• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beastiality?

maquiscat said:
Ok so this is purely a thought experiment or debate or what have you with certain preconditions imposed. If you don't present your arguments within the context of those preconditions then you're a twat waffle.

Supposition 1: Sentient humanoid life forms exist, maybe terrestrial or maybe extraterrestrial, that are highly resembling animals, like a cat person or badger person.

Supposition 2: While still bearing the shapes of their animal counterpart, there are individuals who are sentient and intelligent, to the point where they could hold their own in science and debate and such. They have the ability to communicate clearly, whether by vocal means, or a device, and telepathy or whatever.

Would you consider sex with individuals from either case to be beastiality? Even if so, would you consider it allowable given the intelligence and ability to give informed consent?

Again, this does not supposed that such a situation is possible based on current knowledge. It is simply to see how people view this particular aspect.
Click to expand...

Just go to a furry convention
 
tacomancer said:
Just go to a furry convention
Click to expand...

But the problem with that is that it fails to address the posed question. A furry is a human cosplaying as an animal or anthropomorphic animal. It at the core is still a human.
 
tacomancer said:
Just go to a furry convention
Click to expand...

It also doesn't address the entire premise behind the question, which I admittedly did not post, not thinking it necessary. The key point was that the other was intelligent, and that one was attracted by the person despite being in a non-human body.
 
sangha said:
The OP was about having sex with an intelligent animal
Click to expand...

Which could simply be another human since we are animals.

Would Marvel mutants having sex with homosapiens be bestiality? Where does being human stop?
 
Andalublue said:
I'd consider having sex with any of those who know that 'beastiality' isn't a word.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. It's a variant of bestiality, sort of like color and colour.
 
maquiscat said:
Ok so this is purely a thought experiment or debate or what have you with certain preconditions imposed. If you don't present your arguments within the context of those preconditions then you're a twat waffle.

Supposition 1: Sentient humanoid life forms exist, maybe terrestrial or maybe extraterrestrial, that are highly resembling animals, like a cat person or badger person.

Supposition 2: While still bearing the shapes of their animal counterpart, there are individuals who are sentient and intelligent, to the point where they could hold their own in science and debate and such. They have the ability to communicate clearly, whether by vocal means, or a device, and telepathy or whatever.

Would you consider sex with individuals from either case to be beastiality? Even if so, would you consider it allowable given the intelligence and ability to give informed consent?

Again, this does not supposed that such a situation is possible based on current knowledge. It is simply to see how people view this particular aspect.
Click to expand...

You really have to define terms. The basic definition of beastiality is a sexual connection between human and animal, since humans are animals it could mean just regular sex.
 
roguenuke said:
Mutants in the Marvel Universe are considered a new species (evolved from humans, homo sapiens superior or homo superior) by many in that universe and our own (its debated). Assuming they are a new species, does that make sex with someone with a mutation that makes them not as "human" as us bestiality? At what level of mutation do we change from being a human? Would it be the point of an entirely new species, which is generally defined as separated by being able to produce fertile offspring, yet even this is debatable? So if we were able to produce fertile offspring with an alien species (not likely, but still possible), would that still make it bestiality?
Click to expand...

That's the popular belief of the modern setting in marvel.

The truth is something far different. And there really actually is no such thing as mutants, in the Marvel Universe, at least with Earth 613.

I'm not sure about the other dimensions though.
 
Getting back tot he OP, if homosexuality is normal now, why shouldn't bestiality be?

Where do we draw the line and sexual acts being deviant and abnormal?
 
Ancient Herald said:
Getting back tot he OP, if homosexuality is normal now, why shouldn't bestiality be?

Where do we draw the line and sexual acts being deviant and abnormal?
Click to expand...

base things on consent and harm instead of frequency

homosexuality is still deviant and abnormal its just not wrong in any way
 
maquiscat said:
Ok so this is purely a thought experiment or debate or what have you with certain preconditions imposed. If you don't present your arguments within the context of those preconditions then you're a twat waffle.

Supposition 1: Sentient humanoid life forms exist, maybe terrestrial or maybe extraterrestrial, that are highly resembling animals, like a cat person or badger person.

Supposition 2: While still bearing the shapes of their animal counterpart, there are individuals who are sentient and intelligent, to the point where they could hold their own in science and debate and such. They have the ability to communicate clearly, whether by vocal means, or a device, and telepathy or whatever.

Would you consider sex with individuals from either case to be beastiality? Even if so, would you consider it allowable given the intelligence and ability to give informed consent?

Again, this does not supposed that such a situation is possible based on current knowledge. It is simply to see how people view this particular aspect.
Click to expand...

Probably not. I don't like hairy women.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Getting back tot he OP, if homosexuality is normal now, why shouldn't bestiality be?

Where do we draw the line and sexual acts being deviant and abnormal?
Click to expand...

At consent. Adults should be free to do as they choose, if all parties agree.
 
Andalublue said:
Dictionary Spelling Help
beastiality
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Beastiality - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...
You missed the point on two levels. First the post was meant rather tongue in cheek. But more importantly by noting the variant spellings of a given word, we see that language evolves. Since our American English derives from British English, the argument could well be made that color is not really a word. However since colour can evolve into color, there is no reason to say that bestiality could not become beastiality. Dictionaries lag actual language changes. Definitions are changed or added (fag and gay), new words are created (googled), and spellings evolve (colour/color). So given modern man, I do not doubt that we will see beastiality in the dictionary within our lifetime, and probably soon.
 
maquiscat said:
You missed the point on two levels. First the post was meant rather tongue in cheek. But more importantly by noting the variant spellings of a given word, we see that language evolves. Since our American English derives from British English, the argument could well be made that color is not really a word. However since colour can evolve into color, there is no reason to say that bestiality could not become beastiality. Dictionaries lag actual language changes. Definitions are changed or added (fag and gay), new words are created (googled), and spellings evolve (colour/color). So given modern man, I do not doubt that we will see beastiality in the dictionary within our lifetime, and probably soon.
Click to expand...

In the end, what matters is that there was no doubt what word was being used despite spelling.
 
maquiscat said:
You missed the point on two levels. First the post was meant rather tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...
I got that. I thought my original post was pretty self-evidently written in a jokey stylee.

But more importantly by noting the variant spellings of a given word, we see that language evolves. Since our American English derives from British English, the argument could well be made that color is not really a word. However since colour can evolve into color, there is no reason to say that bestiality could not become beastiality.
Click to expand...
I see. We're dealing with hypothetical words. Got it!

Dictionaries lag actual language changes.
Click to expand...
I think you mean dikshunairies, don't you? Since hypothetically that could be the way the word evolves from its British English origins.

Definitions are changed or added (fag and gay), new words are created (googled), and spellings evolve (colour/color). So given modern man, I do not doubt that we will see beastiality in the dictionary within our lifetime, and probably soon.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Language generally evolves from the complex to the simple. Can you think of any American-English neologisms that are more complex compounds or spellings than the British-English words from which they derived? I can't, but I wouldn't bet my shirt on there not being any.

I'm not sure how or why the idea of behaving like a wild beast should become bestiality and not beastiality, perhaps it was seen as the very best thing one could do, or in the absence of anything better. ;)
 
Riveroaks said:
You tell me.

:D
Click to expand...

You're the one calling me an expert. You just won't tell us what you think I'm an expert in. I've no idea, since I'm an expert in so many fields: mass communication; Spanish cuisine; patisserie; Mediaeval European history; Manchester City FC; the Eurovision Song Contest; 20th Century queer history...the list is extensive. Perhaps you could specify which of my many areas of expertise you are in awe of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom