First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Do You Think The Government Has A Right To What Happens In The Bedroom? If So, what?
10627 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 5/29/16
Basically, where someone or some animal is unwilling or unable to consent, including due to age, etc, the government has a right to step in to protect that person.

21369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 5/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Sodomy laws, Incest Laws. Bestiality Laws. Statutory rape. There are many laws regarding sexual practices. Where do you draw the line?


I typically draw the line at bestiality and underage people. What about you?

No to bestiality since animals cannot consent. Statutory rape depends on the classification, calling a 19 year old who is having sex with a 16 year old a statutory rapist seems stupid to me.

While I personally see incest as immoral, by major opposition to it being legal are the genetic defect problems. Too much inbreeding is not good for the gene pool.
578 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/29/16
Things like interracial sex, homosexual sex, sex positions, number of people engaged in a sex act, and incest are none of the governments business. As long as it is consensual and harms no one there is no pressing need for any government involvement.

Obviously, or it should be plainly obvious, animals cannot consent. Also the government has a compelling interest to set an Age of Consent, which varies by state and country, and has a legitimate purpose.

And while I agree incest is troublesome and marriage between close relatives should be illegal, due to a host of reasons, there really isn't any compelling reason for the government to, as much as I hate to say it, prevent relatives from copulating. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean it should be made illegal.
28500 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 5/29/16

FlyinDumpling wrote:


TheGordianNot wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:
Good point. Especially about bestiality. Although it might fall under animal cruelty for some animals, as a cat can't normally take an erect penis human and well....survive. Kenneth Pinyan died from a perforated colon because he took a horse penis in the ass. I remember when I learned about the "rape rack". I stopped eating meat for what, 3 years? I now switched to a mix of organic and humane certified though I can't help but feel like scum.


Ah, yeah, that's a different matter of course, if the animal also dies from it. But in a way even our animal cruelty laws are really schizophrenic. It's an entirely different matter and it would go off topic but we really use criteria that are all over the place in judging what can and can't be done to an animal. Like how in science research you're supposed to protect animals from excessive suffering - by putting them down immediately even for minor injuries or signs of distress. It sounds stupid . If you're using them, go all the way, at least you'll get the results and won't have to sacrifice more animals for the same project.

I wouldn't apply the same rights to animals that we apply to humans of course, and if I were to guarantee some minimal personhood rights (life, freedom) to some I'd pick only a few species - dolphins, apes, whales, elephants perhaps. I wouldn't go as far as say we have to all become vegan or something. But at least having some sort of coherent ethical frame in which to see these problems. The current one seems to be "cute fluffy animals must be protected, tasty animals and pests can fuck off".
We have animal cruelty laws to prevent the needless suffering of animals. Granted, farming and crowded chicken coops largely conflict with those laws and should be remedied.

Does bestiality not fall under animal cruelty to you? And if it doesn't, how do you determine the guidelines for it, accurately? As long as the animal doesn't die from it than all things go?


No, my point was a more general criticism, that we as a society have a very weird relationship with animals. Some times we protect them, others we relentlessly use them and/or kill them. So I find it silly that someone can be punished for hurting a dog when someone else makes their legit living by slaughtering cows raised in awful conditions. I find it hypocritical, is all; we might as well decide that we need to be consistent one way (stop killing the cows) or the other (stop punishing people for hurting arbitrarily defined animals) and it'd make more sense either way. I'm more for the non-cruel solution myself, but yeah. Anyway my point was that such laws are in fact built around humans as moral subjects - not animals. Bestiality is forbidden because it considered indecent for humans, not because it harms animals - as bestiality has been frowned upon since far before anyone ever gave a fuck about animal cruelty, which is a relatively recent thing.

As for whether bestiality constitutes cruelty, I'd say it may as well do, most of the times, if it actually hurts the animals. I don't think most animals really care much about "rape" as a concept as the whole idea of consent is fuzzier for them; some species regularly have matings that would classify as rape for humans (for example ducks). But I'm no behaviourist. Only case where I could buy the idea of consent in bestiality is a couple cases of sex with dolphins I've heard of. Since they're both smart, sociable and, well, horny enough for that to sound reasonably believable.

17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 5/29/16

TheGordianNot wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


TheGordianNot wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:
Good point. Especially about bestiality. Although it might fall under animal cruelty for some animals, as a cat can't normally take an erect penis human and well....survive. Kenneth Pinyan died from a perforated colon because he took a horse penis in the ass. I remember when I learned about the "rape rack". I stopped eating meat for what, 3 years? I now switched to a mix of organic and humane certified though I can't help but feel like scum.


Ah, yeah, that's a different matter of course, if the animal also dies from it. But in a way even our animal cruelty laws are really schizophrenic. It's an entirely different matter and it would go off topic but we really use criteria that are all over the place in judging what can and can't be done to an animal. Like how in science research you're supposed to protect animals from excessive suffering - by putting them down immediately even for minor injuries or signs of distress. It sounds stupid . If you're using them, go all the way, at least you'll get the results and won't have to sacrifice more animals for the same project.

I wouldn't apply the same rights to animals that we apply to humans of course, and if I were to guarantee some minimal personhood rights (life, freedom) to some I'd pick only a few species - dolphins, apes, whales, elephants perhaps. I wouldn't go as far as say we have to all become vegan or something. But at least having some sort of coherent ethical frame in which to see these problems. The current one seems to be "cute fluffy animals must be protected, tasty animals and pests can fuck off".
We have animal cruelty laws to prevent the needless suffering of animals. Granted, farming and crowded chicken coops largely conflict with those laws and should be remedied.

Does bestiality not fall under animal cruelty to you? And if it doesn't, how do you determine the guidelines for it, accurately? As long as the animal doesn't die from it than all things go?


No, my point was a more general criticism, that we as a society have a very weird relationship with animals. Some times we protect them, others we relentlessly use them and/or kill them. So I find it silly that someone can be punished for hurting a dog when someone else makes their legit living by slaughtering cows raised in awful conditions. I find it hypocritical, is all; we might as well decide that we need to be consistent one way (stop killing the cows) or the other (stop punishing people for hurting arbitrarily defined animals) and it'd make more sense either way. I'm more for the non-cruel solution myself, but yeah. Anyway my point was that such laws are in fact built around humans as moral subjects - not animals. Bestiality is forbidden because it considered indecent for humans, not because it harms animals - as bestiality has been frowned upon since far before anyone ever gave a fuck about animal cruelty, which is a relatively recent thing.

As for whether bestiality constitutes cruelty, I'd say it may as well do, most of the times, if it actually hurts the animals. I don't think most animals really care much about "rape" as a concept as the whole idea of consent is fuzzier for them; some species regularly have matings that would classify as rape for humans (for example ducks). But I'm no behaviourist. Only case where I could buy the idea of consent in bestiality is a couple cases of sex with dolphins I've heard of. Since they're both smart, sociable and, well, horny enough for that to sound reasonably believable.

Thanks for the reply

I don't have much to add other than I totally agree with you. A lot to our laws relating to animals is formed through culture create by humans, which is why it's acceptable to eat a cow but not a dog. It's even more evident when you go to countries like india, since culture varies for different people. It get very conflicting
35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/29/16

Somewhat_Insane_Monkey wrote:
It's true, people use some of the laws to their advantage just to get money out of it. This scam happens quite often and more often than not such cases screw the innocent party over.


That's not why I said "what" ;p


54899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 5/29/16
If that Government happen to be Marcus Octavius than the answer is yes!
Posted 6/1/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Sodomy laws, Incest Laws. Bestiality Laws. Statutory rape. There are many laws regarding sexual practices. Where do you draw the line?


I typically draw the line at bestiality and underage people. What about you?


I'm in favor of a government where the people consent to having sexual behavior regulated in need to form a better society. In other words, if the action of regulation is good for society.


Depends. Some of it is moral ninnynannying to me. A lot of things can be taken to benefit society. Please clarify?


Well, one example I would argue is that by disallowing incest, we stop bad mutations and have more healthier populations. My proof of this being better for society, goes back to the Monarchs of Europe. Look at their cousins and late rulers. They were decreed, unfit and diseased. People really don't understand why the ancients took a harsh view on sexuality. It wasn't because a magic book told them to do so.
578 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/1/16

JanusCascade wrote:

If that Government happen to be Marcus Octavius than the answer is yes!


Octavius-sama, please join us! The orgy will be wonderful this chilly evening.
54899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/16

shugotenshi-atm wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:

If that Government happen to be Marcus Octavius than the answer is yes!


Octavius-sama, please join us! The orgy will be wonderful this chilly evening.



Already ahead of you!

48488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 6/2/16
I feel what matters is the level of access any form of authority has in the private spaces of citizens. And that level I feel should be close to zero, not completely zero because there may be circumstances for it (can't think of any atm, but I don't want to completely exclude it). In other words I feel more secure knowing that there's probably someone raping a donkey and will get away with it than having a universal police state where the act is prevented because no one can get away with it.
9514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 6/19/16
When it's universally wrong or taboo. Such as bestiality and incest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uAAP3PbkRI

I don't know if she is trolling or not, but this is one of my main concerns.
76232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / F / Toronto
Online
Posted 6/19/16
47837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 6/19/16

MrAnimeSK wrote:


Sogno- wrote:

i thought the support for incest was bad enough, but support for beastiality too??? let's just keep pushing boundaries why don't we??


yet you support gay shit and Islam? ( i couldn't resit)




if that was supposed to be a joke i missed the punchline

don't bother explaining
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 6/19/16

Sogno- wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:


Sogno- wrote:

i thought the support for incest was bad enough, but support for beastiality too??? let's just keep pushing boundaries why don't we??


yet you support gay shit and Islam? ( i couldn't resit)




if that was supposed to be a joke i missed the punchline

don't bother explaining
What if I told you he wasn't joking
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.