Can animals experience "sexual" abuse?

[nordskoven]

God gave Moses regulations (mutable, versus the 10 commandments or it’s distillation, the Great Commandment) regarding the treatment of animals. This includes outlawing force feeding animals; or removing body parts to eat without killing the animal outright; profane slaughter without offerings to the sanctuary; inhumane slaughter; slaughter without exsanguination; and bestiality. Shunning is the charge for profane slaughter. Stoning is the charge for bestiality.

The root problem is simpler. Stop voting Democrat. Then you won’t have to pervert your sensibilities in an attempt to try and foresee the next affront from a group that has at it’s root a party platform that embraces profane, inhumane human slaughter-- abortion of any kind and at any stage. Justice demands specificity and if that means charging perps with animal abuse as well as animal sexual abuse, this is consonant with God’s will.

 

[kbwall]

Granted, abortion is horrible, but what does it have to do with anything in this topic?

 

[white_sheep]

I bet you all watched Avatar.

 

[LilyM]

I bet you all watched Avatar.

Yes, but I didn’t enjoy it

 

[severus68]

Granted, abortion is horrible, but what does it have to do with anything in this topic?

Exactly! The abortion card again on a thread to do with animals. What is the relevance and two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[severus68]

I think the law is very good.

Having a law for sexual abuse doesn’t mean that someday consentual animal sex will be made legal. An animal can’t give informed consent. Similar to how a child/minor can’t give informed consent./QUOTE

I agree. Its like saying having laws that protect children against sexual abuse will lead to legalising consensual sex with children.

 

[severus68]

I absolutely think that someone charged with bestiality should be charged with animal sexual abuse. If a person sexually abuses an animal, he should be justly charged and penalized for it. Of course bestiality is animal sexual abuse. There is nothing else it could be. The animal cannot consent to the behavior imposed on him by someone more powerful than he/she, and supposedly with a higher brain. They have no power to refuse or consent. It’s abuse no matter how you look at it. Who the heck knows what such a person would do to another person, or to a child. I find it disturbing that a human being would sexually abuse an animal, yes. But then they sexually abuse their fellow human beings as well. And I don’t think this is an attempt to make animals equal to humans.

I think that as stewards of the earth, we are called to protect animals against this type of cruelty (as well as other types of cruelty) and I can’t think of a reason why in the world wouldn’t we be called to do so. God gave human beings guardianship over the animals of the earth and I doubt anyone can convince me that there isn’t a special punishment for those who abuse the privelidge and obligation that comes with that assignment. It’s not that they’re on the same level as well are, but they are deserving of dignity and respect.

I’m sorry that you’re upset about the animal sexual abuse designation, but I am happy for it, and support it 100%. This is something that I would rally for, speak out for, donate money for, take action for. No offense, but it’s kind of appalling to me that people think that animals are so low on the totem pole that a human being should be able to sexually abuse them and get away with it, and there not be any consequences for it. It’s bad enough that they are treated without dignity and respect by the commercial food industry, so I guess I expect no less even though it infuriates me

Well said.

 

[momor]

I think the law is very good.

Having a law for sexual abuse doesn’t mean that someday consentual animal sex will be made legal. An animal can’t give informed consent. Similar to how a child/minor can’t give informed consent.

Animal informed consent - really? What a uniquely human concept you are giving an animal. How are you going to defend your argument? Will you say that animals have sexual rights? Did you ever spay or neuter or euthanise a pet? Did you get their consent? No you did not. They were your rights as an owner to do something that you and your vet determined were not abusive to the animal.

Can anyone prove that genital manipulation in animals that doesn’t cause pain or distress is abusive to the animal? It is certainly sick behavior in the human but does the animal experience it as abuse? There are sicko’s out there that will tell you the animal likes it and use that argument if abuse of the animal is the only legal constraint.

When it comes to the sexual rights/freedoms realm many things we take for granted are under attack (including the term consent BTW). Perhaps I’m over-concerned but I don’t think so. I think the slippery slope is there. Many states and countries don’t even have laws against bestiality and I am concerned that is where the practice will gain momentum before it seeks to spread to the wider society and attack loopholes in the law. Before you know it we will be tolerating it, then protecting it, and then celebrating it with parades.

Let’s keep the focus off the animal and on the human where it belongs. Call it what it is which is the practice of bestiality and the mental illness of zoophilia - not animal sexual abuse.

Please don’t interpret any of what I say as not caring about animals. I love my pets and they are part of the family for life.

 

[Andre1000]

I think it will be legal soon or later. Some will come and say it would be no abuse.
And then it comes to this “tolerant” talking and…

 

[momor]

I think it will be legal soon or later. Some will come and say it would be no abuse.
And then it comes to this “tolerant” talking and…

Yes. It highlights 2 opposite sides to the same undesirable issue. If we start giving animals traits/rights that belong uniquely to humans where will it stop? If we label something as sexual abuse of an animal what happens if it is proven not to be abusive under typical animal definitions of abuse (pain and distress) - then are all the stops off?

 

[kbwall]

Animal informed consent - really? What a uniquely human concept you are giving an animal.

Yes, informed consent is a uniquely human concept. Which is precisely why animals will never be able to express it. Hence why a human having sex with an animal will always be rape/abuse and never be within the realm of acceptable behavior.

Will you say that animals have sexual rights?

Not to the extent of humans, but in a sense, yes, they should be protected against sickos who wish to sexually violate them.

Can anyone prove that genital manipulation in animals that doesn’t cause pain or distress is abusive to the animal? It is certainly sick behavior in the human but does the animal experience it as abuse?

I never said neutering was abuse. What does this have to do with anything?

Neutering a human is different from neutering an animal. Simply being that animals will never come to appreciate reproduction, it’s just another desire to them, like eating. They don’t miss it if it’s gone. A human does.

I should also add that this is similar to traditional abuse. We have laws against killing animals for fun in cruel ways. Yet, slaughterhouses are perfectly legal. Similarly, we have laws against sexually violating animals, but genital mutilation (as long as it’s done painlessly) is allowed.

There are sicko’s out there that will tell you the animal likes it and use that argument if abuse of the animal is the only legal constraint.

They can use that argument all they want, but it won’t make them right. I don’t care if they think the animal likes it; they’re idiots. Even if it’s done to reduce pain in the animal, it still doesn’t change the fact that you’re still raping them. Similar to pedophiles.

All sex with animals is abuse, regardless of what the sicko thinks. Animals can’t give informed consent, and that’s all there is to it. Unless you can magically give animals the intelligence of humans, that will never change.

Let’s keep the focus off the animal and on the human where it belongs. Call it what it is which is the practice of bestiality and the mental illness of zoophilia - not animal sexual abuse.

They’re synonomous. And the focus is on the human, as the human is the one who is doing the abuse.

Your views and arguments are quite confusing. On one note, you basically argue that animals don’t need consent, and that they are yours to use as you see fit. You realize that’s an argument for bestiality, right? In fact, most of your post is actually an argument for it, since the best argument against it is the trauma to the animal. You’re making it sound like another sexual act that is just frowned upon, which is a great way to build tolerance for besiality I add. I think you’ve got it backwards; it’s the removal of calling it abuse that is the slippery slope.

 

[severus68]

Animal informed consent - really? What a uniquely human concept you are giving an animal. How are you going to defend your argument? Will you say that animals have sexual rights? Did you ever spay or neuter or euthanise a pet? Did you get their consent? No you did not. They were your rights as an owner to do something that you and your vet determined were not abusive to the animal.

Can anyone prove that genital manipulation in animals that doesn’t cause pain or distress is abusive to the animal? It is certainly sick behavior in the human but does the animal experience it as abuse? There are sicko’s out there that will tell you the animal likes it and use that argument if abuse of the animal is the only legal constraint.

When it comes to the sexual rights/freedoms realm many things we take for granted are under attack (including the term consent BTW). Perhaps I’m over-concerned but I don’t think so. I think the slippery slope is there. Many states and countries don’t even have laws against bestiality and I am concerned that is where the practice will gain momentum before it seeks to spread to the wider society and attack loopholes in the law. Before you know it we will be tolerating it, then protecting it, and then celebrating it with parades.

Let’s keep the focus off the animal and on the human where it belongs. Call it what it is which is the practice of bestiality and the mental illness of zoophilia - not animal sexual abuse.

Please don’t interpret any of what I say as not caring about animals. I love my pets and they are part of the family for life.

We neuter our pets to help them and to reduce the number of unwanted cats and dogs. We do not do it to hurt them. How could we get their consent? We make sure our children get their shots and vaccinations, they are painful and they do not want them but we still do it.
A baby does not recognise sexual abuse as sexual abuse, it is still sexual abuse.

Why is the use of the term bestiality so important. It is also defined as acting brutally, acting like a beast and does not necessarily apply to sexual acts with an animal.
I do not think there is any slippery slope here. How would the very protection given to animals lead to allowing sexual acts with animals?

The focus is on the human. Children cannot give consent so sexual acts with a child are crimes. Adult humans can consent so sex with a consenting adult is not a crime in most countries. Animals have no free will and with their lower intellect can never be deemed to give consent. So it is and should always be a crime. The crime is the sexual acts with/on the animal so it is animal sexual abuse.

All right thinking people find sexual acts with a child abhorrent and they also find sexual acts with an animal abhorrent. As a child sexual abuser is mentally ill so is an animal sexual abuser.

I am glad your pets are part of your family. So are mine. Just to digress a bit.

 

[Link0126]

I am afraid this is an attempt to make animals equal to humans and marks an early step on the road to recognizing bestiality as an accepted behavior.

I see it as the exact opposite. Saying they couldn’t experience abuse in this way seems like it would be more akin to making it acceptable behavior rather than recognizing that they can and making it a criminal charge.

Animals are certainly equal to humans in their ability to suffer. They absolutely should be protected from abuse, emotional and physical, whenever possible.

 

[white_sheep]

Anthropomorphism to the extremism.

 

[horselvr]

“Anthropomorphism to the extremism.”

I find this statement very disturbing.

Why do you feel that being concerned about animals being abused, be that physically or sexually, is anthropomorphism ?

Unfortunately, beastiality is illegal in only 30 states. Recently I found out on one of my horse forums that there are actual parties thrown in barns after hours and the animals there (dogs, cats, mini horses, donkeys and horses) are being tied and bound and used for out of towners sexual pleasures. It is big business to show you just how corrupt society is.

Don’t think this is something for normal people to be concerned about? Do a google search on a high dollar stallion by the name of Capone and the man that coordinated these parties has gotten away with it because it is not illegal in the state of Washington.

I have not personally worked with rehabilitating any dogs that have been used as sex toys for these sicko but I have spoken to those that have. IT is their opinion that these animal do suffer emotional damage from sexual abuse and have a difficult time adjusting in a normal household. Tell them they anthromophise.

Of course YOU will consider this anthromorphising. Maybe you should spend sometime helping rehabilitating these animals or maybe even Michael Vicks pits that were slammed to the ground and held under water for his delights. They are still to this day tramatized in the kennels of the rescurers while he is hailed as a hero on the football field and raking in the big bucks once again.

Or maybe you might want to visit a slaughter house and watch as the horses are cut up alive because some are too careless with the job and of course not wanting to anthromophise doesn’t pay any attention to their screams.

Paleese!!

 

[white_sheep]

“Anthropomorphism to the extremism.”

I find this statement very disturbing.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

Why do you feel that being concerned about animals being abused, be that physically or sexually, is anthropomorphism ?

Animals do not experience sex the way people do. Ergo, they cannot be sexually abused in the same manner as people can be. It is really just another kind of physical abuse for them. Have you ever met a dog who told you he or she was having difficulty rendering the marital debt because of sexual abuse years prior?

Unfortunately, beastiality is illegal in only 30 states. Recently I found out on one of my horse forums that there are actual parties thrown in barns after hours and the animals there (dogs, cats, mini horses, donkeys and horses) are being tied and bound and used for out of towners sexual pleasures. It is big business to show you just how corrupt society is.

That’s pretty awful, in my opinion, not that I want to upset the LGBTZ crowd or anything.

Don’t think this is something for normal people to be concerned about? Do a google search on a high dollar stallion by the name of Capone and the man that coordinated these parties has gotten away with it because it is not illegal in the state of Washington.

Just because something is grossly immoral doesn’t necessarily mean it should be illegal. Should we also make oral sex illegal? Masturbation? Adultery? I contend that they are worse offenses, though likely less disordered.

I am highly disturbed by how many rights animals are getting these days. People often say that their dog is their child. Well I have two words for you if you equate your animal with my child that total 7 letters. That’s how I feel about that sickening trend in society. That’s worse than zoosexuals.

I have not personally worked with rehabilitating any dogs that have been used as sex toys for these sicko but I have spoken to those that have. IT is their opinion that these animal do suffer emotional damage from sexual abuse and have a difficult time adjusting in a normal household. Tell them they anthromophise.

They anthropomorphize. They suffer damage but it isn’t of the same kind that humans suffer due to sexual abuse. I have known many people who have rescue dogs and they’re all messed up, any physical abuse will do that to an animal.

Of course YOU will consider this anthromorphising. Maybe you should spend sometime helping rehabilitating these animals or maybe even Michael Vicks pits that were slammed to the ground and held under water for his delights. They are still to this day tramatized in the kennels of the rescurers while he is hailed as a hero on the football field and raking in the big bucks once again.

That’s a good argument as to why they should be destroyed. A guy I know got a rescue dog and then found out it hates children, now he’s having his first in a month. He needs to go shoot that dog now, I hope he does.

And exactly how did you get to this ridiculous characterization that I deny that animals are capable of suffering abuse and harboring emotional damage?

Or maybe you might want to visit a slaughter house and watch as the horses are cut up alive because some are too careless with the job and of course not wanting to anthromophise doesn’t pay any attention to their screams.

Paleese!!

Again, you’re acting as if I said things I did not say. Furthermore, I fail to see how slaughterhouse practices are germane to the topic of animal sexual abuse.

 

[severus68]

I’m sorry you feel that way.

Animals do not experience sex the way people do. Ergo, they cannot be sexually abused in the same manner as people can be. It is really just another kind of physical abuse for them. Have you ever met a dog who told you he or she was having difficulty rendering the marital debt because of sexual abuse years prior?

I assume the point he is making is how many humans think its ok to and do abuse and torture animals because they can and do get away with it as so many think and say animals have no rights.

 

[severus68]

I see it as the exact opposite. Saying they couldn’t experience abuse in this way seems like it would be more akin to making it acceptable behavior rather than recognizing that they can and making it a criminal charge.

Animals are certainly equal to humans in their ability to suffer. They absolutely should be protected from abuse, emotional and physical, whenever possible.

Absolutely!

 

[JaneGrey]

I’m sorry you feel that way.

Animals do not experience sex the way people do. Ergo, they cannot be sexually abused in the same manner as people can be. It is really just another kind of physical abuse for them. Have you ever met a dog who told you he or she was having difficulty rendering the marital debt because of sexual abuse years prior?

That’s pretty awful, in my opinion, not that I want to upset the LGBTZ crowd or anything.

Just because something is grossly immoral doesn’t necessarily mean it should be illegal. Should we also make oral sex illegal? Masturbation? Adultery? I contend that they are worse offenses, though likely less disordered.

I am highly disturbed by how many rights animals are getting these days. **People often say that their dog is their child. Well I have two words for you if you equate your animal with my child that total 7 letters. **That’s how I feel about that sickening trend in society. That’s worse than zoosexuals.

They anthropomorphize. They suffer damage but it isn’t of the same kind that humans suffer due to sexual abuse. I have known many people who have rescue dogs and they’re all messed up, any physical abuse will do that to an animal.

That’s a good argument as to why they should be destroyed. A guy I know got a rescue dog and then found out it hates children, now he’s having his first in a month. He needs to go shoot that dog now, I hope he does.

And exactly how did you get to this ridiculous characterization that I deny that animals are capable of suffering abuse and harboring emotional damage?

Again, you’re acting as if I said things I did not say. Furthermore, I fail to see how slaughterhouse practices are germane to the topic of animal sexual abuse.

Careful what you say there. My grandparents, and parents, among other good Christians I know, refer to their pets as their ‘children’ or ‘furbabies’. I have never doubted their love for me or their other human children.

No one is forcing you to love animals or treat them like your children, but with respect I think you have no place to make thinly veiled insults at those who do.

 

[Neithan]

as far as I know, the Church teaches that animals do not have any rights. Only a person can have rights. Animals are things, not people, and things do not have rights. Trees, mountains, rivers, flowers, ants, horses: none of these have rights.

So, I agree that a separate charge of “sexual abuse” is strange. Animal cruelty is legislated because of the damage it does to the person, not to the animal (which is the person’s property). Unless some pagan ideas about the “equality” of humans and animals (i.e. man is just another animal) are creeping into our legislature (and I would say they are), a charge of “animal abuse” should be enough to sentence a person to whatever punishment befits the crime. The judge can put the convicted on a sex offender registry if the abuse warrants it.

I agree that an additional charge of “sexual abuse” suggests that the animal has rights equal to a person. That’s pagan, not Christian.