Is it normal for humans to find sexual attractions to animals?
yes!
Side Score: 8
|
No!
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
Who are we to say whats normal. I think it is abit strange but still if someone finds pleasure in something we deam abnormal more power to them. In some places things like this happen and we have a negative look on those people. and in those countires they see us as abnormal. Side: yes!
1
point
|
2
points
No its not normal for humans to have sexual attractions to animals because its unnatural we are suppose to be attracted to the opposite sex for humans just like all the animals have a sexual attraction to other female/male animals of their own species and kind. You don't see a dog or any other animal having sexual attractions to us humans now do you? Side: No!
1
point
I agree with the position that is it not normal for humans to be sexually attracted to animals, but for a different reason. The reason I disputed your post is because the argument that supports your disagreement is flawed or weak in my opinion. Let me explain. Because sexual attraction to animals is unnatural, it automatically becomes abnormal. By that reasoning though, a lot of things become abnormal. Playing video games, abnormal. Flying in airplanes, abnormal. Listening to music on your ipod, abnormal. Sky diving, abnormal. 112 years ago, nobody did any of that stuff. It would have been weird, abnormal, unnatural back then. I'm just saying, there are in my opinion other more valid arguments to why it is abnormal. Side: No!
1
point
Definition of Normal: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. Sexual attraction to animals is not standard, usual, typical, or expected in virtually all societies. There may be some societies where this is common place, but I do not know of them. Seeing as how animals have rudimentary methods of communication, compared to a human, and seeing as how animals are beings of limited sentience, I believe it to be immoral to "act" upon these feelings of sexual attraction seeing as how the animal doesn't have a way to know what it's doing or consent to the action. Side: No!
Seeing as how animals have rudimentary methods of communication, compared to a human, and seeing as how animals are beings of limited sentience, I believe it to be immoral to "act" upon these feelings of sexual attraction seeing as how the animal doesn't have a way to know what it's doing or consent to the action. An animal can give implicit consent by not resisting. If an animal is unwilling to participate in a sexual act, it would make whining noises or move away or resist in any other way. When a female horse is unwilling to copulate, it would simply buck. If, however, a female horse allows another horse (or a human in this case) to mount it - this can be seen as implicit consent. Also, we force various horses, dogs and other purebred animals to copulate. This happens by releasing a horny dog on a female dog. This happens by forcefully inseminating a mare with semen that was obtained by forcefully masturbating a horse. A lot of the things we do already qualifies as sexual abuse. Having sex with animals is really not far off, if at all. I would like to know if you condemn this practice? Secondly, we can draw some very interesting logical conclusions about the argument of limited sentience and the inability to consent. Would you agree with me then, that any application, any sort of usage of animals (domestic or otherwise) must then be considered immoral? If an animal has limited sentience and has no idea what's going on - then we can never know whether they consent to anything. Animal consent regarding killing them for meat, testing medicines on them, killing them for leather, milking them, imprisoning them, using them in the circus etc etc - in all these cases animal consent is blatantly ignored. Animal consent is blatantly ignored when taking a pet, riding a horse or forcing your pets to copulate or even taking your dog to a walk. Why is it that in all these cases, ignoring animal consent is acceptable but when the question of sex arises - only then is consent an issue? It would seem to me that sex is actually a very very mild compared to what we do to animals already. Side: yes!
1
point
Alright fine, you've got me. A lot of the things we do already qualifies as sexual abuse. Having sex with animals is really not far off, if at all. I would like to know if you condemn this practice? No, I don't care for it. At first I would have said the consent issue, but since you've raised up your counterargument, my argument tends to evaporate. Animal consent is ignored with pretty much anything already. Side: yes!
1
point
on the contrary, this may be inappropriate to mention but just look it up, there are hundreds of videos of bestiality where the male is the animal and the female is the human and in this case when the male is doing all the work (humping) and is the animal, well then that is more than enough proof that animals feel sexually attracted to humans as well. btw when i was younger (true story) i saw a small dog that had pined a cat to the ground and was humping it (laughed my butt of for days), so animals do feel sexual attraction to different animals when they are horny enough :) Side: yes!
1
point
|