Bestiality & Other Interspecies Relationships

[Pinkie-Dawn]

This is a topic that's going inside my mind for a while now, and I thought this is worth discussing as part of the Pokémon fandom because it too is involved with this issue. Bestiality describes romantic relationships between humans and non-human species (mostly animals). It's an act that's frowned upon in society, to the point where it's ruled as legal, because it's a category of animal abuse. When it comes to the Sonic fanbase, the My Little Pony fanbase, and even our own Pokémon fanbase (even the actual games mentioned that humans use to marry Pokémon), they get accused for these acts. But there's something that bugs about this. Animals of two different species have bred together before such as lions and tigers to create ligers, and there various science fiction/fantasy films and literature that include humans having romantic relationships with non-human beings (aliens, mermaids, etc.). Even some video games like Mass Effect allows players to have a relationship with anthromorphic creatures. The only difference is that they're not animals, even though that mindset may be suggestive to some. So why is it that no one bothers with humans having relationships with humanoid aliens and mythical creatures yet it's not ok wih humans having relationships with animals (both humanoid and non-humanoid) in the world of fiction? Is there an actual reason why? Please try to keep this is discussion PG rated.

 

[Alice]

Relations with animals are wrong because the animal can't give consent. If the animal was intelligent enough to say "Yes." without any doubt in their intentions, then I see no problem with it... but they're not. Interestingly, Pokemon can clearly understand language, and can nod yes or no when you ask them a question, so I might actually say that it wouldn't necessarily be wrong to have a relationship with a Pokemon.

 

[maccrash]

there's a difference between having a relation with some like humanoid thing like an alien or mermaid or something and having it with a horse or something. it should be pretty clear what that difference is -- the issue of consent that was addressed up there.

bestiality wigs me out so bad.

 

[£]

If the animal was intelligent enough to say "Yes." without any doubt in their intentions, then I see no problem with... but they're not.

Interestingly, Pokemon can clearly understand language, and can nod yes or no when you ask them a question, so I might actually say that it wouldn't necessarily be wrong to have a relationship with a Pokemon.

-What about dolphins?

-I have a terrible feeling this topic is going to take a turn for the worse if we're going into Pokémon erotica. We were doomed from the moment OP jinxed the topic at the end of their post.

there's a difference between having a relation with some like humanoid thing like an alien or mermaid or something and having it with a horse or something. it should be pretty clear what that difference is -- the issue of consent that was addressed up there.

bestiality wigs me out so bad.

-What about half men/half horses? Centaurs, Fawns, whatever you call them? Clearly people had a thing for horses to come up with this nonsense! C S Lewis, I know your deep dark secrets. Fear me.

 

[Centipede Chan]

I love my cat, she's like family. Any pet should be seen as family, not as a lover.

All my pets were like family to me. They're irreplaceable, just like people.

 

[Alice]

-What about dolphins?

Yeah, if we were able to decipher their language, assuming it's complex enough to actually converse with them, and determine that they are capable of understanding the implications of having a relationship with a human, then I would say that that relationship is okay, if the dolphin consents.

 

[Entermaid]

I have heard the argument that since animals are incapable of consent and human are capable of consent. Human-animal relationships are wrong.

So, I think defining consent is important, not in this vague romanticized usage of the word.

Here are three possible meanings, and application to this dilemma.
1. How we are different in respect to consent.
2&3. How we are the same respect to consent.

1. Differences in ability to consent between animals and humans. Though not all humans possess these differences as far as their abilities to contemplate, which is necessary for consenting. Thus, some humans should not have sex with other humans with the conditions to contemplate and consent.

Spoiler:

Is it consent when hormones coarse through any give species and subsequently they engage in sex? There was no choice made in the matter; since the species's desire for sex is derived from biological mechanisms, beyond their own control. In a way there is no true form of consent instinctually.

Only when laws and social customs create these forms of consent are they actualized among those who are citizens of that society. In that way, if the laws are successful, we create an environment where rational thought is able to factor into sexual selection.

Though not all humans can avoid sexual assault, rape, cognitive impairments, substance abuse or one's own instinctual whims, all of which prevent some form of contemplation required to consent, there are at least some forms of consent within human sexuality.

There may be glimpses of socialization among certain species that provide some forms of contemplation, but in essence, only humans, under the right conditions are able to give consent (many humans in their nature or environment are unable to make some form of consent.)

Thus, bestiality with human-animal would not possess consent. Animal-other species of animal would not have consent, nor have the ability of consent so either way it doesn't matter. Lastly, human-human that is incapable of contemplation (substance addictions, critical cognitive impairments, and any environmental natural factor which inhibits contemplation prior to sex) would also be considered a non-consenting relationship.

The implication is that if consent is the point we distinguish ourselves, then some humans that don't possess those differences are also treated similarly as non-consenting animals.

2. No human or animal is able to give consent. Consent doesn't belong in the debate against bestiality.

Spoiler:

I don't foresee any single human giving a true form of consent, that would imply freewill and separation from biological signals such as hormones and cognitive mechanisms of which ultimately make decisions on our behalf. Therefore, consent doesn't exist. And the idea that consent being an underpinning against bestiality wouldn't hold.

3. Animals and humans have desires and act upon them. Hormones and other biological influences are not separate but a part of us. Every action is consented by ourselves. Thus, consent doesn't belong in the debate against bestiality.

Spoiler:

Biological mechanism are a part of us. If we act upon a biological desire, then it is of our own desire. All organisms are able to make deliberate choices based upon desire. However, some organisms that mate don't have similar desires. Therefore an animal that doesn't want sex from a human would not be consenting. This however would also allow for the event that an animal can desire to have sex with a human, and thus giving consent. Though there have been several reports and studies done about cross-species sex, it is difficult to for biologists to observe in a systematic sense especially since there is not inter-species mating, since there isn't enough genetic similarity.

 

[Rogue planet]

This is a topic that's going inside my mind for a while now

A lot of us read about wars, death, destruction etc. that doesn't mean we want to partake in it; Lolita is hailed as a masterpiece, but who thinks it's actually okay to re-enact the novel?
Whatever fetishes you have and enjoy reading about is your business, acting on it is something completely different. Mass Effect is more accepted because as you say it's humanoid and I imagine the majority of the young male fanbase that Mass Effect has isn't going to complain over alien sex... MLP and Pokemon stuff is still pretty far out there on the fringes of internet groups. IRL, It's not okay, but obviously that can't stop some people...

snip

 

[Entermaid]

Doesn't understand post or doesn't want to actually engage in a discussion .
Then posts a meme/gif.
Inhibits discussion.
Since whatever is posted will be responded with another meme/gif.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

A lot of us read about wars, death, destruction etc. that doesn't mean we want to partake in it; Lolita is hailed as a masterpiece, but who thinks it's actually okay to re-enact the novel?
Whatever fetishes you have and enjoy reading about is your business, acting on it is something completely different. Mass Effect is more accepted because as you say it's humanoid and I imagine the majority of the young male fanbase that Mass Effect has isn't going to complain over alien sex... MLP and Pokemon stuff is still pretty far out there on the fringes of internet groups. IRL, It's not okay, but obviously that can't stop some people...

Who said these are my fetishes? Certainly not me. I don't enjoy having romantic relationships with an animal as much as the next user; It was only something I've noticed regarding the hate towards fandoms regarding anthromorphic animals with aliens and other mythical humanoid creatures being the only exceptions, which other users above have provided with excellent answers.

 

[curiousnathan]

Bestiality is disgusting, full stop.

I might sound shallow-minded or stubborn, but no. Just no.

 

[Oryx]

When you have to justify your fetish as "the ___ I'm having sexual relations with isn't smart enough to understand the concept of consent, so it's fine!", then you should rethink your life.

Sexual urges are strange and sometimes uncontrollable (feeling them, not acting on them). I sympathize with a person that has a fetish like that. But there are other options - people in fursuits, representations of animals, etc. If something cannot consent, then by default it is not consenting. Only yes means yes; if an animal can't understand the concept of saying yes to sexual relations then it can never consent.

 

[obZen]

Why is everyone assuming that non-human animals can't consent?
Body language says a lot; just because they can't speak to use doesn't mean they don't communicate
Also, seriously? You guys are bringing up video game creatures?
Video game creatures usually mode after humans, thus giving a human-like appearance
Also, fiction!

totally gonna regret entering this debacle

 

[Oryx]

Why is everyone assuming that non-human animals can't consent?
Body language says a lot; just because they can't speak to use doesn't mean they don't communicate

totally gonna regret entering this debacle

Because consent requires more than just consent to sex in the moment; animals have no concept of consequences of sex, such as animals that "consent" and then end up harmed because they don't realize the risks of that kind of sex, or animals that "consent" and then don't understand that just because one human had sex with them it doesn't mean that humans are now fair game in general.

This is why minors cannot consent although they can be horny. We already have laws in place for people who are too young to have developed impulse control and are too young to put much stock in consequences, so saying "but they act like they want sex therefore it's okay" is not enough.

If you scold a dog for doing something while you were at work, the dog won't understand even if you put it in front of the thing you're scolding it for; a dog's brain isn't developed enough to put together a past event with a current consequence. How in the world is it capable of making a reasoned decision beyond instincts of wanting to accept the risks and consequences of sexual activity with a human?

 

[maccrash]

Why is everyone assuming that non-human animals can't consent?
Body language says a lot; just because they can't speak to use doesn't mean they don't communicate

no, they can definitely not consent. they are not verbally telling you it's not okay, therefore, they aren't consenting. you can look at their 'body language' all you want but it's not going to tell you jack squat because they're an animal after all and they can't tell the difference.

you can't make assumptions like that. you wouldn't assume something like that when you're talking to a human, would you?

 

[Entermaid]

When you have to justify your fetish as "the ___ I'm having sexual relations with isn't smart enough to understand the concept of consent, so it's fine!", then you should rethink your life.

Sexual urges are strange and sometimes uncontrollable (feeling them, not acting on them). I sympathize with a person that has a fetish like that. But there are other options - people in fursuits, representations of animals, etc. If something cannot consent, then by default it is not consenting. Only yes means yes; if an animal can't understand the concept of saying yes to sexual relations then it can never consent.

I hope this isn't being directed at me, since I am analyzing the argument of consent, and its definition and using it to explain why bestiality would be wrong/immoral. Plus, that isn't even one of the three interpretations I made. And...I don't have those sorts of fetishes :/

I am making the claim that consent on its own may or may not be sufficient as an answer or explanation as to why beasteality is immoral. And if so, we must define what consenting truly means, and the implications that has within the morality of human-human sexuality. Though, I think it's fair to say, animals don't really have rights and don't consent to much of anything we do to them.

There are these two arguments against consent, and therefore we must broaden the usage of consent, body language or romanticized interpretations aren't really philosophically sufficient:

1) Animals don't give consent to being placed in zoo cages or kept as pets in homes, they certainly don't give consent to being slaughtered for food. If we support those practices, why not sex? Is there any evidence that animals find sex with a human particularly traumatic or even remember it a week later?
2) Animals generally like sex, and are capable of expressing their displeasure if they don't. Many animals also engage in beastiality -- sex with other species -- frequently, so it stands to reason some of them would like it with humans.

For those reasons, I think there are better explanations against the practice of human-animal relations. The difference between the non-consenting behaviors listed above and beasteality is that one is governed by social convention (religious and secular conventions based on intuition), intuitive repugnance (biologically derived), higher disease transmissions (virus, tapeworms, bacterial infections, fleas, rabies), higher chance for injuries and consequently suffering during sex with two different species, and sex is a social function among humans, bestiality would likely disrupt parental/spousal bonding and social structure.

 

[Kanzler]

Talking like a philosopher. I agree with this line of thinking - while animals cannot consent, it appears to be permissible to do things to them in spite of their "not consenting", so that the animal does/can not consent isn't really the issue.

However, I don't believe social intuition is a good answer either since I see that as circular reasoning - I could argue against homosexuality as being against social convention although many would consider those views impermissible. As well, sex with animals being a more risky activity speaks nothing about its morality - there are many examples of risky activity people undertake that we /don't/ condemn.

I don't buy that because sex is a social function in humans, that it must follow that sex with animals would disrupt social order. I think that's a false dichotomy.

So why is it "wrong"? Or is it "wrong" at all? We can call things eww without calling it wrong.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

While I personally definitely am not okay with human/animal bestiality, Dark Avenger brings up a interesting perspective. I'm going to pounce on this and go and bring up a few things.

Bestiality is, technically, "natural", and occurs quite a bit in the wild.

Have you ever heard of a "liger"? It's a cross between a lion and a tiger. Well, these are usually called "hybrids". Other hybrids exist as well. The beautiful Harlequin and Catalina Macaws are both hybrids, and are technically the result of "bestiality", if bestiality is defined as two living beings of different species procreating. In these cases, they produce nonviable young. In the cases of the liger and these special macaws, they are bred by humans.

But in nature, hybridization occurs naturally as well. In North America, two species of birds, the Gold Winged Warbler and the Blue Winged Warbler, often hybridize, often to the downfall of the former species.

These two breed and produce several types of hybrid warblers, such as Lawrence's Warbler or Brewster's warbler. These birds are nonviable.

Now you might ask - what makes human bestiality so different?

There is quite a big difference actually, and it goes down to taxonomy.

Humans only have distant relatives.

Humans are the sole living member of the genus Homo. This may not seem important, but it holds great genealogical importance - Genus is the next step up from species. While usually species between a genus can interbreed, the more distant the genuses, the more incapable of successful breeding there is. The warblers above are of the same genus. Same with the lions/tigers, and the macaws. Humans would not be mating with anything in their genus except for other humans, as all other Homo species are long gone. In fact, the common ancestor with our closest relative, the Chimpanzee, existed 6 million years ago. The kind of bestiality that humans have are going to be completely unlike that of hybridization, which is the closest relative to such in the animal kingdom.

Note: It should be noted that there are cases of interspecies sexuality but this is usually considered a sort of way to "relieve" the "attacking" species and is technically more like assault than actual romance.

Does an animal have "consent"?

Legally, no.

But this brings up an interesting question. Consent is derived from conscious ability to make a decision about something, specifically in this case whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse. Animals DO show "consent" towards each other in a species. For example, female dogs that do not want to be mounted will often attack the male and force them into a submissive position.

However, it is important that we do not anthropomorphize as humans animal nature. And this, personally, is where I think the whole "bestiality is wrong" thing comes from. It isn't necessarily that animals can't say "no", they most certainly can - it's that humans and animals do not experience the world in the same way, and thus when an animal appears to say "yes", it may not be the same kind of "yes" that a human understands.

Some animals, like birds, have a very short period of sexual intercourse. It only lasts a few seconds - the male pecks the female's cloaca, and mounts the female quickly and the whole thing lasts only a few seconds - outside of the difficulty of balancing, that is. It is unlikely that birds share the same sexual experience as human do. Thus, even though a bird may not "peck you back" if you were to engage in sexual activities with it, it may still not warrant such a reaction.

Another thing to consider is that both species will consider different actions "sexual". For example, parrots consider rubbing the back and belly to be sexual actions and will arouse the bird if you do this (because it can trigger hormonal aggression, this is not recommended, even if you are a disgusting pervert!).

But what about fetishes?

It's true. Most of us all have a dark side. For some, it's vanilla, others, a lot of leather and cracking whips, and for even others still it's unusual things such as inflatable pool toys or eating chocolate. Everyone is different. However, at the end of the day, the question that makes these things "okay" or not is, at its core, "Are they both communicating the same message of consent to one another?"

In the case of weird, out there fetishes, this is usually not a problem since it is an inanimate object with absolutely no capacity for sensation, feeling or thought. In other cases, it depends on the person on the other end - did they say it was okay? Do they have the capacity to say it's okay? Young children for example have no idea what certain things may mean or imply and using them as such is exploitation of their innocence - while they may discover earlier than others, a set age is placed in society so that a reasonable line can be drawn.

In the case of animals, again, we have to take into consideration the fact that animals perceive their worlds completely differently than humans do. To them, their "love" may be very different than what you feel as "love". To claim that they "love you" (by default in the same sense that you perceive love) is questionable, because you cannot empathize with their potentially different definition of love, and vice versa. They do not understand not because they are feeble minded, but because their minds are different and they experience the world quite differently than you or I.

Final Notes

It should be noted that the concept of "consent" is quite a human concept. Many species engage in outright rape (such as mallards) with no social intervention or punishment. To a mallard, this is a completely acceptable practice, and it's likely acceptable to perform such a deed on other species as well. Adelie Penguins not only commit rape but have been recorded performing necrophilia. Many species of insects kill and eat their mate afterwards. Nature is not pretty and will not conform to human "decency". It is likely that bestiality's taboo nature evolved due to the health risks associated with it. There is a reason why horse-****ing is probably not in your best interests.

Morality is truly a human concept, and thus nothing is truly "always wrong".

 

[Entermaid]

Talking like a philosopher. I agree with this line of thinking - while animals cannot consent, it appears to be permissible to do things to them in spite of their "not consenting", so that the animal does/can not consent isn't really the issue.

However, I don't believe social intuition is a good answer either since I see that as circular reasoning - I could argue against homosexuality as being against social convention although many would consider those views impermissible. As well, sex with animals being a more risky activity speaks nothing about its morality - there are many examples of risky activity people undertake that we /don't/ condemn.

I don't buy that because sex is a social function in humans, that it must follow that sex with animals would disrupt social order. I think that's a false dichotomy.

So why is it "wrong"? Or is it "wrong" at all? We can call things eww without calling it wrong.

Hmm, lots of good points. I will play the devil's advocate and argue that it's more than just gross, but "wrong". Though there will be several assumptions, for instance, what is immorality. I am framing that in the context of social contract.

I guess I might say to the intuition argument that there is a biological attachment, like the seemingly intuitive fear of heights and certain insects, both of which are responses that are in our best interest since they are high risk activities.

Innately, humans might resent bestiality for those reasons, since through evolution those that partook in activities would put themselves at risk. But, I see what you mean, it doesn't mean it is inherently wrong, just risky with little to no benefit. But as a society should we condemn behaviors that are risky?

I would say as far as social contract goes, those who are more risky negatively affect social order and over their lifespan, albeit a shorter one, tend to incur more medical bills on average. Thus, under this umbrella, bestiality, smoking, unsafe sex, drinking alcohol, ect would be considered wrong, in the context that doing anything of which harms social contract is immoral. Though, I am weary of proclaiming alcohol as immoral since I drink socially.

That's how I would clarify and amend my previous point so it excludes social conventions that don't have utility, like banning same-sex marriage -- actually the ban causes more negative outcomes as far as social structure.

As laws are structured, we decide which acts/behaviors to outlaw. In that sense, social morality is defined by the legal system. Can we outlaw something that is gross without showing harm?

I do believe the innate repulsion to bestiality should be a legitimate factor in deciding what is and what is not moral, beyond any evolutionary functions that repulsion to bestiality might entail. Part of this innate repulsion goes beyond risk/danger as well. That is, humans tend to look at animals, cats, dogs, horses, ect. as "defenseless" "cute" and humans take care of these animals with no benefit to themselves quite often. Well, except the benefit of satisfaction.

The reason why humans desire and take pleasure in taking care of animals has much to do with exaption, which basically means, our survival mechanisms that served one purpose, have other consequences which may or may not have much affect on survival but do affect behavior. For instance, when we hear children/infant cry, even if it's not our own we feel panic and distraught; we immediately want to aid the child/infant. We do this since mechanism have cultivated that provoke the same response when we ourselves have children/infants.

Actually, humans recognize large eyes proportionate to the face as a way of separating younger and older humans, and in that way, through natural selection, humans that cultivated this intense desire to assist childlike or innocent agents (perhaps animals), were most likely to survive. From there we develop intuitive desires to take care of infants, children, other peoples children, perhaps other adults that seem defenseless, and other species. (Usually mammalian, since they share most common features.)

The distress and repulsion to bestiality could very well be derived from this same evolutionary framework. Other things may elicit repulsion as well, let's say homosexuality or polyamory, so I will point out the differences.

First off humans, as are most mammals, moderately polygonous, so that is an example of a socialized belief that polygony is wrong. Though, I will say there is good reason as to why one man-multiple women relationships came to an end...inequality of "sexual resources" causes revolution of the masses (either poorer men, or those without any power). Social instability ensues when there is a systemic one partner-multiple partners dynamic. (though I modern polyamourous relationships don't follow the same "harem"-like attributes.)

Repulsion to homosexuality is a socialized belief as well. However, there is little to no function of this belief, and actually it has negative social impacts to socializing this belief. Learned attitudes have already changed dramatically over the past few decades, and is likely to continue since there is no natural inclination to have repulsion to same-sex relationships.

However, the repulsion to bestality, is likely innate since there are evolutionary underpinnings that explain the repulsion, allowing for an action with no benefit and numerous possible disadvantages to a society could therefore be considered a natural repulsion of which is wrong and should be outlawed. Given that social stability is put at risk when laws disregard the attitudes, and that these attitudes cannot be changed if they are indeed innate, the long-term repercussions of allowing bestiality will always be a point of contention and therefore not furthering "the Good" as some philosophers put it.

Btw, does anyone actually read my rambling, stream of conscious posts?

@daigonite, you reminded me of one more little factoid. Neanderthals and Homo Erectus, two very similar, yet genetically distinct species did interbreed...many people (if not most) from northern Europe have Neanderthal DNA.

 

[Monophobia]

I'm just going to pop in and say that, while it is morally wrong to some people in today's society, "morals" are things only found in one species, and that is ours. It's something we made up.

Do with that what you will.