Trying to equate eating meat with fucking an animal is easily the most insanely twisted and repulsively deliberate confusion of two events imagineable. Like mixing oranges and Mack trucks- both are on the same planet, and that’s about all they have in common.

The fact that you get off on illegalism is irrelevant to the argument of whether it’s right or wrong. I don’t think that believing that animals shouldn’t be sexually exploited is an arbitrary or unjust moral standard. If you want to enjoy breaking the law and being at the fringes of society, shoplift or something. Don’t rape animals. It’s wrong and people are telling you so.

I suppose that the reflex to defend people with radically different sexualities or views of the world was learned from the feminist movement. So it’s a great surprise to me to find not just a little, but almost universal intellectual rigidity and closed-mindedness on this subject on a feminist blog. What I have taken from this is that if you are a person who is fundamentally different from other people, feminists are not your friends.

I’m increasingly aware of the flip side of my reflex for justice - there is a side of me that wants bestiality to be criminal, because in being criminal, it creates a space in which transgressively minded men can bond with each other. Bestiality becomes not just another sex act, but an induction into a community of genuinely independent thinkers, people who decisively reject arbitrary and unjust moral standards in favor of their own. Since I already prefer the fringes of society to its center, this is a very easy attitude to take.

I accept the unlikelihood that bestiality will ever follow in the footsteps of uppity women and homosexuals, and will never be transformed from something criminal and “beyond the pale” into something ordinary and familiar. And given that unlikelihood, I am inclined to focus more on embracing its transgressive nature for its own sake, as a key to the ultimate treehouse, “no gurlz allowed”.

Fair enough. But this seems only to prohibit having sex with the person against their will. If the person is receptive, then what is the problem? I don’t think an account of the wrongness of this sort of behavior can be given without attributing capacities to the person that they will never have. If no account of the wrongness can be given, then what reason do we have for accepting it?

YOU don’t get to be the judge of whether someone with a severe mental illness is being “receptive”. You also don’t get to be the judge of what they do or don’t understand. Sexual abuse of disabled people is surprisingly common and can often lead to deep psychological scars, regardless of what the rapist assumes about the victim’s capacity to understand the situation.

Being a bigot against the mentally handicapped is one thing (and a pretty sick thing at that), but using your bigotted views to try to excuse rape is beyond the pale.

If the person is receptive, then what is the problem? I don’t think an account of the wrongness of this sort of behavior can be given without attributing capacities to the person that they will never have.

If a person doesn’t have the capacity to make decisions concerning their sex life, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH THEM. It’s that simple! Children don’t have the wherewithal to make those decisions, so you can’t have sex with them. The developmentally challenged can’t make that choice, so you can’t have sex with them. Animals can’t speak or make those decisions, so you can’t have sex with them.

It’s not about your pleasure. It’s about their right to not be raped.

And really, who — other than an abusive sociopath — is going to have sex with an animal? Who else wants a partner that can’t talk back, can’t tell anyone what’s going on and can be conveniently disposed of when the person is tired of fucking them?

Kidding aside, why would it be immoral to have sex with a human who is so severely developmentally disabled that they don’t understand what sex is?

Fair enough. But this seems only to prohibit having sex with the person against their will. If the person is receptive, then what is the problem? I don’t think an account of the wrongness of this sort of behavior can be given without attributing capacities to the person that they will never have. If no account of the wrongness can be given, then what reason do we have for accepting it?

Kidding aside, why would it be immoral to have sex with a human who is so severely developmentally disabled that they don’t understand what sex is?

Because that person has a right to control their own body.”

Exactly!

Amazing that anyone has to spell that out.

Kidding aside, why would it be immoral to have sex with a human who is so severely developmentally disabled that they don’t understand what sex is?

Because that person has a right to control their own body.

Chicken, cow, and pig corpses are piling up in American intestines as we speak. This seems like a more pressing problem. Please examine your eye for any errant planks before operating on the splinters of others.

In other words, you’re saying that rape should be allowed because murder is a more pressing problem. That is absolutely appalling.