My question is about masturbation as i find is my weakest link, specially regarding the argument that masturbating thinking in women or with images of women is degrading to them by converting them into a sex object. Argument to  which i hypocritically agree. My questions are, is this argument reasonable? are there other ways to approach that action? Is there a proper rebuttal besides the slippery-slope of "If it is not with woman, guys will start looking for pictures of animals or ..."?

Tags: Argument, Christianity, Religion, Sex, question

Views: 1408

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 Animals cannot give consent. They do not have the capacity to.

Humans can. 

When a model poses for a piece of art, isn't he or she being objectified (by definition?)

How is this different than a man or woman posing for you as a masturbation aid?

What if it is scientifically proven that animals feel great pleasure when another human being is doing things of a sexual nature to it / with it?  

Same thing as if you found a small child that experienced physical pleasure during a molestation. Or a severely mentally handicapped person. Or anyone/anything else that doesn't have a capacity to give informed consent. 

By that standard humans shouldn't even have pets, and certainly shouldn't use animals as beasts of burden. I guess those people in The Third World who use horses, donkeys, or oxen to scrape together a living are bad people. 

Putting words in my mouth, now? :) 

Says who?

Are you equating pet ownership or parenthood with sexual exploitation?

Please explain?

Well, isn't pet ownership exploitation, or is it only when the exploitation is sexual that you object? That's rather puritan of you. I'm pretty sure a dog would rather have an orgasm than have its teeth cleaned. And probably more than fetching sticks, too. We keep pets purely for our pleasure as child surrogates. That is really nasty exploitation. The proof?: We refer to dogs and cats as family members, and often the female person of the hosehold is referred to as the animal's "mommy" and she may even talk about her pets as her "babies" or "children." It's kind of sick when you think about it.

Nicely said, Beastmaster. 

I'm still going to have to disagree, though. 

You will not ever find a service animal that has not given consent. Have you ever trained or worked with a service animal? There is a very particular disposition -a great willingness on the part of the animal- that must be present for successful training to take place. Without that willingness, training is simply not possible. Implied consent is there. That's what 'work drive' is. That's why a dedicated service animal is a far different thing than an animal beaten into performing circus tricks. Sure, in both cases a human is using an animal for their own benefit. But benefit alone doesn't make it evil. 

Providing food, water, shelter and medical care in return for companionship isn't exploitation. It's insuring the survival of the (insert animal species) with a symbiotic relationship.  Abuse and neglect tips the balance and can become exploitation, but mutual benefit does not equal exploitation.

When it comes to sex acts in particular, you are using your higher intelligence to manipulate the sexuality of something that's mentally inferior to you and that without coercion wouldn't be sexually attracted to you to begin with. That's the same reason why it's not ok to have sexual relations with a toddler or mentally handicapped person, even if they are  stimulated by it and are not being physically hurt.  With great power comes great responsibility. Put the peanut butter down. 

*Now after all this, I'm also going to say outright that because animals are not people, the severity of a sexual crime against an animal is not the same as the severity of a sexual crime against a human. Because of the lack of higher reasoning, there is not going to be a lasting psychological damage, too. So there is that.

Oh. I also eat meat. I fully agree that doing so is a CLEAR case of animal exploitation. No getting around it.  

Under your stance, any planned pregnancy is also exploitation. We don't need to make humans anymore. With access to family planning, making a baby is just a choice meant to fulfill your own desires for a family. Is having offspring exploitation? 

But can a critter give informed consent to being a service animal? If that's possible, why is it impossible for them to give informed consent to something else? Such as sex.

Service animals probably find pleasure in giving service, so might they not find pleasure in sex, something which seems pretty much custom-made to be pleasurable?

@Unseen, forgive me if the answer to this is obvious, but how can you tell for sure that the animal you're having sex with is enjoying the experience?

(Yes, I'm trying to be part funny, but it also happens to be relevant. Well, depending on how relevant the hypothetical circumstances are to begin with. YMMV.)

Actually sex with dogs is probably off topic, so I hereby withdraw.

I imagine some of the same ways that work with people would apply.  If the animal initiates intercourse, that's a good sign of consent (perhaps not informed consent, but consent nonetheless).  There are probably also certain physiological signs (body response, vaginal lubrication, etc.) that would be good indicators of arousal depending on the animal in question.

From a legal perspective, I favour laws prohibiting sex with animals; however, that doesn't mean I think it is categorically harmful or abusive.  It's more about practicality.

To be honest, the thing that bugs me most about the subject matter is that it makes me squeamish almost entirely due to cultural conditioning, and not rationality.  I feel the need to denounce the topic as a knee-jerk reaction, which is an unsettling feeling.  Annoying.

To be honest, the thing that bugs me most about the subject matter is that it makes me squeamish almost entirely due to cultural conditioning, and not rationality.

Kris, I also feel squeamish, but I don't remember being culturally conditioned. I've brought up before how inter-species sex is so rare in all species, and so I can't help but conclude that we humans aren't immune from that same-species sexual urge programming. I imagine it could be over-ridden by cultural influence, but with difficulty because sexual motivation for hundreds of millions of years surely has become deeply, neurologically rooted as a rule.

(That's also what's led me to conclude the same about most people's feelings about homosexuality. But since a certain percentage of some species do behave homosexually, we can easily see that the programming for hetero or homosexual behavior isn't as consistent as the programming for same-species sex.)

I could be wrong of course, but I think I'm invoking Occam's Razor, there. (Honestly, I'm quite certain that very, very few of us have actually ever had the urge to pork any hole that's warm and lubricated. There's a certain,minimum level of programming that must be really hard to over-ride.)

You obviously have no idea how much my dog likes to fetch.

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

In Avoidance of Anger

Posted by Pope Beanie on November 27, 2014 at 4:59pm 0 Comments

The plane that never crashed

Posted by Brazillian atheist on November 27, 2014 at 12:17pm 1 Comment

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service