[ SECRET POST #2734 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2734 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #391.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[allkindsoffur]

Ahm, bestiality is wrong? Elaborate please...

[cassandraoftroy]

Sexual contact with any being that cannot meaningfully convey competent, informed consent is wrong. Some species of animal may have the intellectual capacity to consent to sex -- keyword here, may. Until we develop some effective means of communicating with said species and establishing their competence to consent, we can't be sure. And there's no such thing as "dubcon" in real life.

Fantasies about bestiality, or hypothetical sexual congress with a non-human being of at least human-level intelligence with which one can communicate meaningfully, are a different matter, and are morally neutral.

[allkindsoffur]

Fair point. It's definitely a subject that needs careful consideration. So far neither the apologetics nor the condemners have convinced me completely.
After all, who asks a future steak for its consent?

One thing's for sure: it's a highly emotionalized subject.

[cassandraoftroy]

It's a legitimate point that we don't consider the issue of consent with food animals, and that it's possible for at least some people to live on a healthy diet that doesn't involve meat, but I can't help thinking that there's a qualitative difference between eating an animal and using it as a sex toy, which is what I feel is happening when an animal that cannot consent is used for sexual gratification. Honestly, I feel like arguing that eating animals and bestiality are morally equivalent (and the argument can certainly be made) is a better argument in support of veganism than in support of bestiality.

[allkindsoffur]

I hear you, and as I said it's a morally and ethically challenging topic. I can't say that I've made up my mind. I'm not sure if the term 'consent' is meaningful in this context though. Humans do a lot of questionable things to animals without giving a f*** about consent. For me it's more a question of dignity I guess.

[thistlechaser]

Someone once brought an argument up to me, seems to fit here: It likely bothers a horse more to carry 200 or so pounds of us on their back than for a man to stick his (compared to a stallion) miniscule penis into them.

[allkindsoffur]

*snort* not bad ;)

[(Anonymous)]

the fact that someone with the username allkindsoffur is wondering if bestiality is okay really creeps me out :x

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly think it's elephatinegrace making a new account to pathetically troll people with.

[allkindsoffur]

Yeah, creeps me out too actually. It's the title of one of the Grimms fairy tales, though...

[(Anonymous)]

Killing an animal for sustenance seems a fair bit different from bestiality, to me. It's a question of necessity - we need the protein that animals provide in our diet, we don't need to have sexual congress with them. Anything harmful that isn't necessary crosses the line to abuse.

Of course, there's also the question of whether or not sex with humans is harmful to an animal on a psychological basis. We already have evidence that other types of physical abuse causes behavioral problems in most of them, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that sex would do the same. Not the kind of thing I want to Google at the moment, though...

[(Anonymous)]

But if animals have no concept of consent, then they probably don't have much sense of violation either. Do they even care? Why would a horse care if a human fucks it? It'd probably barely even feel anything.

The survival instinct is strong, though. Virtually all animals really, really want to stay alive. I suspect if you could ask any sentient-but-not-sapient animal whether it would rather be fucked or killed, the answer would be unanimous that fucking is preferable. So is bestiality really morally equivalent to killing animals for food? From the animal's point of view, I'm sure the latter is much worse.

[(Anonymous)]

I do know that bestiality can mentally fuck up some animals, like dogs. And, heck, unintentional bestiality (animals have different erogenous/bonding zones than humans) can screw up some birds like parrots. When you convince an animal that a human is its mate and not its owner/friend/caretaker, things get really messed up.

Then again, same goes for treating animals like humans in general.

[(Anonymous)]

We do, in the developed world, not kill animals for "sustenance" but because we like the taste. We do not "need" animal protein any more than we "need" the bubbliness of pop. There are obviously rare exceptions to this - e.g. people who need animal protein due to allergies etc. - but they do not, in any way, shape or form, line up with the way we kill animals for food.

[(Anonymous)]

because consent?