their communities and in their societies, are supposed to be civilized, and anything that involves defecation, the dead, and sex with animals is uncivilized. It is taboo, just like incest or pedophilia. You just don’t do that in a civilized society because it is considered inhuman by most people, and anything “inhuman” does not belong in human society. You can do it, but you risk humiliation, contempt, and ostracization from almost everyone who lives around you, not to mention the legal ramifications. And anything that goes against the law, which was made to keep order and civility, is often viewed as repulsive and abhorrent by the public. This is good, because once we allow and accept one form of “philia”, there will be others coming out of the woodwork advocating other totally unacceptable ”“philias”, like pedophilia (and hence child molestation and rape). We got to draw the line somewhere, and that’s what laws and “mores” (moral standards) are for.

meatheadbox's avatar

@MRSHINYSHOES, you didn’t answer the core of the question, what is the rational for why people deem it as uncivilized, or “inhumane”? Incest & pedophilia is understood, as it is harmful for beings, but these philias do not present harm or effect the society as whole, thus I don’t understand the rational behind it? You are wrong about the law as it’s still legal in various states, especially in other countries. No need to draw the line if it isn’t a concern to begin with.
“Live & let live?” Is that how it goes?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I never asked you to assume anything. I’ve encouraged you to stop assuming, and apply careful consideration to this question, and the trail of reasoning that brought you to it. That gives you a leg up on all wildlife and domesticated beast. And as such, any comparison to animal feelings at this point in the discussion should be encouraged to end. Humans have no problem picking and choosing the animals that do or don’t suffer. Whether it’s a lap dog, a horse, or simply bovine, we treat animals under the standard of our needs, and the purposes that we deem best suited for us, not them.

As well, I will not be tempted to discussing only what is “destructive and unhealthy for society as a whole” For the first thing that a society must ensure is the personal liberties and free will of the individual, even if the majority of society views the inclinations of the individual vulgar. That is what is best for society as a whole, for that is the only mechanism available to provide checks and balances upon culture. And culture, that great fiend, must be held accountable to the individual voice. For it is culture that promotes moral authority. It is culture which sends a boy to fight a war in a land he’s never set foot upon for a cause he truly doesn’t understand. Only the individual voice will challenge that. It is culture that enslaves a race of people, degrading them to the point of ultimate humility, even extermination. Only the individual voice will challenge that. It is culture that suppresses the artisan, shutting her mouth, burning his books, trampling any canvas which questions the darkest shadows of perceived authority. Only the individual voice will challenge that.

Yes, it is best for society as a whole to protect the personal liberties of each and every individual, no matter how obscene or vulgar the moral majority of pop culture deems them to be.

The responsibility of the individual is to express themselves upon society. That comes at a risk. For some expression will be harmful, physically and mentally. But this discussion has thus far only been concerned with the harm of animals or non-consent sexual relations. We have overlooked the long term greater harm. And that harm is suffered not only by the victim, but also the aggressor.

I, as an individual, with voice, shall express myself upon the society we build together. It is my responsibility to do so, to save us from the culture that deceives us.

We must encourage ourselves to acknowledge the highest of standards. Though we may not be capable of achieving them, we must set extreme standards for every human endeavor. In this way we know excellence, refinement, and taste. It’s how we constantly cultivate the weeds out of our culture. And those weeds do grow in our culture. They attempt to convince us that trash is treasure, rubble is rubies, and shite is Shangri-La. Culture feeds us fast food crap and makes us feel good about the deal we got. It convinces us we need bigger cars and higher salaries for athletes. Culture convinces us we are sick, only to sell us a cure for the sickness it infected us with in the first place. Culture pleads with us to believe that Lindsay Lohans drug problem is more important than the lies BP Oil spews upon the oceans of our mind.

WE MUST SET STANDARDS! If only for educating the individual to abandon the ignorance of immediate pleasure in favor of inspiration, longevity, and quality of life. And when so inspired, with a noble, realistic and stable direction, we become secure enough with ourselves as individuals, that we abandon judgment upon one another, embrace acceptance, invite diversity, and know love.

Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia? Those are not standards. Those are the deepest weeds of culture. For they tinker around in the minds of those who pursue them. Convincing them that trash is treasure, rubble makes rubies, and shite is Shangri-La. It only concerns itself with the immediate pleasure of the individual. And that is harmful to the individual, for it abandons any notions of inspiration, longevity, and quality of life.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, this isn’t practical, this is I have a dream declaration.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox Would you have said that to Martin Luther King Jr.? Just wondering…

If no ones wants to better the world, no one will try to better the world. There’s nothing wrong with dreaming.

meatheadbox's avatar

@DrasticDreamer, Yes, in a heart beat, you have be practical, not dream up fables for a better world. I suppose this entire question is a waste of time, as nothing will change anyway.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Practical? How practical is it to have truth spill in your lap and not have the sense to notice?

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, oh I noticed it, the question is, what have you achieved? With this speech? Are you going to stick by your principles? Will go in your free time to educate the philiac?

Keysha's avatar

I think that first, Coprophilia is frowned on because feces has been, for centuries, considered unclean. And dealing with something unclean soils you. Think of history, where people that cleaned up after horses in the streets were among the lowest caste of people out there.

Necrophilia is frowned on because first, it is seen as disrespecting the dead. Second, where do you draw the line? Before or after rot sets in? What about things like AIDS? If it is freshly dead, there is the chance of getting it. And freshly dead bodies do leak fluid. So a cut could be all it takes. Condoms are not protection in that case.

Zoophilia is frowned upon because, while you keep saying ‘they can fight to show they do not consent’, that is not always the case. What if the horse is tied. What if they do something to a smaller animal, like a dog, a chicken, a rabbit, or a gerbil (felching)? Animals trust us. We care for them. You say they can make it known they refuse. If that is the case, then there would be no cases of animal abuse, because they would make it known they do not want it. The fact that animals are abused regularly, and have no say in it, shows they cannot make their feelings known.

Many people also do not consider animals to be ‘equal’ to humans. They are things to own, objects to treat as they wish. If that is the case, then it becomes almost rape. After all, is the person doing it asking beforehand? Or simply doing whatever they feel like, because, after all, it is just an animal?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I achieved giving you an answer that would satisfy all concerns, whilst preventing you from using this question to set up a straw man of comparing Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia to Homosexuality in the end.

I offered you a path of acceptance in diversity while encouraging society to abandon judgment by promoting taste and refinement. But you won’t settle for anything less than a final comparison of these foul endeavors to Homosexuality.

In truth, face it.

MRSHINYSHOES's avatar

@meatheadbox The very fact that the majority of people find such acts grotesque is in itself rationale for their taboo status. Most acts that are viewed as sick or depraved by people are viewed as such for a good reason——feces and corpses have the potential to spread disease. Most human beings, and most, if not all, life on earth try to avoid coming into contact those things which can physically do them harm. To engage in acts which involve feces and corpses, as well as other animals, have the potential to endanger people’s health. That’s why they’re viewed as repulsive. Rotting meat, feces, etc., spread disease. To use them for sexual purposes runs against the grain of self-preservation, of life itself. So to view such acts as okay and acceptable, poses a threat to human civilization and continuity. It’s really a no-brainer. That’s all I have to say my friend.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The jig is up @meatheadbox. You blew your wad in the first question that got modded. It’s obvious where you are attempting to lead with this. Sorry, you’ve been undone.

mammal's avatar

What about copulation with medusozoa?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox ”...this isn’t practical”

You’re not interested in discussing the issue. Your only interest is passing judgment. You asked me to elaborate and requested a more detailed explanation. I gave that to you in spades.

You brush it off with a passing judgment. It’s obvious that’s what you’ve come here to do.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, you diverted from the entire core of the question, to settle this matter. There was one concern, human rational for deeming philia as illness, instead you give me a dream of how things should be & not everyone practices these philias, so don’t worry about mankind. So, What the heck? Now you speculate over my intentions? What you run out of decent arguments? Oh, right, I dismissed them, maybe because they weren’t relavent to the main point of this thread?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You got it. Don’t worry, be happy, and let others do the same. And have faith that the God you believe in is much bigger than any philia, phobia, or ality, that we could ever dream of.

FYI… I disagree with homosexuality. I’m strongly against gay marriage. I’m a committed Theist. And I know Jesus Christ in ways that most so called Christians couldn’t imagine.

But I will not allow Homosexuality to be dragged across the burning coals of judgment. Our God loves them too much to allow them to suffer our ignorance. I’ve got too many planks in my own eye. Many of my Homosexual friends help me carry them.

The modern day Christian will miss the second coming of Christ every bit as much as they accuse the Jews of missing the first coming. They will not recognize him.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, well then you accomplished nothing. You just avoided answering my question to send a message of united harmony. I also understand why you can’t answer the question, it requires rational, and you being a theist, is an irrational belief system. Don’t take this as a personal attack, but tell me I’m wrong? Is it? You wasted time, you had no intention to help, you wanted to spread a dream. You failed, as nothing will change, and my question remains unanswered.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Another judgment?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox And you think raping animals is rational? Ahahahahaha!

I’m not for raping animals or organized religion. What does that make me? Oh, right… Agnostic. God, we’re so indecisive….....

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And I did answer your question @meatheadbox. Take a look through this thread. I’ve avoided nothing, including your flipflop logic to suit your position as you deem fit.

I’ve requested that you provide the basis of your reasoning, how you came to believe what you believe in. You answer with evo?

meatheadbox's avatar

DrasticDreamer, does it matter?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox Does anything matter? My answer is “yes”.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As long as there are those who ask pointed questions with hidden agendas… YES, it matters.

meatheadbox's avatar

DrasticDreamer, why? No harm, no effect. What do you care? Consent or no consent.. we aren’t talking about humans, I also brought some proof, look up andrea beeze, she wrote a bibliography on this, and proves all the points I made.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, I don’t expect you understand evolution, even if I do write it up for you, as you are stuck in your ways, or do you want to tell me I stand a chance to convince you that you come from ape? Will you sudden abandon jesus and the entire religion?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox You’re right, we’re not talking about humans. We’re talking about other animals, who are not nearly as smart as humans, who we can not communicate with to get consent. And one person does not prove anything. Scholars, just like the rest of us, are human beings. Opinions do not equate to facts.

meatheadbox's avatar

Drasticdreamer, not an opinion though, it is very much verifiable. In either case, the core point, why label it ill? Do you really give a fuck if someone fools around in the barn with his beast friends? It’s being done right now as we speak, are you feeling the effects? The animal is having a blast, and will remain unharmed, physical-mentally with or without consent. Nothing changes.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Have you browsed any of my comments on evo? You are obviously new here.

I believe in and promote evolution. And coming from an ape does not make me an ape.

Currently, I’m not only questioning your motives, but your understanding as well. I would be pleased indeed if you started a thread on evolution, and stated your position about Theism. Have faith that I will answer you there.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox Yes, I care. Just like I care that women get raped and children get raped/molested. I don’t give a rat’s fucking ass if it’s not happening to me – I care that it’s happening to innocent people and animals.

And it is an opinion. One person’s ideas are not necessarily the truth.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The responsibility of the individual is to express themselves upon society.

meatheadbox's avatar

DrasticDreamer, did you read this thread? Did I bring in incest of pedophilia here? No. That is harmful both mentally and physically. It’s not an opinion, science doesn’t work like that, if you follow the scientific method you will come to the same conclusion as her, this goes for anyone, until other methods state otherwise.

meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, “The responsibility of the individual is to express themselves upon society”. you did a great job thus far in this thread.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox Oh, really? How many people IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY will agree with this ONE person’s opinion? Show me journals, show me multitudes of like-minded scientists, behaviorists, psychologists, etc. who AGREE with her.

Science is not a single person’s opinion.

And I don’t care if you brought pedophilia and rape up or not – because to me, having sex with an animal is rape.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “why label it ill? Do you really give a fuck if someone fools around in the barn with his beast friends? It’s being done right now as we speak, are you feeling the effects?”

Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia? Those are not standards. Those are the deepest weeds of culture. For they tinker around in the minds of those who pursue them. Convincing them that trash is treasure, rubble makes rubies, and shite is Shangri-La. It only concerns itself with the immediate pleasure of the individual. And that is harmful to the individual, for it abandons any notions of inspiration, longevity, and quality of life.

Now I know that sounds like a MLK “I have a dream speech”, but it does answer your question. It also has the unfortunate effect of changing the goal posts from the victim to the aggressor, of which you hadn’t considered. In reason, please consider the deeper concerns beyond the perceived discomfort of a plucked chicken.

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox I notice you are not responding to anyone that is not giving you an opportunity to attack them, emotionally.

meatheadbox's avatar

Drasticdreamer, Do you know who darwin is? Do you know his “opinion”,? do you realize how much it is excepted by the scientific community?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Did you know that Darwin never mentioned the term Random Mutation in Origin of Species?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Have you read Origins?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox Yes, I know who Darwin is. Do you know why his “opinions” are so widely accepted by the scientific community?

You’re just silly.

meatheadbox's avatar

You are sucking me in, I best start a new thread for all this off topic debates. The entire thread was just attempts to avert from the core issue. RealEyesRealizeRealLies, why didn’t you start a new thread if you wanted me to focus on your mission at hand? I’m all for new ideas and insights but not jubbled up in to one mess.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Eeegaads! You want me to start an evo thread just to satisfy the ego of a newbie? Me thinks not.

Ya know, @MRSHINYSHOES gave you some pretty good answers too. Nobody has avoided the core issues here but you @meatheadbox. The core issue was to find an answer to your question… of which you received many… of which you avoided… especially mine, by waiving it away with your magic wand saying “that’s impractical”. Hahahaha.

Why don’t you just tell us what the answer to this question is? Then we can all say goodnight and go to bed.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Calm down, folks. Please remember to disagree without being disagreeable.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
meatheadbox's avatar

RealEyesRealizeRealLies, the best argument on here was diseases to which a few people pointed out. Everyone else was trying to make it sound as bad as incest and pedophilia, to display the harmfulness. However, each time I refuted all arguments, stating that consent was given in each case, and that no harm is being done on a physical & mental level. Also, mind you, consent or no consent is irrelevant for an animal fore even if you rape it, it isn’t the kind of rape that is applied for humans, it is still sex, you can’t harm the animal with sex, as I yet again pointed out that we are not equip with sexual tools to satisfy a big beast such a horse, also I gave backing to this which is was quickly dismissed without even reading the book, because you don’t care anyway, so then just take my word on it. Therefore, how can it be rational to say it’s ill? The answer to all this is simple, it’s irrational. It’s done out of emotional intuitions(first impressions) “ew that’s gross” let’s outlaw that without thinking that perhaps it doesn’t effect me in anyway, or causes any harm to beings? Therefore, who gives a fuck?

Arisztid's avatar

I wish to add a bit to Keysha’s answer This is an addendum to her answer, not a replacement. I concur completely with her answer and encourage any who read mine to read hers first.

She mentioned that feces has always been considered unclean and feces collectors have always been considered the lowest of the low profession wise. There is a reason medical professionals wear gloves. Feces carry bacteria that is dangerous. I am not just talking HIV, which is carried in all bodily secretions, but EColi and more..

Other than social norms saying that sexual use of feces is wrong, biology says it is dangerous.

Many say that gay and bi men necessarily expose themselves to feces. I am bisexual and can tell you that this is not so. There are some, gay/bi/straight, who are into it, but it is not a prerequisite for anal sex… which is engaged in by all sexual orientations. There are things like enemas, laxatives, and bowel regimes. I thought I would head that one off at the pass.

Necrophilia: I have not heard of any cases of disease transmission from a newly deceased corpse but I cannot see any reason for this to not occur. HIV is fragile when not in the body. I cannot imagine why a newly deceased corpse would not provide an environment for HIV, HEPc, and any STDs to thrive. I cannot see any reason why a newly deceased corpse is any less likely to transmit disease than a live person. I have no clue how long various diseases remain active in a corpse post morten.

Zoophilia: the OP has stated that an animal can, basically, give consent by not rebuffing the sexual advances. The problem is informed consent… emphasis on informed. In order to say that an animal can give informed consent, are you saying that animals can understand how a human communicates before the act to give this consent? I have nothing further to add to Keysha’s answer.

meatheadbox's avatar

Arisztid, yes, the farm animals are friendly creatures. You ever pet a horse? If it doesn’t like it, it will walk away from you. Same with sex, you feel it out, and since it is a friendly creature and all sex is the same to it, and I mentioned that we humans are animals on a biological level, therefore, it doesn’t feel a threat, consent is given the minute the animal doesn’t resist what you are doing with it, with the combination of the animal following through the intercourse to the end.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Arisztid's avatar

@meatheadbox My issue is consent. We cannot discuss this beforehand. As far as implied consent, if, say, a mentally challenged adult (to the point of not being able to comprehend what is happening) is touched and stimulated, responding in pleasure. You carry on. Is that proper? A horse, for instance, is likewise unable to give informed consent, rather going by sensation. No, I am not likening the hypothetical mentally challenged human adult to a horse… it is just a comparison.

meatheadbox's avatar

If this mentally challenged adult is unaware, & you and him are of age where sex isn’t harmful on a physically & mentally level, then, what is the issue? Consent or no consent? As long as harm is not being done & society is not effected by it, why call it ill?

Arisztid's avatar

@meatheadbox My issue is that the mentally challenged adult is unable to conceive of such ramifications of pregnancy and STDs.

By the rationale that “if it feels good, do it,” said adult could easily turn into a sexual toy for anyone.

NotGolden's avatar

The issue is informed consent. An animal, a child, a mentally challenged adult, a corpse cannot give it. Period.

If you want to participate in sex play with shit, be my guest.

Arisztid's avatar

To me, consent is above all. Even though a horse could not contract an STD or be impregnated by a human, a horse is less able to give consent than my hypothetical mentally challenged individual. We simply cannot ask them first before acting.

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox If the hypothetical mentally challenged adult is, let’s say, your daughter. She is 13, has passed puberty, but has the knowledge of a 6-year-old or so. You put her in a care home, because you cannot care for her. Then you find out that several attendants that work there are having sex with her, because she ‘never says no’. She may like how it makes her feel, she may like the attention, she may not know she can move away, they may feel her moving away is not refusal, they may not let her move away (you continually use horses for your example, try a smaller animal, like a rabbit, and yes, they are used). Do you just say ‘Oh, well, she is not hurt, so carry on!’ , do you join in too? since it is not a problem? Or do you get upset?

Replace your horse example with any adult. Do you walk up behind them, initiate intercourse, then get told no? Not at all. You ask first. Because otherwise, what you do is sexual assault. Try putting it in those terms.

meatheadbox's avatar

Disease was the only rational argument I have got from this thread, Just as you pointed out now, to which I respond, yes, rubber would be the solution to prevent disease regarding this matter, as for shit eaters, they don’t eat it, they toy with it, not swallowing it, same for when someone ejaculates in a porn stars mouth, they spit it out so not to catch anything. “scat” “toilet games” are practiced as we speak within the porn industry, and as I said there is no internal digestion, they then wash themselves off with disinfectors.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@meatheadbox Please, adress @Keysha – she made some extremely valid points. Don’t ignore her comments.

Arisztid's avatar

@meatheadbox Personally, I do not care one way or another about people who play with scat. It is not for me, without precautions it is dangerous, but the only way it would affect me is if I have to deal with someone in the hospital from such activities… and I have. It is not necessarily shit eaters but there are those who enjoy anal intercourse “dirty” and more. A break in skin integrity anywhere it is contacted, including any skin, and viola!... infection.

I would like to redirect your attention to Keysha’s post. She approached it from a different angle.

I am copying and pasting part of Keysha’s answer My answer was an addendum to hers, not a replacement. Her latest comment is just as valid.

I think that first, Coprophilia is frowned on because feces has been, for centuries, considered unclean. And dealing with something unclean soils you. Think of history, where people that cleaned up after horses in the streets were among the lowest caste of people out there.

This is part of the explanation as to why this sort of play is frowned upon. Whether or not it is right in your eyes to frown upon it does not change this aspect.

meatheadbox's avatar

Keysha, I don’t know if I can answer that fore I don’t know how a philiac feels when it’s someone close to him, but isn’t 13 to early of an age for sex? Wouldn’t it be mentally and physically harmful? You comparing intelligence of a horse to a human? I mentioned this, characteristics are involved in humans & each human is an individual with different characteristics, so how they respond to a given situation is all depend on who they are and what has been involved.

Arisztid, do you frown upon people who suck shit out of receptors now for a living? All garbage men are unclean, shall we frown upon them when they pick our trash up? You try and bring disease as the main point to not practice these dirty philias, but first of all we have come a long way in cleansing ourselfs with all sorts of products and good plumbing! So keeping clean is not an issue when spending a day in filth.

Key points here are harmlesness & not effecting society.

Arisztid's avatar

@meatheadbox I do not look down on any form of gainful, honest employment. What is “suck shit out of receptors”? I am just highlighting an aspect of this issue. Also, as I said, I could not care less if someone who uses feces in sex play other than when I have to deal with them at work.

meatheadbox's avatar

Alright, so then your disease argument is out the window. “suck shit out of the receptors” is those people who drive those heavy duty trucks with huge containers, it’s basically a mobile shit vacuum that sticks it’s hose in the ground of where shit is stored to get sucked out.

Arisztid's avatar

@meatheadbox My disease argument is valid because it is the truth. It does occur. And, oh, ok, re receptors.

meatheadbox's avatar

Shit causes disease, yes, but only when not cleansed from it.

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox “but isn’t 13 to early of an age for sex? Wouldn’t it be mentally and physically harmful?”

Many girls reach puberty at 11. So no, not harmful. And mentally, she does not know it is wrong, does not know better, just like an animal. So how is it any worse than a horse?

“If this mentally challenged adult is unaware, & you and him are of age where sex isn’t harmful on a physically & mentally level, then, what is the issue?”

Exactly my point. At that age, she is physically able, does not know it is wrong, so where is that different than a horse. and I still want to know about animals that are too small or helpless to resist, after all, non-resistance is consent, right?

As far as shit only causing disease when not cleansed, all it takes is a small cut. And, you cleansing yourself may not get it clean. If it did, then those that have abdominal surgery, and get a perforated colon during surgery, would not have any danger of sepsis, because they would clean it, right?

meatheadbox's avatar

It isn’t different then a horse? If she is of age to have sex, no harm is done, then what does consent or no consent have anything to do with it? As with the horse. Now, a small animal, well, I assume then the human is equip to cause it pain, therefore regardless of consent or no consent, I can see why it would be frowned upon as ill. As for shit, it doesn’t take a small cut, you need a deep wound to do serious damage. We do have a immune system you know, heck I worked some crazy construction jobs were I was all blooded up with cuts, and was exposed to all sorts of shit, filth, but the cuts were minor, I used alcohol swabs to take care of it, case closed.

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox I am talking your view with regards to the example, because I find both zoophilia and sex with those unable to consent to be wrong.

And you are trying to draw lines. Ok, you allow horses, what about sheep? Some men are well endowed enough to hurt them, others are not. So what about them? And why is it ok to have sex with some animals and not others? How do you know they are hurting them?

One more example. What about someone that is paralyzed? Only thing they can do is blink. Can you just go in and have sex with them? After all, they can’t resist, so are they consenting?

Keysha's avatar

As far as the shit, well, not everyone has your immune system. I, for example, had surgery in April. 10 inches of my small intestine was removed. I did end up with minor sepsis. And you know as well as I do that I was cleaned from that. I am still, several months later, dealing with and fighting this minor sepsis. Up to and including having drains in me more than once, and having a large pocket of pus removed from my abdomen.

I also have had infections under the skin, from a cut on a hand, when dealing with feces. (an elderly woman had diarrhea in bed, and I cleaned her up, then showered and cleaned myself well. But ended up needing antibiotics.

meatheadbox's avatar

Keysha, drawing lines is precisely that. There is no need for all these examples, why can’t you focus on key words, no harm, no effects=not ill. Stop comparing a beast to a human, for a human has characteristics, unless, in cases as you pointed out, a unaware human, might constitute as a vegetable, (borderline corpse), to which a corpse is an inanimate object. However, you can’t be to sure with humans, even when a vegetable, it isn’t certain that they are unaware, so I can see why it would be frowned upon as ill. You comparing surgery to minor cuts?

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox yes, drawing lines is precisely that. You need to focus on key words too. Not informed, consenting human=wrong to have sex.

I happen to feel animals are aware. So, just because they cannot protest, does not mean they like it, need it, or desire it. Anyone that says animals do not have characteristics should make sure to never have one to care for. Each has it’s own personality and characteristics. Some people just seem to self-centered or stuck on their non-existent superiority to notice or care.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
DrasticDreamer's avatar

You are not responding to reason or logic. People have made multiple attempts to tell you why they think it’s wrong. Feel how you do, fine – but just realize that most people will never, ever agree with you.

meatheadbox's avatar

And my refutes? Not logic? This is your rational, you can’t convince me therefore I’m illogical? haha. I will give credit to everyone for trying though. Thanks for the attempts, appreciated. I wasn’t looking for agreements, I was looking for rational for deeming these philias ill, & all I got was side topic shit, with the best argument, being disease to which I explained..

DrasticDreamer's avatar

Why not? That was your rationale, too. People weren’t agreeing with you, so you said they were illogical. How’s it feel?

meatheadbox's avatar

I said they were illogical with reasoning behind my refutations that consisted within the realm of the topic as oppose to some people here who were sidestepping on topics that had nothing to do with the conversation but a mere fable “i have a dream” to avert this question intirely. Or those that addressed the situation but not answering the rational behind it, rather saying “it’s gross, yuck, shit, eww, nasty” with finally someone saying something rational (disease) while I corrected them by explaining that there is no indication of harm or effect to such philias thus showing there answers to be irrational.

So what are you left with when all attempts of rational failed? “well you are a troll!!!” “I can’t convince you rationally, so I will resort to petty remarks,” “you unreasonable & illogical” I actually enjoyed you calling me a troll, it shows a lot about you & that you have nothing clever to say. When the mind fails you, the chest pounding & feces start flying. You also are a prime example of evolution at it’s finest, you return to the animal state when the intelligence withered away.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
tragiclikebowie's avatar

@meatheadbox As I said previously, dogs hump humans out of aggression, stress, and displays of dominance. And tail wagging has MANY nuances and meanings. It is not cut and dry “they wag their tails and so they are happy.” It is clear that you know nothing about animal behavior.

Having sex with animals has been linked to humans abuse of other humans:
-The FBI found high rates of sexual assault of animals in the backgrounds of serial sexual homicide perpetrators. [1]
-Those convicted of committing crimes against people on one or more occasions were more likely to have had sex with animals during their childhood or adolescence than other respondents. [2]
-Of juveniles who engage in sex with animals, 96 percent also admit to sex offenses against humans and reported more offenses against humans than other sex offenders their same age and race. [3]
-Battered women’s shelters around the country receive reports from women who were forced to have sex with animals. One woman reported that her husband would tie her up and force her to have intercourse with their family dog. Then he would try to have intercourse with the dog while he forced the dog inside his wife. [4]
-Forced sex with trained dogs was a form of torturing Jewish women in Nazi Germany; it was recently used against female political prisoners in Chile. [4]

Men are more likely to have sex with animals. Women are more likely to be depicted or to be forced into doing it. [4] Both sexes can cause serious physical harm, or even death, to the animals. There are cases of dogs with severe rectal tearing, cats killed by penetration, chickens decapitated to produce greater physical pleasure for the male, sheep with severe gentical tract injury [6], and animals crushed to death for sexual gratification. [5]

It can be inferred then, if having sex with an animal causes them physical pain and changes their behavior drastically, then it is animal abuse and is cruelty. And since someone committing sexual abuse toward an animal would be recieving pleasure by doing so, then they would be a zoosadist which is a precursor to sociopathic behavior as evidenced by the above statistics. Perhaps this is why it is frowned upon?

In addition to this many animal welfare groups do believe that humans having sex with animals can be mentally harmful to the animals, creating behavior problems. In the case of a couple in Oregon who had sex with their German Shepherd, the dog had to be killed because of the way it was taught to interact with people, it couldn’t be placed in another home. ” In another case, another couple was sentenced after they videotaped the woman having sex with three different dogs. The dogs were going to be put down because they had been trained to rape. Instead, they were able to go into rehabilitation.

Andrea Beetz, and you, sound exactly like a pedophile trying to rationalize having sex with children. Just because there is an “ideal” where no potential physical, emotional, or mental harm will come to anyone does not make the ideal true, or make it right.

1. Ressler, R. K. et al (1988). Sexual homicide: patterns and motives. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
2. Hensley, Christopher, Tallichet, Suzanne E., and Singer, Stephen D. 2006. Exploring the Possible Link Between Childhood and Adolescent Bestiality and Interpersonal Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 21, No. 7, 910–923.
3. Fleming, William M., Jory, Brian and Burton, David L. (2002). Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders Admitting to Sexual Activity with Nonhuman Animals. Society and Animals. 10 (1), 31–45.
4. Carol J. Adams, http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/animal_cruelty/bestiality.php
5. www.vactf.org/pdfs/bestiality-factsheet.pdf
6. Science Direct

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@tragiclikebowie I congratulate you for taking the time to do that. Excellent response, to say the least. You deserve much lurve.

What’s funny is that he references one supposed “expert” on the matter, you reference many more than him, but somehow you’re still wrong and incapable of countering his arguments. Hmm, imagine that.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox I notice you whining this: “Nothing rational to say, so troll is the best response?”

What do you call what you said to me? “Oh, boy, not a fan of science either, huh? I take it you’re a theist?”

I don’t see where I either rejected or neglected science. Yes, I am a theist. An A-theist. You still continue to ignore remarks that you cannot refute. I find that, more than anything, tells me you are in this for flaming. Pity.

I still stand by my answers. Just because you do not consider animals as something more than objects to be treated as you will, does not make it so.

Oh, did you read the link you posted? It happens to support our views much more than it does yours. Good job.

NaturallyMe's avatar

I don’t care about coprophilia – what people want to do with each other in private is none of my business. I personally find it gross, but what they do has nothing to do with me.

As far as necrophilia goes, if you somehow get to “own” that corpse, then what you do with it is also none of my business. And even if you don’t own that corpse (say you murdered them and now are having your way with the dead), i don’t consider it rape, because that person is dead and according to me rape can only happen to a living being.

And zoophilia i don’t agree with at all, because you don’t know when all animals are consenting. Where is the line drawn then when wanting to do this to an animal? What if someone tries to do with with a cat or a small dog or some other animal that clearly will probably be injured in the process? What kind of rules will govern this practice so as to protect animals from abuse in this regard?

CMaz's avatar

We have the uncanny ability to bend the rules to the point of breaking. As long as it can hold together and you can get enough mileage out of it.
It becomes normal, “we have been doing it so long it must be OK.”

Basically, you do what you want and if you get away with it and/or associate with enough people that see (or want to see it) the same way you do. “All is good.”

Some stuff is in your face, like sticking your head in an oven, so apparently wrong. Some are covert, like humping a dead body.

I guess we all like to push the envelope. But, it comes down to, breaking it down to its basic fundamental. Then going from there.
Then what you decide to do and how far you wish to go with it becomes an issue of honesty (with yourself) and societal agreement.

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox here is an example of your ‘implied consent’ for zoophilia.

NaturallyMe's avatar

@Keysha – indeed, that’s the kind of thing i’m also referring to. And what’s appalling is the puny fine this dude had to pay for injuring this dog. (in case you don’t know, R500 is about $70)

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Good mornin’ sunshine!

Will you please address my comments in a rational manner, rather than waiving them away with your magic wand?

Again,

Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia? Those are not standards. Those are the deepest weeds of culture. For they tinker around in the minds of those who pursue them. Convincing them that trash is treasure, rubble makes rubies, and shite is Shangri-La. It only concerns itself with the immediate pleasure of the individual. And that is harmful to the individual, for it abandons any notions of inspiration, longevity, and quality of life.

Shall we not encourage individuals to invite inspiration, longevity, and quality of life?

Shall we not FROWN UPON acts that promote shite being considered as Shangri-La?

Now I know that sounds like a MLK “I have a dream speech”, but it does answer your question. It also has the unfortunate effect of changing the goal posts from the victim to the aggressor, of which you hadn’t considered. In reason, please consider the deeper concerns beyond the perceived discomfort of a plucked chicken.

Address the well being of the aggressor beyond any notions of his immediate pleasure. Stop side stepping and avoiding this question. Shall we encourage this mental phenomenon or frown upon it?

What benefit is there in short term pleasure which causes an individual to pursue inhumane acts?

Answer.

mammal's avatar

check out this puppy with regards to your question. He was rather an expert :)

meatheadbox's avatar

Keysha, you are trying to make up your own theories to justify your love for animals.

@Keysha, “I don’t see where I either rejected or neglected science.”

What I mean by that, is if you knew anything about evolution, then you wouldn’t be telling me that the animal has characteristics. This is what @RealEyesRealizeRealLies was trying to do, I have to open up a new thread about science for him/her. I don’t expect any rational response out of a theist fore your belief system is based on inconclusive rational with emotional intuitions, as I told @RealEyesRealizeRealLies as well, if your entire foundation is irrational, how can possibly make an attempt to answer my question on the root of the rational? So, what do you do instead? You get upset about my refutations & you notice that I won’t follow your irrational ideology, so you leave or resort to violence, which is fine & expected. I get called illogical and unreasonable because I won’t heed your ideology, when you do know that if you really were right, I would listen fore I wouldn’t have anymore refutations, and I agreed to a few scenarios that you mentioned, so don’t tell me I’m unreasonable. Just give me better arguments, if they exist to begin with. Not all questions can be justified. You don’t have to resort to cunning tactics just to close down this question. You copy paste me articles that have nothing to do with the topic, did you not read anything I wrote? I said NO HARM, NO EFFECT = NOT ILL, and what do you right after? You post me an article where a man was harming a small animal. Do you not understand that my question is circumstantial, did I not make clear the main points of NO HARM, NO EFFECT = NOT ILL? & you picked one point, zoophilia, I mentioned two others(coprophilia, necrophilia), you can’t even argue zoophilia without resorting to copy pasting articles that go beyond the circumstances of what I wrote. You picked this case on purpose, so that these philias should be generalized as illegal because of a few bad apples? I think we should this thinking to other activities as well then. Do you know what the common animals are in zoophilia, did you bother looking it up? How cunning are you.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, “Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia? Those are not standards. Those are the deepest weeds of culture.”

Explain…without your cryptic writing.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “inspiration, longevity, and quality of life?”

Explain, relation to topic? without cryptic writing.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, “Address the well being of the aggressor beyond any notions of his immediate pleasure. ”
So, what you are trying to say is that since we consider everything, and such philias are harmful for the aggressor, we frown upon it as ill?

You want me to explain the rational of a philiac? Are you kidding me? Also, why must you talk in riddles?

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “a theist, your belief system is based on inconclusive rational with emotional intuitions”

You don’t know a thing about my belief system. Please don’t comment on it until you do. My theism is based upon adhering to the principles of genetics, evolution and information theory. Would you like to discuss?

@meatheadbox “if you knew anything about evolution, you wouldn’t be telling me that the animal has characteristics. This is what @RealEyesRealizeRealLies was trying to do”

Lie.

You said: “Luffle. We are animals,”
then
You said: “you can’t compare animal to child”
then
You said: “we are…an animal with characteristics”
then
You said: “women resist rape, animals don’t resist”
then
You said: “if you knew anything about evolution, then you wouldn’t be telling me that the animal has characteristics”

FlipFlop until you drop. Like a dog chasing its own tail. If animals don’t have characteristics, and humans do, then according to you humans should not be animals.

I could have gone on and on with your flippyflop slop, but the fact is, that you change your tune to suit your immediate confrontation. There is nothing genuine in the words you spew. I’d rather listen to static. At least static doesn’t lie.

then you accuse me of committing the truancy that you are guilty of? At least static doesn’t falsely accuse others of its own hypocrisy.

I said:
“That gives you a leg up on all wildlife and domesticated beast. And as such, any comparison to animal feelings at this point in the discussion should be encouraged to end. Humans have no problem picking and choosing the animals that do or don’t suffer. Whether it’s a lap dog, a horse, or simply bovine, we treat animals under the standard of our needs, and the purposes that we deem best suited for us, not them.”

Please do not misrepresent my comments. It’s bad enough that you flipflop your own. Don’t start doing it to mine.

@meatheadbox “if you knew anything about evolution, then you wouldn’t be telling me that the animal has characteristics.”
before you said “human, by definition, means characteristics of people”

First you said that humans are animals. Then claim humans have characteristics. Then claim that animals have no characteristics.

Is it any wonder that you want to avoid the final determination of whether humans are animals or not. It is the fulcrum of your wishy washy argument. And demonstrating your confusion causes your castle to tumble.

@meatheadbox “I told @RealEyesRealizeRealLies as well, if your entire foundation is irrational, how can possibly make an attempt to answer question on the root of the rational?”

Lie.

Where did you say that? You waived away my Theism without determining why I’m a Theist. You made an unqualified statement. Please retract, for you used that statement as an excuse for perceive irrational reasoning.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

I said:
“I’m not interested in your argument until I’ve determined how stable the pillars of logic and science are that you’ve built your argument upon.”

And that’s why I’m pressing the issue.

You never supported your premise with anything other than evo. I asked you what kind. You avoided, still no answer. I encouraged you to start a new thread, as you prompted originally, you avoided, still no answer.

As I’ve said, numerous times, and in so many different ways that you might understand… Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to elevate the human condition. Your only argument that can stand against this is clinging to the premise that humans are animals. ANIMALS pursue these activities with NO RESERVATIONS.

Humans don’t. And the few that do, are not living up the the full potential of their humanity. We, as individuals, concerned with maximizing our human potential, should thus FROWN UPON any such behaviors, thereby noting the observable differences between humans and animals.

And yes, as you say in reference to my cryptic comments, “since we consider everything, and such philias are harmful for the aggressor, we frown upon it as ill?”.

YES! Humans have the ability to CONSIDER the ramifications of their actions. This thread has been concerned mostly for the victim. But with careful consideration, we also include the offender, for he is human just like we are. He should not be encouraged to pursue the characteristics of animals. That should be frowned upon, in recognition of his humanity, and in acknowledgment of ours.

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox Until you can debate me on the issue, not on me, personally, there is nothing to be said. You have lost your debate.

Oh, and by the way:

char·ac·ter·is·tic

ADJECTIVE:

Being a feature that helps to distinguish a person or thing; distinctive: heard my friend’s characteristic laugh; the stripes that are characteristic of the zebra.

NOUN:

1. A feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably; a distinguishing mark or trait.

How do animals not have characteristics?

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Press this issue folks. For it is the hidden fulcrum to his argument. It hinges upon convincing us that humans are nothing more than animals, and since animals pursue these activities with no reservations, then humans who do should not be frowned upon.

We elevate our humanity. We do not grovel in the dirt as dogs.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And we do not chase our tails as @meatheadbox does to make his points, flipflopping to suit his immediate confrontation.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Don’t get me wrong. You are human too @meatheadbox. I simply wish to encourage you to elevate your humanity, and join the human race, instead of chasing your tail like an animal.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, “My theism is based upon adhering to the principles of genetics, evolution and information theory. Would you like to discuss?”

Just a few comments ago you told me you knew Jesus better then most, and will expect his second coming, this is all based of genetics,evolution, information theory? Religion is based on God to which no one can’t prove or disprove..& yes, I would like to discuss, very must so. Only I wanted to finish this thread before starting a new one.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Lie.

You said: “Luffle. We are animals,”
then
You said: “you can’t compare animal to child”
then
You said: “we are…an animal with characteristics”
then
You said: “women resist rape, animals don’t resist”
then
You said: “if you knew anything about evolution, then you wouldn’t be telling me that the animal has characteristics” ”

I see, you are confused, well let me clarify, I said that we are animals on a biological level, but because we are the smartest of all the animals, we are called human. That doesn’t discredit our biological animal. A beast does not resist rape as oppose to a human with characteristics, who will.

Let’s ask this question. Do you think sexual desire comes from intelligence or biologically?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, ” ANIMALS pursue these activities with NO RESERVATIONS.
Humans don’t. And the few that do, are not living up the the full potential of their humanity”

Confused are we? Love the contradictions.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “We, as individuals, concerned with maximizing our human potential, ”

Who says?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, “But with careful consideration, we also include the offender, for he is human just like we are.”

Yet another contradiction, what was all that cultural spewing of making us eat shit that is not good for us?

@Keysha,
Seems we have an issue of defintions here. I will have to say reasoning ability then, would that make sense now?

@Arisztid, I resort to personal attacks, really? Well let me quote then what @tragiclikebowie wrote, “Andrea Beetz, and you, sound exactly like a pedophile trying to rationalize having sex with children. Just because there is an “ideal” where no potential physical, emotional, or mental harm will come to anyone does not make the ideal true, or make it right.” ...........

meatheadbox's avatar

Replace characteristics with reasoning, seems I made a definition error.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I didn’t say anything about Religion. In fact, I insulted it. A common mistake to confuse Religion with Theism. And using the term Jesus Christ does not suggest that you and I have the same understanding of what a Jesus, or a God actually is. Don’t be so quick to judge those whom you know little of. I made that mistake earlier with you, assuming you were a Religious Zealot that came to compare the behaviors of animals with homosexuals, to promote a religious agenda.

Others made those claims as well, about your motives, in the first thread. My mistake was buying into it with no evidence to support the belief. You have my apology.

@meatheadbox “I said that we are animals on a biological level, but because we are the smartest of all the animals, we are called human. That doesn’t discredit our biological animal.”

That is specifically the reason I press the issue of human vs animal. You claim the reasoning behind this assumptions is evolution. I claim that evolution has never demonstrated a single mechanism to account for the non biological notion of mind. Sure, it can help us explain the physical attributes of living beings. But it does not account for mind, and mind is that which determines the characteristic of being human.

There is more to a chair than wood, glue, fabric, and nails. There is a chairness, an essence of being a chair, which has nothing whatsoever to do with wood, glue, fabric, and nails. Likewise, being a human is not reducible to only the physical makeup of a living being. There is more to it than that. And animals don’t have it.

It is the very mind that humans have, which separates us from being animals. It is not reducible to mere brain matter and electrochemical reactions. None of that explains thought and reason. And with careful considering as an exercise in thought and reason, we promote our humanity, and discourage behaving like an animal.

And I really don’t have a clue as to what your last question means. Where have I contradicted myself, and what do you mean by _“what was all that cultural spewing of making us eat shit that is not good for us?”. You’ve lost me.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, Well, then I’m not going to get into the sciences in this thread, I will open up a new one to resolve our discrepancies.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, “ANIMALS pursue these activities with NO RESERVATIONS.
Humans don’t. And the few that do, are not living up the the full potential of their humanity”

You said that humans don’t and then you say and those “few” that do are…..

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, “But with careful consideration, we also include the offender, for he is human just like we are.”

If culture isn’t considering us with the entire rant you presented earlier in your I have a dream speech, then we aren’t really carefully considering? Or is this just a dream? ...........

meatheadbox's avatar

Also, you still didn’t answer my question. I wrote, “Let’s ask this question. Do you think sexual desire comes from intelligence or biologically?” or should I save this for the science thread?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

They are not exercising their humanity. They act like animals and therefor become a form of animal. When one acts like an animal, it’s impossible to call that human behavior.

I distinguish Culture from Society. Culture is evolved. Society is built. Culture evolves out of the Society that we build.

Culture is the culmination of all of Society, both current and ancient. It is the duty of the individual to express themselves in the Society that they live in. Specifically to weed out all memes which degrade humanity, or stifle the human potential and condition.

Sadly, there are some memes which survive the gauntlet of Societal scrutiny. They make their way into Culture, thus attaining approval for certain behaviors, one’s like those I listed earlier. But thankfully, Society is never finished being built. And the individual voice can express again, to build a society that disapproves of war and junk food. In this way Culture is evolved.

Shall we, as considerate men, allow the inconsiderate to permeate our Society, and thereby evolve Culture into a state unrecognizable to anyone but animals? I think not.

Just as a detrimental gene can spread cancer through the body if left unchecked, and a swarm of beneficial genes contain that cancer, allowing the organism to live… So are we, as humans created in the image of God (that being, with the power of sentient authorship), so we, as healthy genes, must contain the cancerous spread of certain individuals.

It is, in fact, a matter of allowing thoughtful consideration to build Society and evolve Culture, or a matter of allowing thoughtless inconsideration to destroy Society, as we know it, thereby devolving our Culture to a lower degree.

So do we promote the blind thoughtless mutations of Dawkins to evolve society, or the active and aware mutations of McClintock and Shapiro to evolve our society? I plum for the thoughtful.
____________________

I don’t care where this thread goes from here. Since this conversation has thoughtfully evolved into one of biology, genetics, and evolution, then it is quite appropriate to continue the discussion here. For it is here you will either explain how evolution accounts for the considerate mind of humans, vs the inconsiderate behaviors of animals.

Sexual desire? It is a biological imperative to mate. But desire is a property of mind. When those two faculties are erroneously conflated as the same, people begin fucking corpses and chickens. Only thoughtful consideration will allow reasonable men to view them as separate agents.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

It could be said, that we are genes. We are expressing ourselves upon the body of humanity.

You’ve given careful consideration to your position, and I’m doing the same with mine. At some point, one of us will be considered as cancerous. Of course, our real intention is to prevent the cancer, and absorb the errant gene meme back into a healthy body. But some genes just won’t listen. Their code has mutated erroneously away from that which serves the goodness of the body.

Sometimes the beneficial gene memes allow the errant gene to survive, in limited fashion, like a growing mole upon the skin. Sometimes the mole grows large enough to warrant concern. Sometimes the mole has to be removed altogether, for it attempts to convince the other genes that shite is Shangra-La, and encourages them to mutate like it.

Whatever the result, let us acknowledge in truth, that our battle is one of supremacy for the body of humanity.

zophu's avatar

Yeah, there are more “thoughtful” ways to get off. I think a culture can be justified to encourage those ways while discouraging the less mindful, purely indulgent sexual behaviors. Desire doesn’t justify behavior alone, even if there is an apparent lack of harm in the immediate situation. Even in the animal world there is persecution for certain behaviors. Not that we should persecute as simply as animals do, but we should keep behaviors in check to some degree. I think it goes beyond the legal system’s limits to persecute people for mindless acts that don’t seem to harm anyone, but any culture should discourage mindless acts or at least keep them contained.

sorry, kind of dropped in at the bottom of the conversation here. you guys have been going at it

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox “Replace characteristics with reasoning, seems I made a definition error.”

Ok. I can top that, too.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,30198-1,00.html
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_45/outXLV06/outXLV06q.pdf

There are plenty of other sites and links to prove it. If animals could not reason, they could not, on their own, learn to use tools.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies wrote, “They are not exercising their humanity. They act like animals and therefore become a form of animal. When one acts like an animal, it’s impossible to call that human behavior.”

Explain to me how, that when one ACTS(keyword) as an animal, that one forfeits his/her humanity? All of a sudden, it’s mindless? No reasoning? Never heard of self-pleasure(whatever that means for someone)? Why can’t you be a prestige scholar practice these philias as entertainment? The scholar helps to evolve culture & then enjoys the so many fruits of life(to each their own)?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies wrote, “Specifically to weed out all memes which degrade humanity, or stifle the human potential and condition.”

Why should one do so? What kind of memes are we talking about here? How are they degrading humanity? Consider comments to previous quote when answering.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies wrote, “So are we, as humans created in the image of God (that being, with the power of sentient authorship”

Please stop instilling your religious beliefs in your arguments. Unless you would like to explain God to me?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, wrote, “It is a biological imperative to mate.”
Well that’s not true now is it? How do you explain the philias then?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, wrote, “Eeegaads! You want me to start an evo thread just to satisfy the ego of a newbie? Me thinks not”.

meatheadbox's avatar

@Keysha, all you are showing me is that animals are able to use simple reasonings. Then if they can reason, then surely the animal would kick the human away if it wasn’t interested in intercourse? That’s not the case though, now is it(doesn’t kick the human way, hence, consent)? @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, well isn’t this observation at it’s finest, animals can reason & we evolved from animals, are you seeing connections yet?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

One cannot act like an animal and act like a human simultaneously. Ever heard of Plato’s Forms? They become a Form of animal. Best left to the imagination of children and clowns. Shall we allow children, clowns, and bestiality to evolve our culture?

In fear, even the clown and child knows they are acting. The beastial believe it is normative to human expression in reality. That is abnormal, and therefor philia.

It degrades humanity by substituting animal behaviors for human behaviors. Nothing could be further from the truth of humanity.

What religion do you accuse me of following? Certainly not Christian, I’ve already damned them.

Are you denying that mating is a biological imperative? Don’t confuse drive with desire.

Animals can reason only to the extent that they can express language. The cat meuw, the wolf howl, the whale song, the figure 8 waggle dance of the bee… all language skills that allow those animals to reason. But that capacity is far afield from human language. Animals are locked into their expressive capacity. They cannot form new words that express new concepts. Their mating calls do not call for humans or different animals of different species. They cannot expand their language to adjust for such either.

Animals are fixed in their reasoning skills to only that which concerns their survival.

Humans aren’t. At the drop of a hat, humans can create new words to express new concepts of reasoning. There is nothing new observed in our universe that humans cannot create a word to reason the thinking of that observation upon.

Thus we create words such as Zoophilia to express our thoughts about an observable phenomenon. Animals cannot reason a thought about having sex with a human being. They are incapable of such a thought. Therefor, not only are they incapable of giving consent to such a concept, they can’t even conceive of the concept to begin with.

Animals have drive. Humans have drive and desire. No human has a drive to mate with a dead corpse. They may have a desire to do such a thing, but desire is not explained by evolution.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What on earth is my incentive for starting a thread to discuss your knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about evolution?

Continue the discussion here. Or browse through my older posts and challenge what I have said in the past. I’ve had this discussion literally dozens of times in the past year and a half on this forum alone.

Don’t hold back. Let it all hang out right here. The discussion has turned this way and it is quite appropriate for the topic at hand. You’ve asked difficult questions. Shall we limit the answers to simplicity for your amusement?

My starting a new thread would only serve to satisfy the ego of a newbie. You’ve made your bed here. I suspect this is where you will lie in it as well.

Keysha's avatar

@meatheadbox You do like qualifying things. don’t you? You said animals do not reason. I showed you they do. Now you say they will use simple reason. Now you say that they would kick you away. I showed you, repeatedly, that it is not always possible for them to do so. But that does not matter to you. All you care about is scoring whatever imaginary points you think you can get, no matter how much you have to bend your initial statements.

I also pointed out to you that zoophilia is not just horses, but you are so focused on your desire to bugger a mare that you forget any other animals. You want to draw the line where it would benefit you, not where society dictates it be drawn. So be it. Take your crayons and have fun. I’m through listening to you make a donkey of yourself (check for alternate words for donkey, if that was a bit over your head)

And yes, I used donkey deliberately. You seem to want permission to have sex with a horse so badly, you must be hoping to carry on your genes with the next generation. Too bad it will probably be sterile, as most mules are.

meatheadbox's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “One cannot act like an animal and act like a human simultaneously. Ever heard of Plato’s Forms? They become a Form of animal. Best left to the imagination of children and clowns. Shall we allow children, clowns, and bestiality to evolve our culture?”

Well then, have you read Aristotle’s & Bertrand Russell’s arguments against it? When one dress’s up as a character to play with his/her children, does he/she transform into the character? You must have no multitasking skills if you think this way, which explains your narrow mindedness.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “In fear, even the clown and child knows they are acting.”

Explain.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “The beastial believe it is normative to human expression in reality. That is abnormal, and therefor philia.”

I don’t understand this, please explain clearer.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “It degrades humanity by substituting animal behaviors for human behaviors. Nothing could be further from the truth of humanity.”

Again, you can do both, no need for substituting.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “What religion do you accuse me of following? Certainly not Christian, I’ve already damned them.”

Good question, if I had to guess, I would say the church of the flying spaghetti monster. However, why don’t you just tell me, so I don’t mock you.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “Are you denying that mating is a biological imperative?”

Are you going to be answering questions with questions?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “Don’t confuse drive with desire.”

Deal with one part (biological imperative) then the other, or is everything so clear cut that desire must be the cause of philia?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “Animals have drive. Humans have drive and desire. No human has a drive to mate with a dead corpse. They may have a desire to do such a thing, but desire is not explained by evolution.”

Again, revert back top of this commentary.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie, wrote, “You’ve asked difficult questions. Shall we limit the answers to simplicity for your amusement?”

Yes, a simple answer would be best, but it isn’t that simple. Well guess what, flame-bait was the correct assumption for my intentions to this thread. I put zero thought into this thread. I was going with the flow & the flow was fast pace, thus my explanation were flip-flopping due to the amount of reply’s and information presented, although I did clear it up later on, but @Keysha, still thinks I’m flip-flipping which is understandable, no thanks to the fault of my own. Well @Keysha, read @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, as she/he elucidated it well. Anyway, I thought it was too funny & fun for me to engage in as I’ve been sick(flu) all week. The funniest part is that I can argue this ridiculous topic pretty well, despite people calling my refutations “illogical” “unreasonable” as a cop-out to protect their intellectual integrity & this question has great depth to it as you see it evolving in this thread. Would have been better with homosexuality in it, but it seems half this site is full of sensitive homosexuals. A good argument is able to change anyone’s views on anything, however, the problem with this site is, there is no agree to disagree. All philosophical arguments end up with arguments to both sides, there is no absolute truth. Yet, here, when one refuses to heed the words of one’s ideology, he/she is deemed ill as with the philiacs. I’m actually way to exasperated to type & argue at this point. Burnout if you will. The fun turned to dullness. Besides, this has all been covered one way or another, if you visit the various philosophy forums, I went in great depth there as did many of the other users about all these debatable topics without copy pasting information from wikipedia because of laziness to do some real research. @tragiclikebowie, despite her copy pasting ability did present researched arguments(not her own of course, but valid), however, there is an equal amount of arguments to which my copy pasting skills showed as well, until it was removed by the moderators as “off-topic”, when it had everything to do with topic, but when rational is out the window, petty emotions come in. Also, this site should really lighten up on the rules and allow free speech, seems to be more of a council of tyranny rulers which dominate the users to succumb to their absurd ideology & if not, then termination. As with the case of when I added homosexuality to the first question. In the end, it’s all nonsense, as it doesn’t matter, & nothing changes. Actions speak louder then words right? That’s all that counts, putting ideas in to practice. Unless of course it’s something concrete such as a scientific law, the rest is up for imagination. Life is absurdities and void. Looks like I’ve copt-out of this conversation. Now you can make fun of me that I obviously don’t know anything which is why I’m “running away” from the discussion now. :) “My loser declaration”

Your_Majesty's avatar

OK,I would not make this long since I feel a bit dizzy today.
One of many main reasons why these three philias aren’t accepted by the society is because of religion. Religion has ‘brainwashed’ many people from ancient times and the result nowadays is that these three philias are considered as taboo. Our prehistoric ancestor won’t have such sentimentalism but they’re taught to believe in it. Since the majority of human population are religionist people then the possibility of these there philas to be accepted in human community would be very small.

My opinion is that we’re animals and animals can do anything they want without any boundaries.

GingerMinx's avatar

@tragiclikebowie , thank you, it saved me having to post after looking at the stuff of Andrea Beetz’s that I could find. I notice that Meatheadbox didn’t address what you brought up. What it all seems to come down to is that you beleive it is acceptable Meathead as you do not consider animals worth anything but to be used by man for whatever purpose he chooses. The whole point of ‘ill’ hangs on the fact that other animals can not give informed consent. You in effect rape them, rape in society is seen as an ill thing. Frankly, I have seen a lot of very good points put forward by many people, all on topic, but you simply ignore it all as you try to justify having sex with animals.

GingerMinx's avatar

@Doctor_D, all animals live within the boundaries of their species, humans are no different.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@GingerMinx Yes that is right,and if you see my first post here about Zoophilia you’ll understand my point. “Related species” That is not out of the boundary. It’s natural,and we’re not the only creature that did this thing.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Doctor_D “My opinion is that we’re animals and animals can do anything they want without any boundaries.”

Humans define their entire existence by setting boundaries. That’s because humans can define. And definition, is the first boundary we set. We isolate concepts and ideas with words, separating them from one another.

@Doctor_D “It’s natural,and we’re not the only creature that did this thing.”

Cancer is also natural. Shall we encourage it? Shall we permit it?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox ”“My loser declaration””

There are no losers here. There are no winners either. Hopefully there is discussion based upon reason, and reason to give thoughtful consideration to all views presented.

@meatheadbox “the problem with this site is, there is no agree to disagree.”

A rather bold statement from a newbie. There is plenty of agree to disagree on this site, but you have to be patient enough to recognize it. Try sticking around for a while or reading through some past posts before passing a quick judgment upon a new environment.

I have no shortage of friends on this site that agree to disagree with me. My personal beliefs are in the minority for sure, but I don’t hate anyone because of it. And as far as I know, I’m not hated for it.

Finally, you asked a couple of questions about Forms, Aristotle, Russel, and playing animal, and desire vs drive. They are all related so I’ll answer them as one overriding concern.

The main issue, is that well balanced humans know and understand when and why they are play acting as animals. Their motives are based upon desire, and they have no inclinations to claim such role playing as drive.

But one who practices bestiality is not playing animal. They have abandoned their humanity to form union with animal. They do not acknowledge the differences in drive and desire. They will claim they are driven to have sex with animals, children, and corpses, but there is no biological imperative to support such a claim. They will attempt to justify their desires by claiming them as drive. Justification is not justice. Justification is an excuse. And any excuse that is based upon erroneous conflation is not strong enough to support the behavior.

By understanding that desire and drive are not the same, and that desire is inexplicable by the mere processes of evolution, we therefor conclude that there is no biological imperative that justifies Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia. It is merely a desire. And desires must be accounted for. We are humans after all. And that means we are to be held accountable to every act based in pure desire. In this manner, our authority to define acts of lust, acts of charity, acts of kindness, and acts of greed can be properly established.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@zophu “Desire doesn’t justify behavior alone, even if there is an apparent lack of harm in the immediate situation.”

Excellent @zophu

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@meatheadbox “Life is absurdities and void.”

It can seem as such. But that’s not life. That’s death. You’re mistaking Life with Chaos. Chaos is absurdities and void. Life is a process of making order out of Chaos. It begins with the order set forth by the genetic code. It continues with the order set forth by the definitions that humans author upon Chaos.

It is fulfilled when one realizes that cause/reaction is not the same as thought/action… That notes the difference between living beings and inorganic matter. And it paves the road to discovering that drive is not the same as desire. And that notes the difference between humans and animals.

Response moderated (Spam)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@cheeseblockbox

Why have you changed your user name from @meatheadbox?

There is nothing wrong with doing so. I’m just curious as to why.

You have every right to exercise your human authority over Chaos. I have no problem with that. By doing so, you have demonstrated a considerate thoughtful/action as opposed to an inconsiderate thoughtless cause/reaction. You’ve illustrated desire over drive.

What is the reasoning behind your desire to thoughtfully change your user name? It intrigues me, because you’ve affected a thoughtful authored creation of new Chaos. You’ve literally ordered Chaos into existence. I can imagine a reason for that in game theory or war strategy, but I’d rather know your reasoning. Just curious.

Response moderated (Spam)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Well I did. That’s why I said game theory or war strategy. But I don’t believe that we’re at war any longer, and I certainly don’t see this as a game.

I also don’t believe that you are shallow enough to create two user accounts just to pass lurve points to yourself.

You’re an intelligent person. You obviously have deep thoughts, and you present them well. I certainly wouldn’t think you would succumb to shame.

Was it just a passing fancy of the moment… lightly considered? I mean, people change their clothing all the time with hardly a thought put towards it. I’m just interested. I certainly don’t mean anything by it.

If it is shame though, I do understand. But know that we’ve all been shamed. I’m the king of shame. It’s the hardest pill to swallow. I certainly think a mind like yours has much to offer this site. I encourage you to be yourself, in whatever form that may be.

Response moderated (Spam)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I see. I’m very pleased that you took it on the chin and returned. If you could only know the trouble I got into when I first joined… shees! I was banned for three months at a time and constantly moderated.

Hope you stick around and get to know people. This site, with as many problems as I think it has, has actually taught me a thing or two. It’s made me a better person. Really. It’s shown me that I can express my concerns in a more palatable manner. It’s given me reason to not come to the table with such fixity of assumption about my beliefs. It’s refined my presentation skills to the extent that when offering my concerns, I’m more concerned with actually gathering perspectives of others than riling people up.

Don’t get me wrong. A little poke and jab here and there can actually have an affect of waking people up, and I do so enjoy waking people up. But I’ve learned when, where, and how those tactics are best employed, and when they are best reserved.

Response moderated (Spam)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Jesus has taught me to love my enemies.

But again, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you and I are speaking of the same thing when speaking of what a Jesus is.

Response moderated (Spam)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Depends on how one defines God. I don’t view that being as a Wizard Superman. That’s man’s created god. Neither one of us believes in that kind of god.

I promote:

God = Truth = Information = Thought

Satan = Deception = Entropy = Noise

They are both tools to be used by man. They are free for the taking. Anyone, religious or not may utilize them to express their personal intentions, or conceal them. The question is, are these tools sentient entities?

Obviously there is much more to it than that. But I don’t suppose these tools to be subject to the feeble paradox of man, sentient or not.

Response moderated
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

See you around. Hopefully here too in the short future.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Hey Mods! Consider taking it easy on the MeatHead. It should be obvious that we’re taking this discussion to another level, and he is being reasonable, and even came out and admitted his true intentions. He fessed up, and admitted defeat. You could be more encouraging by acknowledging that.

Besides, you’re making me look silly talking to a ghost here.

anartist's avatar

I don’t know why this hasn’t been asked before, but what is SEXUAL about eating shit?
It just seems as sick as it will make you if you do it.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Whether we like it or not we’re animals(that’s my opinion),we’re evolved fro them,just because we’re more intelligent and can think better it’s doesn’t mean we’re different from them. We’re sophisticated,but we’re still animals.

Cancer isn’t natural,it depends on how an organism treat its life during its life span. My opinion more into ‘natural hybrid’,we’re the only ones mean that there are many creature that did these thing,let say,the coy-wolf,it’s a natural hybrid where one species can reproduce with other related species(it doesn’t cross it’s boundary).

Anyway,this is my opinion and everyone can have their own opinion/definition about this world. I see we came from different theory but it doesn’t mean we have the right to justify each other.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Doctor_D

What do you mean cancer isn’t natural? It occurs in the natural world. And scientists who fight against it are not fighting against supernatural forces. And it occurs for very natural reasons.

Cancer may be unfortunate. It may be harmful. It may give reason for concern. But it is certainly natural because it occurs in nature.

But your opinion has been noted. I’d like to know what you base that opinion upon though.

@Doctor_D “we’re animals(that’s my opinion),we’re evolved fro them”

We’re also purportedly evolved from amino acids. Does that make us amino acids? And amino acids are purportedly made of star dust. Does that make us star dust?

Jet fighters are evolved from Kites. Does that make them Kites?

germanmannn's avatar

humans and animals should not fuck its wrong bad bad bad

GingerMinx's avatar

@germanmannn Humans are animals.

Vincent_Lloyd's avatar

@germanmannn : what GingerMinx said…yeah we pretty much are. But I don’t think it’s a bad thing on my list. But I do know that is legal in other places so. But I mean it’s not as bad as incest…I suppose. Don’t care or see for both.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Writing Standards)
Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

There is a lot that could be said about many of the aforementioned comments, though I did a lot of skimming because of time, but it basically breaks down to those things being frowned on because of personal preference nothing more. There are things that might be some sort of illness but because the masses want to do it or accept it, it is not seen as an illness, debase, heinous, etc.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther