(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

caffeine_fairy
2007-01-11 02:45 pm UTC (link)

I don't think it's the suffering of the animal that is really squicking people out. Fact is, it's an animal and you're a human. You can share some communication but you can never share complete understanding. Therefore, this guy is fucking something which may consent, or may not consent (lack of physical violence =/= consent, as can be shown by the number of rape victim who freeze from the shock, or deliberately don't put up a struggle in order to avoid injury).

Therefore, this guy is the sort of person who will fuck something whether he has consent or not, and is not at some deep level bothered about whether he has consent or not. There's the squick.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	qatharsis 2007-01-12 12:28 am UTC (link)
	Don't mind me, I'm just being technical here, but we humans ARE animals ourselves. wanders off (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dana 2007-01-12 10:21 am UTC (link)
	Interesting thought though, you don't see dogs fucking cats, or lions fucking zebra, they seem to understand the difference between animal species. Then again, other animals don't have fire, opposable thumbs, religion, art, music or language. So ya know. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2007-01-14 09:40 am UTC (link)
	At the risk of being wanky, things like mules and ligers do exist. Not that this has any particular bearing on ethical arguments regarding bestiality. -nornagest@LJ (Reply to this)(Parent)

	caffeine_fairy 2007-01-12 12:05 pm UTC (link)
	Replace the the animal/human part and replace "You are of differing species" and the point stands. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -