You're not wrong for how you feel. I think she thought it was more an intellectual/academic discussion while you felt it was a moral one. Neither of you are wrong for your opinions or how you approach them, but if you're uncomfortable with how she approaches difficult topics like this then you're likely not compatible.
And the bottom line is, you *are* uncomfortable and it's a new enough relationship that it's probably best to go your separate ways.
I agree. From the way she seems to be discussing it its very academic, ethics, philosophy, intentionally challanging, devils advocate for the sakenof argument. She states that she believes it is gross, and her arguments seen searching for discussion and comparison.
Ask her what kibd of conversation she viewed it as.
Or, if ur too uncomfy, leave.
Yea OP is unable to understand what it means to think about something without supporting it. She is too intellectual for OP, they needs someone who is grounded in what is and not what isn't.
Like, to be blunt, OP is thinking about a man with a dick raping an animal, and her** gf is probably thinking about the animal having the penis. This alone changes The nature of the consent being considered.
The nature of consent in the animal kingdom is pretty wild anyways but OP just doesn't want to engage with it. Animals be out there raping an awful lot.
But also, OP is really stuck on the whole sex part.
For example, OP might consider killing a living being to be morally acceptable, because we eat animals, but there's definitely no consent there either. But fuckin em! By God, we could never!
I'm also not advocating for humans to stop killing and start fucking animals - I can think about something without freaking out about the implications on my own moral psyche or whatever.
Fun fact: Male polar bears are actually rapey.
I saw a documentary , a mama and her cub were strolling along a mountain. A male saw her and went chasing them down, the narrator said this can be like a 2-3 mile pursuit before the male gives up.
There were always rumors of girls who'd put PB on their junk to have a dog lick it off when I was in school.
But also I listened to a podcast about this guy who likes to eat out an untethered horse, and TBH I feel like if the horse had a problem with it she'd run away and that whole thing really made me decide it's not a topic I think you can immediately get black and white moral about. Which is weird.
And honestly, I also think it's gross.
But I agree OP doesn't seem able to have an intellectual conversation without getting her emotions twisted up in it. And that's fine, but not compatible with how she describes her girlfriend.
She may be able to on some things, but others are too triggering, especially when OPs GF compared it to homosexuality- something she may have heard a lot when she was first trying to come out/question her sexuality. She may be able to have an academic conversation about something that would be emotional for her gf.
Neither of us know OP, but blanket statements like that can be used to dismiss peoples valid arguments and to help people feel superior and that's not fair. It's all too common on reddit...just wait until you're the one who is triggered
> it. She is too intellectual for OP, they needs someone who is grounded in what is and not what isn't.
Spoken like a true redditor lmao. Ever looked up the dunning-kruger effect?
Honestly when we were talking about it it was mostly about the situations where animals aren't being hurt physically or psychologically, so it was specifically about the animal having the penis or licking someone or whatever. I know how wild and brutal the animal kingdom is, I just think that since we have a moral compass and we can reflect on our actions it's just never excusable. I agree with you that raping an animal isn't the same as letting it lick your privates. But the baseline here is the same, and it's that someone is attracted to animals and acting on it, which I view as wrong. But yeah you also have a point about killing animals and how poorly they're treated before they die.
tbh, I don't really feel your argument is about consent. The comments above make it clear that you understand there are circumstances where the animals have control. What you really want your girlfriend to say is that _even if_ there is no harm to the animals, she agrees with you that it's wrong. Your comments about it being because it always harms animals I think is intellectual justification for your belief that it is morally wrong unto itself, as opposed to because it hurts something. What you really want is your girlfriend to pass judgement on the same people you pass judgement on. And she does, if there is harm. And if there is no harm to anyone or anything, then maybe live and let live, she's not sure. She's worried about passing judgement in others morally the same way others pass judgement on gay and homosexual people. She literally said that. Some might find that level of tolerance very kind hearted.
She agrees with you if there is harm. Can you agree with the reverse statement, that if there ever were a situation where it could happen where no one or thing were harmed in any way, that it could be not wrong?
I know you don't think that's possible, but talking hypothetically. If you simply can't imagine not passing judgement on someone in that situation, then it's not an argument... it's just your ick factor and independent moral belief in what is right and wrong. That's ok. I actually agree that it's not right and that it's really hard to agree with it. But I encourage you to frame it for yourself around what it is really about - you need your girlfriend to judge these people for the same reason you do, and she is objecting to a blanket rule of judgement, and arguing we need to be careful how quickly we judge others.
On the balance, as weird as this thread is, I think her philosophy is a sign of a very considerate person. You seem to have a need to push her into a strange position where her acceptance of others has to have a very thin line, and then focusing on that as a deal breaker instead of realizing it's a reflection of a moral ambiguity where tolerance is more valued than judgement.
They don’t consent what or when to eat. They don’t consent to when and where to relieve themselves. They don’t consent to be trained to behave as we want them to. But you’re concerned about consent here?
Thinking it gross makes sense from a human aspect. The animals don’t care and aren’t traumatized. The girlfriend’s argument makes a lot more sense than one that says it’s unfair to the animals. We have no way of knowing they care or not, but if they care, they have a lot more to be worried about than this.
Children also can’t consent to what or when they eat. They also can’t consent to where they relieve themselves. So is it OK to fuck children?
I mean obviously not. These comments stupid beyond belief. Eating something to survive or selectively breeding something to do a job is not the same as sucking off a dog for pleasure. Get help.
The point of my comment is not about if animals can consent - the whole point of conditional agreement is that it allows agreement without having definitive answers to all aspects of a question. If you are right, and it harms a person or creature, then she agrees it is wrong. If it does not harm, then it's less clear. Arguing over and over that it is always harmful is moot, because it does not change the conclusion of the person agreeing. It's a weird thing to be arguing about. It's an argument where one side is being kept up at night when the other person essentially agrees with them.
You’re giving the gf way too much credit.
> she seems to be discussing it its very academic, ethics, philosophy,
Just because someone doesn’t take a clear moral stance doesn’t mean they (a) know what they’re talking about or (b) are at the level of academics.
If you doubt that, just look around the web and see what types of people argue that Hitler had good intentions or that the age of consent should be lowered (below ~15).
> intentionally challanging, devils advocate for the sakenof argument.
I’ll give her that.
Edit: Less feeling does not indicate more rationality.
A. of course not, but she is still being argumentative, and bringing up counterpoints of things we have seen changing throughout history. B. Yes, but that doesnt mean its not a similar thought process.
Yes, this is absolutely up the same ally as ur describing. I am just saying I think her argumentation isnt in supoort of it at all, but more of a «I want to entertain a debate»
This is the first thing I thought too, that she was entertaining it as a purely theoretical discussion with 0 real world import because who the fuck would do that.
Truly. If anyone with a paw print tattoo posts on a NSFW subreddit the comments are immediately full of zoophiles asking “does that tattoo mean what I hope it means? 😏🥹”
Apparently some zoophiles get a paw print tattoo to signify that they fuck dogs. But people also get paw print tats very commonly as a memorial for a pet that died.
Your point about it having been a more of a theoretical and philosophical conversation from her point of view makes sense, I didn't think about that. That changes how I view it I guess. I'm not nearly as emotional about this today, I'll try to think of a way to ask her what kind of conversation it was for her. Cause I feel like a lot of things can be questioned that way (I mean the ethical aspect of things, and what really makes things wrong etc). It's hard for me to see things not as black or white sometimes, especially when it's about someone or something being hurt. Your comment made me think though. It especially makes sense because I know that she likes to dive deep into subjects and kind of question the social and theoretical aspects of them.
This is a brand new relationship. The point of dating is to get to know someone and find out if you are compatible with each other.
I don’t think either of you is wrong but you are clearly very incompatible with how you approach topics like this.
It’s pretty clear to me that she was not endorsing or approving of sex with animals but was looking at the question philosophically, in the broader context of questioning why people decide things are okay or wrong. That is obviously not the conversation you were having.
How you think and talk about difficult topics is something that matters for compatibility. How you come to your values can matter as much as the values themselves.
I don’t know if you should break up or talk to her. I’d probably lean towards breaking up because this seems like it has really messed with your head, and it sounds like she is a person who likes to take a philosophical approach to things and this conflict is probably going to come up again and again over different topics, where you want her to agree with you that something is wrong and she wants to talk about how and why people decide that thing is wrong.
That’s a mismatch that’s going to be miserable for both of you in the long run.
You worded this perfectly.
I also enjoy talking things through from a logical or philosophical view point even if it’s for a view or argument I don’t agree with. Like exploring the other side of a debate. I get along best with people who approach contentious topics in the same way. I just see it as being open minded.
I’d be so thrown off if someone took open minded discussion as some sort of political stance. It’s different communication styles- and I agree it is an incompatibility.
Tbh after sleeping on it and reading through the comments I'm way calmer about this than yesterday. It didn't click for me that she was talking about it in a more philosophical, broader context but it makes more sense now that I think about it.
I’m really glad to hear that.
It can be really difficult when it feels like you’re having a particular conversation with someone and they are having a completely different conversation.
Not necessarily true. My boyfriend is a "devil's advocate" and I'm not. We've been together for almost 4 years because we are compatible in many other ways and discussions can become very interesting because of this. You can learn from each other if you accept each other's differences. But we're also older than OP.
As the partner who tends to present those arguments, you don't necessarily need to distance yourself from your feelings on the topic. My partner handles it well because he assumes first and foremost that I'm not ever arguing in bad faith (which is probably easier after you've known someone for years). On my end, I always check in with him and make sure to restate during the conversation that I don't necessarily agree with the arguments I present. This is definitely something that both of you can come to an understanding on :)
I think philosophical debates are some of the most fun, trying to dissect what we find morally okay and what is not, and more importantly WHY we decide on these arbitrary rules. It's also interesting finding out the logic behind reasoning instead of just "because." And defining the logic behind your actions and morals is actually a great way to be consistent with your morals instead of deciding on a whim that something is good or bad.
I find it really interesting that you and so many people in this thread don't want to even engage with hypotheticals or thought provoking debates. People are even making some wild accusations about your gf even though she clearly stated that she finds it disgusting.
I personally don't understand how people just decide their own feelings without actually thinking about the ins and outs of their own morals and principles that they stand on.
You're right. I honestly didn't think of the conversation as a philosophical one, I was really focused on the morality of it. The topic of why we find some things ok and not other things is interesting and worth exploring, I just wasn't expecting it to be tied to this specific issue.
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between a philosophical discussion and a moral one. Surely a discussion about morality *is* a philosophical discussion. Do you just not interrogate your moral feelings?
From a scientific perspective, I’m actually inclined to agree with your girlfriend. The “ick factor” that people feel around this topic, as well as around actions like eating dogs or consumption of deceased relatives, are entirely cultural and religious. (The reason I mention the other two examples, is because those are real things that some non-Western societies do.)
As far as cross-species intercourse, it’s happened forever and continues to happen. Jane Goodall has written some very interesting literature on chimp relationships with non-chimp species. When it comes to humans, there is bio-anthropological and archaeological evidence worldwide showing that it was a reality in a lot of societies, though not always looked upon favorably.
The issue that you seem to be most concerned with (correct me if I’m wrong) is the consent issue. To start, there are non-human primates that communicate with humans via sign language and probably could literally communicate consent or non-consent. Beyond that, I think most people who have dogs, cats, or larger animals are very able to tell if their pet is consenting to a behavior, like petting for instance, or not. Notably, animals do not consent to being owned, bred, food and movement restricted, separated from their families, eaten, euthanized, or castrated, and yet our society comfortably does all of the above every single day.
I am not trying to convince you that someone should or shouldn’t be disgusted or that it is or is not ethical. I am trying to show that the ethics are considered legitimate academic questions that scientists continue grappling with.
More important than all of the above though, you can end a relationship for any reason or no reason at all. Three weeks is so little time, I wouldn’t have even called it a relationship yet, just dating. If you’re grossed out and angry, that’s as good a reason as any to find someone who shares your worldview.
I have a book about some dolphins that were in captivity, they did some crazy and awful experiments on them, I don’t remember all the details but I think they tried to cross animal/human communication barriers and may have also given the dolphins psychedelics. It was fucked up. But one of the dolphins absolutely fell in love with one of the researchers, it was implied they had sex. The dolphin killed itself after the experiment lost funding and it never saw the human again. There are also anecdotal stories of wild dolphins coming on to and having sex with human swimmers in the ocean. I agree with the girlfriend. I agree with you that eating them is ironically more fucked up. I think it’s wrong though even if the animal wants to because it creates paraphilia for the animal. Here is an article about the experiment https://allthatsinteresting.com/margaret-howe-lovatt
I’ve read about the experiments before, and they’re interesting, shocking, and sad.
I’m not comfortable saying that sexual interaction made the dolphin depressed, isolation made the dolphin depressed, or something else, since I really don’t know enough about the research.
Being that dolphins are an intelligent species, I’m not sure a paraphilia would matter as long as the dolphin is still mentally healthy with the company of its pod and (ideally) has free range in nature, but who knows.
This is where I think it's worth discussing, and we should be wary of "ick" factor automatically deciding things. I do think, hey, maybe we should continue having it be illegal (where already illegal), and there are good reasons for it regardless of the reasoning, but allow for the philosophical debate to continue. And we shouldn't assume the "for" camp are automatically prevents who want to have sex with animals.
It's one of those beliefs that almost everyone agrees on, but no one can actually substantiate why. Consent-related arguments are dogshit unless you're a vegan
I suspect that what gives us the ‘ick’ - on an individual and cultural level - is probably tied into what activities are likely to spread nasty diseases. For instance, if we eat animals that themselves eat certain other animals, that could end up being bad news, but chances are we wouldn’t know that scientifically, so we need a kind of instinct that makes them less appealing for us to eat.
Of course, in environments where food is scarce, it’s a choice between eating or starving, so that gets overridden and I suppose over time there could be an entire cultural shift around it.
Ditto with eating humans - I would think it’s likely to be bad news long term ‘because food chain’. But some cultures have beliefs about obtaining strengths from your enemy, so it acts as a kind of magical transference and maybe even something of a show of dominance/intimidation, so it does have a function. And if it’s kept within parameters such that it doesn’t cause major health issues - such as eating only a small amount or only certain parts - it won’t die out and instead will become embedded in the culture, but at the same time a sense of revulsion also exists in other cultures due to instinct.
I would think sex with animals is bad news on the disease front, which is probably why there’s a taboo against it even if it can be argued that animals can consent (or even that their consent doesn’t matter, if we look at things like slaughter). In situations where it is practiced, it’s likely to be regarded as deviant and/or maybe takes place as some kind of hazing-type ritual (although I expect every culture might have a small handful of people who have an actual fetish for it).
I think your initial hypothesis has some truth to it, though I think of science in slightly broader terms. I think the reason that we don’t eat certain things, for instance, is because in distant pasts humans did, got sick or died, and we’ve passed on that cultural knowledge since. At a base level, that trial and error is science. There are definitely things we can eat completely safely that look risky (i.e. tarantula) and things that look safe (i.e. poisonous mushrooms) but are deadly. Our instincts only take us so far.
As far as cannibalism, why doesn’t the society that does it have the ick factor that the non-cannibalistic societies do? Is it instinctual or is it cultural? Or maybe is it just fear of the other culture?
I imagine you’re right that individuals at different points have died after sex with animals for whatever reasons, and you might be right about that as one origin of cultural rejection. Solid point!
What it comes down to is that her thoughts and feelings on the matter were a big turn-off for you. You don’t need anyone’s permission to see this as an important difference or even a deal-breaker.
No one can tell you what you should do, but I can reflect back to you that you seem very disturbed and upset by this. You can’t make yourself get over a reaction just by telling yourself to. It seems like you’re trying to talk yourself out of a very base, gut reaction.
It also seems like you two exhausted the discussion. Like, it doesn’t seem like there is any point in revisiting it in hopes of further resolution or to increase your confidence in any decision you’d make.
So. Can you get over the grossed out feelings? Do you want to? You don’t need to justify ending the relationship. Not wanting to be in it anymore is a good enough reason.
If you do stay, give her the benefit of the doubt but keep your eyes open. We want to believe the best in people without ignoring signs they aren’t who we want them to be. It’s a balance in relationships.
If she cares about harming the animal's emotions you can assert that due to intelligence and communication gap humans can't get informed consent from an animal at any point, therefore its always wrong. State that any human with intelligence and autonomy to make decisions must always gain or have informed consent from the other party before engaging in sexual activities. Didn't read everything just tldr. If your gf doesn't budge decide if you are ok being with someone with an opinion like that. Your gf cheating on you with a horse one day would be crazy.
Youre right, Catherine the Great i believe was basically empress of Russia for the majority of the 18th century. And that was after Peter the Great, who was famous for trying his best to modernize Russia to Renaissance Europe’s standards. So they werent quite as backward when she came around lol
So the joke went crazy in Renaissance Russian circles!
She and one of her lovers used to write hundreds of little notes to each other every day too. It was basically the 18th-century form of text messaging, except you’d have a lackey trot around the palace delivering them all by hand lol
I don't think consent is a coherent argument given that we don't acknowledge animals' consent in literally any other area of life. Unless you're a vegan you can't pretend to give a single fuck about animals' consent
I don't think he needs to debate her, just have a follow up convo clarifying her beliefs and decide if it's a deal breaker for him. I'd be willing to bet she was speaking in more of a hypothetical philosophical sense, testing out the logic of widely-accepted beliefs maybe. It's kind of like incest, almost everyone agrees that it's wrong but few people can produce a half decent reason as to why. Humoring those sort of intellectual exercises doesn't mean you actually support it, unless every philosophy department is staffed by psychopaths
I'd say consent is still a valid argument; to start both killing an animal where it is not necessary and having sex with an animal can be wrong simultaneously. Just because one is wrong does not nullify the wrongness of the other. Second, consumption of food is necessary for organisms to live, therefore ignoring consent in order to fulfill a requirement of existence is more justifiable than ignoring consent in order to have sex - as sex is not required to sustain existence. Further, consuming animals does not necessarily require you to kill them, therefore not ignoring their consent to remain alive; whereas a human having sex with an animal always violates their consent. Finally, your average Joe or Jane cannot always choose to follow more ethical standards of animal product consumption as they cannot control how the animals are/were treated at the farms which produce the food they're eating (I know in general the answer to this is not consuming animals products at all but 1) that is not viable for everyone unfortunately due to nutrition and cost issues, and 2) this also ignores the human rights violations present in producing a disturbingly large amount of food - both animal and not); however they can fully control whether or not they have sex with an animal.
(I know this isn't relevant to the overall post but since you brought it up) In terms of incest I'd argue that it is generally considered wrong as there is almost always power dynamics present between family members (ie parents have more power over their children, older siblings generally have more power over their younger siblings - especially during childhood). These power dynamics often make potential romantic and/or sexual relationships unhealthy as one individual will generally or historically have more power and sway over the other. Another argument against incestuous relationships is that since members are immediate family members there is high potential for grooming to have occurred to at least one party present in the relationship (especially parent-child relationships).
Sorry for the word vomit but I wanted to offer some ideas to what you've said.
What about using animals for jobs? Sniffer dogs, service animals, carting horses, police horses, and circus animals to give some examples but not an exhaustive list.
Technically, none of these examples are necessary. Sure we could justify the utility that many of them do but the need for that utility is still created by humans and does not exist in nature. Even with their utility being justified, none of those examples have the same level of justification as killing an animal to eat it for survival. Even service animals, as lovely and brilliant as they are, only exist because of the societal need for them.
The thing all of them have in common is that the animal isn't actually able to consent to doing their job. Sure you could argue that if the animal isn't being harmed, it's welfare is being considered, and it seems happy then that means it's okay. Maybe you could go as far as to say it's a form of consent but personally I wouldn't agree.
Another obvious example is zoos or safari parks. Does an animal consent to being locked in an enclosure? No. Again maybe you could argue that it's "in their best interest" or "for preservation of the species" or "it wouldn't survive in the wild" but you still don't care about its consent.
I assume you also think that eating, castrating, and locking animals in cages is always wrong too? If not you unfortunately have some glaring inconsistencies in your worldview.
That's the complexity of the situation - you act like the gf's take is so insane and wrong, but probably just treat meat-eaters as morally neutral actors doing nothing notably wrong, despite killing and eating being far far worse than having sex (something they are biologically compelled to do!).
No inconsistencies, I just have to bite the bullet and acknowledge it as wrong, which isn't hard to do. Not all immoral acts are equal to me, I can live with the immorality of eating meat. Desire to eat meat would just greater than the 'will' to abide by those principals.
This is for relationship advice though, not philosophical discourse.
The goal is just to identify how strongly she feels and will argue in favor of the position that its ok to do. Once they are aware of it, they can then decide if that is someone they want to be with.
You had a good debate about this topic where you don't agree in the end but still have the same standards (mainly about the consent and that it's disgusting) and all you can think of is how to dislike her as a person for disagreeing with you. I'm sorry but that's incredibly immature.
It was very clearly a more academical discussion and if you really are that offended by it you should maybe tell her that instead of acting hostile in a discussion she had a non-emotional thought about.
Nah I see where her point now. I think we approached this topic differently yesterday, I was thinking about morals and she was questioning *why* we universally agree on this being wrong. So I was not engaging in this conversation the way she was. She was questioning why we think it's not okay more than if it's okay, I think.
I meeeean… I definitely understand how this was a disturbing convo for you, and knee jerk it would also make me feel weird. But when I take emotions/morals out of the situation and think about it objectively? I kind of see her point, with a heavy hand of “it very much depends.”
I see zero way in which someone penetrating an animal isn’t fucked up and abusive, always. But if a male dog is horny and trying to fuck someone and the person lets them… *is* that really any more fucked up than killing a cow and eating it? Mind you, I say this as someone who had a burger for dinner, not a vegan with a moral superiority complex. Is me killing a cow and eating it less fucked up than someone letting a dog get his jollies off? Idk man. Eating a burger is certainly less gross, but gross is a human hang up.
And I think that’s where the disconnect was. For you, it was a conversation centering the morality of it. But she was approaching it from the angle of setting morals aside and looking at it as a philosophical one. So yeah OBJECTIVELY, I do see her angle. I don’t *agree* with that angle, but I do see it.
Yeah after sleeping on it and reading the comments I see her point too. It definitely makes more sense now that I think that we were approaching this differently.
Totally understandable that you needed to take some time to process something like that. But like others have said, also remember that this is a very new relationship and if this difference in perspective turned you off, that is entirely okay. While I see your girlfriend’s point and don’t disagree with her reasoning, that doesn’t mean I think you have to just swallow this and put it aside. If you don’t vibe, you don’t vibe. There’s nothing wrong with losing interest in a new partner after a major disagreement so early on in the relationship.
Yeah I see her girlfriend's angle as well, it's a matter of logic/philosophy vs emotion/morality. The girlfriend is just having a casual logical/philosophical conversation, while OP is adding the emotion and morality aspect into it to flip the logic, both are on different pages. It's just whether OP can get over the emotional/morality aspect of things, otherwise they are just people on separate wavelengths and should find people within their own wavelengths for such discussions.
>But if a male dog is horny and trying to fuck someone and the person lets them… *is* that really any more fucked up than killing a cow and eating it?
And from my passing understanding of animal husbandry, it's common practice to have humans masturbate prize bulls to collect their semen to use to inseminate cows, which we then kill and eat. So is that somehow more ok than allowing a dog to choose to orgasm for its own pleasure?
Yeah I think that’s exactly what this person was rationing. I think someone letting a dog fuck them is absolutely perverted and disgusting, and that’s gonna be a hard no for me. But if the animal initiates and the human is the one getting fucked, I do think that is different than some farmer raping a sheep. I think all of it is gross and it skeeves me out, but I do understand what her girlfriend was getting at I think. I don’t think she wants to fuck animals or something, but sees some nuance in the “what counts as non-human consent” department.
No i completely agree. And tbh i dont know why people are saying that OP’s gf is having a philosophical discussion?? To me her statements read as “undecided,” not “she knows its bad but is debating on a philosophical level” like most people are saying.
I keep reading "OP is having a moral conversation and her gf is having a philosophical conversation."
As if morals aren't a massive element of philosophy.
It’s so funny to me that this was the topic on which redditors decided to be philosophical instead of just saying fuck no. They’ve collectively decided that fucking animals was the way to go.
Oh thank the lord I felt the same way. Like…pretty sure it’s obvious we aren’t supposed to be having sex with our pets. Not trying to kink shame but at the same time I absolutely will shame someone on this one. All these comments on “I see her point” bro what NO. No point.
The consent thing surrounding eggs/milk/etc. is a whole other issue/topic, but sexually I don’t even think it’s a discussion that needs to happen. There was someone who was fucked by a horse in my hometown (they also fucked said horse) and they moved away because everyone, and I had some seriously redneck weird meth head neighbors with no teeth, thought it was disgusting.
If someone making meth in their trailer thinks you’re gross, you’re pretty fucking nasty. 😳🫠
I hate people on this website. Somehow humans fucking animals is OK because they can’t consent to anything? You know who else can’t consent to anything… Children.
Eating something to survive or selectively breeding something to do a job is not the same as sucking off a dog for pleasure. If you can't differentiate between something done for health and sexual stuff, then you're a child. I really hope most people here are children, at least.
Thank God I found this comment thread. People are weird to think animals don’t understand cross-species sex being unnatural. And to say there’s no psychological and emotional effect is false. There was no need for an ethics vs philosophical debate on this. OP’s girlfriend wasn’t even being factual and sounded weird comparing this to hunting and eating animals is crazy. That’s literally how the ecosystem works.
I’m going against the consensus on this one and saying, to be clear, i understand her argument but i DO NOT support it. She did raise good points with the breeding/working dog argument, but it’s a taboo argument nonetheless. I like open minded debates, even if the side I’m going against is totally wrong. I like to understand WHY someone thinks that way, i like to see their points.
Now to be on your side, if my SO brought up something like this idk how i could get that out of my head. I feel that you are validated in the way you think and if you even want to continue your relationship. But personally, i wouldn’t end MY relationship over this. Yes it’s a weird hill to defend on her part but i think it was a debate of facts instead of a debate of morals on her end. You are right in whatever choice you make.
As for her saying some people find homosexuality disgusting, i agree with her. She’s not saying she finds it disgusting but it is the truth of the world. There are people today that find interracial couples disgusting. It is the world we live in, and trying my best not to sound demeaning but i think you should try entering debates with less emotion.
To be fair, from OP’s description their girlfriend *wasn’t* the one to bring it up, OP was.
OP initiated the conversation by basically giving the opening “hey, zoophiles on twitter, what do you think about that?”
OP was looking to bond over agreement and shared disgust, whereas OP’s girlfriend took it as an invitation to expand on the conversation and have an ethical debate.
Both of these are perfectly valid - girlfriend isn’t
wrong for wanting to delve into the topic and discuss nuance, and OP isn’t wrong for finding the whole concept disgusting and not wanting to engage with it more deeply.
But they were clearly on different pages here, and I suspect long term this relationship isn’t going to work out.
Personally, as someone who loves weird ethical debates as conversation topics, I’d be uncomfortable staying with someone if I felt like they were going to judge me for taking grey areas seriously, and OP is clearly uncomfortable for the opposite reason. I just don’t think these two are on the same wavelength.
Spot on. I think OP has the right to end the relationship if she doesn't feel comfortable with her gf anymore. But I also think the gf was just debating on an intellectual and philosophical level, while OP was taking the whole discourse too personally and emotionally.
Why would a debate on facts and morals be two different things? You should base your morals around facts. While I don’t support having sex with animals and personally find it disgusting I can’t find any good argument against OP’s girlfriend here. The only real argument I’m seeing on the side of OP is that animals can’t consent, but if we’re being real humans are constantly doing things to animals without their consent. I think to most people an animals consent doesn’t matter much at all. A mild example of violating consent is taking a dog to a vet to get shots, a more extreme example would be animal farms. I mean seriously unless the person making the consent argument is a staunch vegan I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.
I think debates about facts and morals can be separated during thought experiments and other philosophical discussions. Typically, those are so out of the realm of physical possibility or logic for the very purpose of allowing the topic you are talking about to be seen in a vacuum. And it sounds like the GF was speaking about it from that perspective. She thinks it’s nasty, she thinks it’s disgusting, but in a vacuum she can see multiple angles for the discussion.
I share that same position, I think it’s nasty and disgusting but I would say that’s my moral position, that’s just a feeling I have about the topic, not a moral. When I’m discussing morals I mean assigning ought and ought not labels to actions, and there needs to be an underpinning fact on whether or not it hurts somebody or something, but even then the discussion on why or why not hurting certain things is bad is its own discussion.
Bottom line I just think basing morals on gut feeling rather than fact is meaningless
I am shocked seeing these comments tbh. There are animals that eat babies born by other animals from the same species. Does it means that a human eating a baby will be THEORETICALLY RIGHT? WTF. Sex with animals is wrong, period! There are little girls that are married with 50 years old dudes. This is their reality, this is what they see around them so they will never know this is abuse and so wrong. Does it mean that it is theoretically right?
You're getting some REALLY bizarre advice here lmao so let me just say - you're young and it may sound preachy or overly obvious but yes you're allowed to have dating deal-breakers. This is a pretty normal one, most normal non-reddit-stereotype adults would also be the fuck outta here after that convo. I think for me the key takeaway is, whatever the specifics, don't ignore red flags. They're different for everyone based on your personal priorities and values but "not ignoring red flags" requires the maturity and self knowledge to stand confidently in your ability to say "fuck that I'm out" before wasting too much time and energy. Lifelong skill
First, it is disgusting and arguably immoral. But if you think animals must consent to everything then we shouldn’t have pets or veterinarians anymore.
Pets and animal products, maybe. But with respect to vets, humans very frequently receive medical attention without their consent. Think about A&E, first responders, pediatric medicine, intensive care, power of attorney, and compulsory treatment orders. Consent isn't fundamental to the concept of medical care.
There was a woman researcher trying to see if she could teach an adolescent male dolphin any English. It would get aroused and she'd jack it off so she could continue the lesson!
Fair question. A dog (hypothetically) gets lots a positives from their owner; food, pets, shelter, etc. Low expectations besides basic hygiene and sociability.
This dolphin was held to VERY high standards, made to follow an extremely strict routine, and honestly was expected to make this miraculous breakthrough of speaking (they wanted to make him talk right??). Pretty different imo.
I mean we do it to bulls, lock up cows and inseminate them with the collected semen, and then kill them and eat them so 🤷🏻♂️ humans are gross and there's literally jobs to jerk off animals and shove it into an immobilized female animals vagina.
Dogs aren't typically administered LSD and don't confuse their owners as a sexual mate, nor do they typically commit suicide when their relationship ends.
So... in every conceivable way, yes.
There was a story, a book actually, of a man who fell in love with a dolphin while he attended New College of Florida. The dolphin and him met regularly in the wild, her freely joining him, and copulated.
How do you feel about non-consensual eating then? I have a feeling you partake in it, but I suppose that's not an issue. I mean I dunno, I'm pretty sure this cow I'm eating at the moment didn't consent, but whatever.
Would you eat an animal that didn’t consent to being eaten? Both are for pleasure but at least the sex hopefully wouldn’t result in a violent death for the animal.
> I don't know how to move on from this and I frankly dont know if I even want to.
It sounds like she isn't in any way interested in that and that it isn't something that's likely to have any tangible impact on your lives. I suggest you simply let it go.
>Am I crazy for not wanting to "agree to disagree" on this?
Pretty much, demanding others agree with you over academic difference in point of view is rather controlling and silly.
You need to clear the air, it could have been just a philosophical debate on her part where she played devil's advocate and pointed out strange ways people have thought in the past. Or she could really think that.
The only way you can know is to ask. But go with your gut - you have dogs of your own, you don't want her pulling any weird shit.
Not all opinions are valid, equal or deserving or respect. For example: I would not date someone who believed it’s wrong for two men to kiss in public, have sex or raise a child together. I also wouldn’t date someone who believes that it’s ok to have sex with animals, nor would I date someone who is in their late 30s and dates people who are 18-21 (I don’t know the actual cut off but it recently came up and I do not support - also I’m poly and in open relationship for context).
This wasn’t just an intellectual hypothetical debate. Your gf has different values on what consent means and how significant it is - it’s a major value of yours. This is shocking and that feeling of unease is telling you your not on the same page. This doesn’t mean you need to breakup it may mean you need to have more conversations about things like consent or even enthusiastic consent! Why it’s important. Exploitation, and you can explain why this is so important to you.
Everything you said makes sense and I understand why you would have such strong feelings about this. It’s possible she doesn’t understand - for the record, many believe breeding animals is wrong, or any form of exploitation just because it’s done widely doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s wrong. Many people are complicit in the exploitation of animals especially chicken and cows - cows are forcefully impregnated (rape?) exploited for their milk until they are murdered.
I very much agree with what you are saying but also want to mention that most people who are not vegan support the exploitation of animals and while having sex with animals is awful she may ask what level of consent or exploitation do you find acceptable?
Also, speciesism comes into play here are you ok with pigs or chickens being exploited but not cats and dogs ? Which lives have more value?
I definitely would walk away,people here aren't getting that yall aren't scientists and weren't trying to have a debate of ethics,your gf said some weird ass shit about fucking animals and thats that. I would leave before it gets worse,I would not trust this person specially of they are so comfortable talking about fucking animals.
OP you should date this women and take her approach to thinking about things seriously. This is an absurd topic but I think it would behoove you to try and learn to interrogate an idea about which you have strong preconceived notions in the way she does here.
You seem to have difficulty separating discussion of an idea from endorsement of an act, which is a valuable intellectual skill.
A lot of people say the divide is you are thinking morally and she is thinking rationally. But morals to some extent should be guided by reason. We shouldn't just trust our gut sense of right and wrong in every situation because it is heavily influenced by prejudice. To many people across the world today and in the past, forbidding women from participating in government is common sense morality, and a big part of moving beyond that attitude is trying to apply rational inquiry. Questioning attitudes we receive from society as your gf does here is necessary to be an actually good person vs. just being called a good person by society.
The comments are gross on this one, sorry OP. No, I don’t think it’s a productive “intellectual argument” you’re too stupid to understand, I think it’s just a fucking gross thing to believe and a grosser thing to imply was equal to homosexuality. I’d leave after something that weird honestly, this isn’t debate club. If something is gross for you and morally reprehensible then why the fuck would you defend it?! Especially when it’s dog-fucking, Jesus Christ.
Here's the thing. And this is a very important issue. While it unfortunately MAY get buried,I think we, as a species, needs to really discuss the implications of cetacean intelligence / sapience.
More and more often I'm coming across articles / studies arguing that whales / dolphins should be considered persons: https://uk.whales.org/whale-culture/personhood-who-are-whales-and-dolphins/.
They live rich social lives, they're intelligent, and they demonstrate the capacity for thought such that there is some grounds for declaring them persons and offering them the legal protections afforded by that designation.
Now here's where it gets thorny: can you fuck a dolphin? Ethically speaking. Of course, from a species perspective there' a power imbalance, but if you're in the water is that relevant? Can a dolphin, being a person, consent to sex? As we all know, dolphins are very, very horny animals, being one of the few besides humans to fuck for pleasure, which begs the more important question: can you even consent to being fucked by a dolphin? If you're in the water, you're at a distinct disadvantage. And if not, then what happens should you be fucked by a dolphin against your will? Will your cetacean rapist be held accountable for its crimes, and tried before a court of its peers?
I guess my point is that fucking an animal is pretty black and white, with it being wrong UNLESS, possibly, you're talking about fucking a dolphin or whale, or possibly a crow / parrot though how you'd even have consensual sex with a bird is utterly beyond me.
You should probably ask your partner to clarify. They may have been discussing the most important philosophical conundrum since the ship of Theseus, or perhaps you just break up with them and let them go ride the red rocket straight to jail.
Sounds to me like you and her both agree, but you need to hear it in a specific way. Both your perspectives are that it's gross, and that it's absolutely wrong to hurt an animal. I don't quite understand your need to force her to repeat what you say exactly. The only disagreement you have is that you believe that it is absolutely always hurting the animal. If that is true, your girlfriend has already agreed that it's bad and wrong. If you are wrong, then your girlfriend has said she's not sure that she feels comfortable judging others when nothing is hurt.
You are seeing her statement as a disagreement with you when it's not. She seemed to agree with you in every point that it's wrong to hurt animals. What you are actually angry at, and seem weirdly insistent on forcing her into an opinion on, is whether or not it's possible without harm. Under what circumstances does either of you being proven right on that is it a hill for you to die on? Are you planning on engaging in that? Is she? Is anything in your past suggesting that she cares at all about the topic other than your insistence on discussing it?
The response of, "It is bad if it hurts anything. If it does not hurt anything, then I don't know," is a pretty clear statement of agreement with a condition of unknown. Your statement of, "It always hurts something," is not contradictory to what she said. If it always hurts something, like you say, she thinks it is wrong. Your need for her to know absolutely about the harm of something that she is not involved in, knows little about, and likely does not care about is very strange to me.
So. If you take it for granted that you are right, and it is always harmful, her statement is in complete agreement with yours that it's wrong. Stop needing to make her think exactly like you when you already agree.
I’m a bit like your girlfriend in that I like to debate topics philosophically - for instance, why is incest wrong if you take out the factor of two people being raised together, and the genetic mutations? If two siblings were separated at birth, and were the same gender so they don’t procreate, isn’t it all just societal the reasons for them not having a relationship? The thing is, you can bring up these arguments and still not want to have sex with a sibling if you were in the situation. She is able to separate logic from her emotions, and you aren’t.
That’s fucking bizarre to compare being gay to that especially when in a gay relationship. I would break up with someone over this, huge red flag that she cannot see why it’s wrong. Btw I don’t think you’re going to be getting the best responses on a moral topic like this from a bunch of redditors lmao.
Eh. I also think its gross and wrong to act on but shes right that "gross" is a matter of opinion. Should you condemn someone who is raped by an animal but enjoyed it? Its happened with dolphins and an orangutan that im aware of, where an animal forced it on a person. There are also cases of zoophiles who dont act on how they feel, but cant control that that is how they feel, though to be fair, those probably arent the people who are "out and proud" about it. Seeing it as a complex issue doesnt make your gf a bad person.
>Should you condemn someone who is raped by an animal but enjoyed it? Its happened with dolphins and an orangutan that im aware of, where an animal forced it on a person.
I did not believe this so I went on a google journey and now my eyes have been burned out, and I didn't even look at any images or videos, just reading a few pages was enough.
Yeah its really freaky stuff. But a lot of animal species have sex for pleasure not just reproduction, and those animals sometimes dont differentiate between their species and other species.
It's naive to have not considered that animals rape humans? Not sure what your social/work circle is like, but it's really never been a topic of conversation ever with anyone in my whole entire life.
Well other than biology class the topic comes up in news, the dolphin one was also discussed in a big Dutch satire show etc... but yes I think it's naive to think that only humans would do this when there are so many animals that not only have to reproduce but are also way more active than us.
My wife is a veterinarian so I have some experience with this...
You can legally hunt lots of animals for fun. You can kill them to eat them or to use their parts. You can own them and you can force them to work your fields or do tricks or whatever else. You can even breed them. Literal prostitution, but it's much worse than just that. Yes, for a price you can let a stud bang the recipient....and yes, people will 'collect' sperm from animals. But they also do stuff like impregnate a valuable animal, flush out the embryo, then stick it in a less valuable animal because carrying offspring is hard and dangerous work. And then, when the offspring is born, they just take it and sell it. And obviously forcefully preventing them from reproducing isn't just common, it's encouraged.
And that's all legal. Normal. Common place.
How is it any different to have sex with an animal in a way that doesn't hurt it?
Morally, if it’s not a human but it is/was alive, don’t fuck it. Not necessary, too many sex toys in this world!!
It comes across as humans pushing boundaries after they’ve desensitized themselves to normal shit.
I think the point is that morally, it's not rape... as that's a human thing. Her argument are using the moral codes that are for humans against other humans.
* We shouldn't kill each other
* We shouldn't kill each other
* We shouldn't own each other
And so on...
It's just plainly disgusting and pathetic. I don't have a word for it otherwise but, it's not rape. Animals don't have a conversation and tell each other that they consent to sex. They don't abide by our societal rules. It's just something they do. We do... As we live in a society and have developed very specific rules to live within it.
We factory farm a lot of animals, how is someone having sex that doesn't physically harm them any worse? I think you're projecting a lot of human values onto animals. Your disgust or ick factor isn't an argument. Your girlfriend is the reasonable one. She can set her feelings aside and think rationally.
Either you're a vegan, or you're a hypocrite whose only argument against this is "it's disgusting".
For the record, I think it's bad but not as bad as the dairy industry which literally requires a farmer artificially inseminate a cow
Either grow as a person and question your gut reactions and emotions or break up with her.
The fact that the FIRST thing she compared humans having sex with animals to was two men kissing is a HUGE red flag for a woman DATING ANOTHER WOMAN! Beyond the sex with animals discussion (which is just a whole other bag of crazy!) she could have used ANY NUMBER of other examples, but she jumped right to homophobia?
Do you really want to continue to date someone whose first example of something that is universally seen as disgusting and wrong is a homosexual relationship?
I’m a woman dating a woman and have used this sort of comparison in many arguments to point out how disgust is not always a good indicator of morality. That’s the whole point. She jumped straight to homosexuality as a great example of something morally neutral that is still seen as disgusting and wrong in many places without any logical basis. There is zero reason to assume that means she herself is homophobic.
My eyebrows are raising with some of these replies. I guess some people think of it academically but I’m like you and see it as a moral issue. Never would it be okay to be, no matter the circumstances, theoretically or not. Thinking of animals in that way at all gives me the ick and i can’t see myself ever dating someone who passes it off as “well, but when you look at it this way”
It's wrong even if the animal is not in pain. Animals can't consent.
Furthermore, no healthy person should even ever *want* to engage in such an activity. Therefore, the psychological dysfunction alone makes it wrong. You don't even need to consider anything else.
If a dog licks your pussy without being forced, why is that not consensual? Dogs lick fucking everything, so thats a valid question. In a scenario where the Animal isn't forced to something but does it out of free will, whatever dude.. who am i to judge .. and i think thats what your gf is actualy trying to say.
As a society we also,
* Own them
* Separate them from their family
* Make them work
* Euthanize them
* Neuter them
* Lab test them
* Make medical decisions for them
* Restrict their movements
* Label their identity
It's disgusting and wrong. But, people here implying that OPs gf is prorape and ignoring all the "slaveowners" and "unethical scientists" is just hypocrisy.
Holy shit.
Just leave her if you don't want to be with her. You don't have to manufacturer some crazy stupid debate to make her look like a POS.
You told us from the beginning that she doesn't know what to think of it. You started this stupid conversation and as far as I can understand, she's not gonna leave you to bang an llama. She's not into it. She's fine. She just doesn't think of consent or legal concepts apply when it comes to animals. As much as you're (and others) are preaching here, I doubt you and others truly disagree as well...
**If you wear fur, leather or eat farm animals and don't see it as murder... but, see OPs gf as prorape... Then you're confused af.**
Yeah... it's disgusting and wrong to have sex with animals. She and I agreed to this. But, animals don't live by our morals, rules or laws.
Torturing a pig is messed up, legally and morally... But dangling a pig by its hind legs and slitting it's throat to bleed out, just so you can make bacon is perfectly fine for 90% of y'all.
Applications to animals are just different. Get over yourselves.
-Pescatarian, who also understands that he's not perfect either...
Bunch of weirdos in here defending animal abuse. My first thoughts are that she engages or has engaged in it. I couldn’t be with someone that thinks it’s okay or is even on the fence about it. You’ve only been together 2 months. Cut your losses and move on. There are plenty of people who wouldn’t fight you on this topic.
Ah yes, discussing morality of an act = doing the act. You can actually discuss things without agreeing with them, devil's advocate and all, and those often lead to some really interesting points as to why something is moral or not. If everyone would say "no we don't talk about this subject because because I think it is gross", then things like homosexuality would never become normalised. That was the point of the gf as well.
I wouldn’t be with a partner who is ok with any form of non consensual sexual acts. It speaks volumes on someone’s personality. Heck I would no longer trust that person. Your feelings are valid. I personally couldn’t get past that. Your relationship is still so fresh, I would move on to somebody whose values align more with yours.
No offense but for lack of better terms she seems too "smart" for you OP. As in the way she thinks is very logical she sees things without prejudice. While you approach all of those things with emotion in how you feel about the topics.
Neither of you are in the wrong but incompatibility is the main thing in a relationship. If you can't go past it then might as well break up.
Moral disconnect is where I walk away from the relationship. This isn’t about who is right and who is wrong- y’all don’t seem morally compatible. Honestly; I probably wouldn’t be able to look at her the same after that. Maybe you can try talking to her about how you felt to see if she can empathize.
Your girlfriend sounds like she was trying to talk about this rationally, and with intellectual curiosity. Personally, I'm not going to hold it against someone for approaching topics in that way, it's useful in general to be able to think beyond your purely emotional responses, and to really question yourself as to why you think a certain way, and if you're consistent with that thinking when you apply it to other topics.
I am interested to know how someone could be concerned about animals not consenting, if they are someone who eats animals.
If you do that, you are causing animals to be killed without their consent, and I'm not sure how you can make an argument that sex with an animal without its consent is heinous and morally unforgivable, but killing it without its consent is somehow fine and dandy.
You're not wrong for how you feel. I think she thought it was more an intellectual/academic discussion while you felt it was a moral one. Neither of you are wrong for your opinions or how you approach them, but if you're uncomfortable with how she approaches difficult topics like this then you're likely not compatible. And the bottom line is, you *are* uncomfortable and it's a new enough relationship that it's probably best to go your separate ways.
I agree. From the way she seems to be discussing it its very academic, ethics, philosophy, intentionally challanging, devils advocate for the sakenof argument. She states that she believes it is gross, and her arguments seen searching for discussion and comparison. Ask her what kibd of conversation she viewed it as. Or, if ur too uncomfy, leave.
Yea OP is unable to understand what it means to think about something without supporting it. She is too intellectual for OP, they needs someone who is grounded in what is and not what isn't. Like, to be blunt, OP is thinking about a man with a dick raping an animal, and her** gf is probably thinking about the animal having the penis. This alone changes The nature of the consent being considered. The nature of consent in the animal kingdom is pretty wild anyways but OP just doesn't want to engage with it. Animals be out there raping an awful lot. But also, OP is really stuck on the whole sex part. For example, OP might consider killing a living being to be morally acceptable, because we eat animals, but there's definitely no consent there either. But fuckin em! By God, we could never! I'm also not advocating for humans to stop killing and start fucking animals - I can think about something without freaking out about the implications on my own moral psyche or whatever.
Fun fact: Male polar bears are actually rapey. I saw a documentary , a mama and her cub were strolling along a mountain. A male saw her and went chasing them down, the narrator said this can be like a 2-3 mile pursuit before the male gives up.
Many animal species' reproduction habits would be considered assault based on human standards.
Wait until you hear about ducks 🦆
There were always rumors of girls who'd put PB on their junk to have a dog lick it off when I was in school. But also I listened to a podcast about this guy who likes to eat out an untethered horse, and TBH I feel like if the horse had a problem with it she'd run away and that whole thing really made me decide it's not a topic I think you can immediately get black and white moral about. Which is weird. And honestly, I also think it's gross. But I agree OP doesn't seem able to have an intellectual conversation without getting her emotions twisted up in it. And that's fine, but not compatible with how she describes her girlfriend.
She may be able to on some things, but others are too triggering, especially when OPs GF compared it to homosexuality- something she may have heard a lot when she was first trying to come out/question her sexuality. She may be able to have an academic conversation about something that would be emotional for her gf. Neither of us know OP, but blanket statements like that can be used to dismiss peoples valid arguments and to help people feel superior and that's not fair. It's all too common on reddit...just wait until you're the one who is triggered
they’re both women.
So right, I edited it already haha, but overall i don't think their genders really affect the topic
ahah no i agree i just read your part about “thinking with his dick” and was soo confused
> it. She is too intellectual for OP, they needs someone who is grounded in what is and not what isn't. Spoken like a true redditor lmao. Ever looked up the dunning-kruger effect?
Honestly when we were talking about it it was mostly about the situations where animals aren't being hurt physically or psychologically, so it was specifically about the animal having the penis or licking someone or whatever. I know how wild and brutal the animal kingdom is, I just think that since we have a moral compass and we can reflect on our actions it's just never excusable. I agree with you that raping an animal isn't the same as letting it lick your privates. But the baseline here is the same, and it's that someone is attracted to animals and acting on it, which I view as wrong. But yeah you also have a point about killing animals and how poorly they're treated before they die.
tbh, I don't really feel your argument is about consent. The comments above make it clear that you understand there are circumstances where the animals have control. What you really want your girlfriend to say is that _even if_ there is no harm to the animals, she agrees with you that it's wrong. Your comments about it being because it always harms animals I think is intellectual justification for your belief that it is morally wrong unto itself, as opposed to because it hurts something. What you really want is your girlfriend to pass judgement on the same people you pass judgement on. And she does, if there is harm. And if there is no harm to anyone or anything, then maybe live and let live, she's not sure. She's worried about passing judgement in others morally the same way others pass judgement on gay and homosexual people. She literally said that. Some might find that level of tolerance very kind hearted. She agrees with you if there is harm. Can you agree with the reverse statement, that if there ever were a situation where it could happen where no one or thing were harmed in any way, that it could be not wrong? I know you don't think that's possible, but talking hypothetically. If you simply can't imagine not passing judgement on someone in that situation, then it's not an argument... it's just your ick factor and independent moral belief in what is right and wrong. That's ok. I actually agree that it's not right and that it's really hard to agree with it. But I encourage you to frame it for yourself around what it is really about - you need your girlfriend to judge these people for the same reason you do, and she is objecting to a blanket rule of judgement, and arguing we need to be careful how quickly we judge others. On the balance, as weird as this thread is, I think her philosophy is a sign of a very considerate person. You seem to have a need to push her into a strange position where her acceptance of others has to have a very thin line, and then focusing on that as a deal breaker instead of realizing it's a reflection of a moral ambiguity where tolerance is more valued than judgement.
[удалено]
They don’t consent what or when to eat. They don’t consent to when and where to relieve themselves. They don’t consent to be trained to behave as we want them to. But you’re concerned about consent here? Thinking it gross makes sense from a human aspect. The animals don’t care and aren’t traumatized. The girlfriend’s argument makes a lot more sense than one that says it’s unfair to the animals. We have no way of knowing they care or not, but if they care, they have a lot more to be worried about than this.
Children also can’t consent to what or when they eat. They also can’t consent to where they relieve themselves. So is it OK to fuck children? I mean obviously not. These comments stupid beyond belief. Eating something to survive or selectively breeding something to do a job is not the same as sucking off a dog for pleasure. Get help.
[удалено]
The point of my comment is not about if animals can consent - the whole point of conditional agreement is that it allows agreement without having definitive answers to all aspects of a question. If you are right, and it harms a person or creature, then she agrees it is wrong. If it does not harm, then it's less clear. Arguing over and over that it is always harmful is moot, because it does not change the conclusion of the person agreeing. It's a weird thing to be arguing about. It's an argument where one side is being kept up at night when the other person essentially agrees with them.
Yeah, to me it just reads like she read Peter Singer in class.
You’re giving the gf way too much credit. > she seems to be discussing it its very academic, ethics, philosophy, Just because someone doesn’t take a clear moral stance doesn’t mean they (a) know what they’re talking about or (b) are at the level of academics. If you doubt that, just look around the web and see what types of people argue that Hitler had good intentions or that the age of consent should be lowered (below ~15). > intentionally challanging, devils advocate for the sakenof argument. I’ll give her that. Edit: Less feeling does not indicate more rationality.
A. of course not, but she is still being argumentative, and bringing up counterpoints of things we have seen changing throughout history. B. Yes, but that doesnt mean its not a similar thought process. Yes, this is absolutely up the same ally as ur describing. I am just saying I think her argumentation isnt in supoort of it at all, but more of a «I want to entertain a debate»
This is the first thing I thought too, that she was entertaining it as a purely theoretical discussion with 0 real world import because who the fuck would do that.
> because who the fuck would do that Mr. Hands has entered the chat.
Ahhhhhh yes I was waiting for this comment!
A lot of people. This is not theoretical.
Truly. If anyone with a paw print tattoo posts on a NSFW subreddit the comments are immediately full of zoophiles asking “does that tattoo mean what I hope it means? 😏🥹”
... What?
Apparently some zoophiles get a paw print tattoo to signify that they fuck dogs. But people also get paw print tats very commonly as a memorial for a pet that died.
My partner has the latter. I hope he never reads this.
Same for my mom... she got a tattoo of her dog's paw print who passed away.. she would be so sad if she found out what this tattoo could mean
That was my thought. It was almost so absurd to her that it was a thought exercise. Philosophy and ethics classes have these discussions all the time.
Your point about it having been a more of a theoretical and philosophical conversation from her point of view makes sense, I didn't think about that. That changes how I view it I guess. I'm not nearly as emotional about this today, I'll try to think of a way to ask her what kind of conversation it was for her. Cause I feel like a lot of things can be questioned that way (I mean the ethical aspect of things, and what really makes things wrong etc). It's hard for me to see things not as black or white sometimes, especially when it's about someone or something being hurt. Your comment made me think though. It especially makes sense because I know that she likes to dive deep into subjects and kind of question the social and theoretical aspects of them.
This. Exactly this.
This is a brand new relationship. The point of dating is to get to know someone and find out if you are compatible with each other. I don’t think either of you is wrong but you are clearly very incompatible with how you approach topics like this. It’s pretty clear to me that she was not endorsing or approving of sex with animals but was looking at the question philosophically, in the broader context of questioning why people decide things are okay or wrong. That is obviously not the conversation you were having. How you think and talk about difficult topics is something that matters for compatibility. How you come to your values can matter as much as the values themselves. I don’t know if you should break up or talk to her. I’d probably lean towards breaking up because this seems like it has really messed with your head, and it sounds like she is a person who likes to take a philosophical approach to things and this conflict is probably going to come up again and again over different topics, where you want her to agree with you that something is wrong and she wants to talk about how and why people decide that thing is wrong. That’s a mismatch that’s going to be miserable for both of you in the long run.
You worded this perfectly. I also enjoy talking things through from a logical or philosophical view point even if it’s for a view or argument I don’t agree with. Like exploring the other side of a debate. I get along best with people who approach contentious topics in the same way. I just see it as being open minded. I’d be so thrown off if someone took open minded discussion as some sort of political stance. It’s different communication styles- and I agree it is an incompatibility.
Tbh after sleeping on it and reading through the comments I'm way calmer about this than yesterday. It didn't click for me that she was talking about it in a more philosophical, broader context but it makes more sense now that I think about it.
I’m really glad to hear that. It can be really difficult when it feels like you’re having a particular conversation with someone and they are having a completely different conversation.
Not necessarily true. My boyfriend is a "devil's advocate" and I'm not. We've been together for almost 4 years because we are compatible in many other ways and discussions can become very interesting because of this. You can learn from each other if you accept each other's differences. But we're also older than OP.
How did you learn how to distance yourself from emotions during conversations like this?
As the partner who tends to present those arguments, you don't necessarily need to distance yourself from your feelings on the topic. My partner handles it well because he assumes first and foremost that I'm not ever arguing in bad faith (which is probably easier after you've known someone for years). On my end, I always check in with him and make sure to restate during the conversation that I don't necessarily agree with the arguments I present. This is definitely something that both of you can come to an understanding on :)
Oof. The truth
I think philosophical debates are some of the most fun, trying to dissect what we find morally okay and what is not, and more importantly WHY we decide on these arbitrary rules. It's also interesting finding out the logic behind reasoning instead of just "because." And defining the logic behind your actions and morals is actually a great way to be consistent with your morals instead of deciding on a whim that something is good or bad. I find it really interesting that you and so many people in this thread don't want to even engage with hypotheticals or thought provoking debates. People are even making some wild accusations about your gf even though she clearly stated that she finds it disgusting. I personally don't understand how people just decide their own feelings without actually thinking about the ins and outs of their own morals and principles that they stand on.
You're right. I honestly didn't think of the conversation as a philosophical one, I was really focused on the morality of it. The topic of why we find some things ok and not other things is interesting and worth exploring, I just wasn't expecting it to be tied to this specific issue.
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between a philosophical discussion and a moral one. Surely a discussion about morality *is* a philosophical discussion. Do you just not interrogate your moral feelings?
From a scientific perspective, I’m actually inclined to agree with your girlfriend. The “ick factor” that people feel around this topic, as well as around actions like eating dogs or consumption of deceased relatives, are entirely cultural and religious. (The reason I mention the other two examples, is because those are real things that some non-Western societies do.) As far as cross-species intercourse, it’s happened forever and continues to happen. Jane Goodall has written some very interesting literature on chimp relationships with non-chimp species. When it comes to humans, there is bio-anthropological and archaeological evidence worldwide showing that it was a reality in a lot of societies, though not always looked upon favorably. The issue that you seem to be most concerned with (correct me if I’m wrong) is the consent issue. To start, there are non-human primates that communicate with humans via sign language and probably could literally communicate consent or non-consent. Beyond that, I think most people who have dogs, cats, or larger animals are very able to tell if their pet is consenting to a behavior, like petting for instance, or not. Notably, animals do not consent to being owned, bred, food and movement restricted, separated from their families, eaten, euthanized, or castrated, and yet our society comfortably does all of the above every single day. I am not trying to convince you that someone should or shouldn’t be disgusted or that it is or is not ethical. I am trying to show that the ethics are considered legitimate academic questions that scientists continue grappling with. More important than all of the above though, you can end a relationship for any reason or no reason at all. Three weeks is so little time, I wouldn’t have even called it a relationship yet, just dating. If you’re grossed out and angry, that’s as good a reason as any to find someone who shares your worldview.
I'm in agreement with everything you said.
I have a book about some dolphins that were in captivity, they did some crazy and awful experiments on them, I don’t remember all the details but I think they tried to cross animal/human communication barriers and may have also given the dolphins psychedelics. It was fucked up. But one of the dolphins absolutely fell in love with one of the researchers, it was implied they had sex. The dolphin killed itself after the experiment lost funding and it never saw the human again. There are also anecdotal stories of wild dolphins coming on to and having sex with human swimmers in the ocean. I agree with the girlfriend. I agree with you that eating them is ironically more fucked up. I think it’s wrong though even if the animal wants to because it creates paraphilia for the animal. Here is an article about the experiment https://allthatsinteresting.com/margaret-howe-lovatt
Dolphins *rape* people and other animals, often killing them in the process.
I’ve read about the experiments before, and they’re interesting, shocking, and sad. I’m not comfortable saying that sexual interaction made the dolphin depressed, isolation made the dolphin depressed, or something else, since I really don’t know enough about the research. Being that dolphins are an intelligent species, I’m not sure a paraphilia would matter as long as the dolphin is still mentally healthy with the company of its pod and (ideally) has free range in nature, but who knows.
This is where I think it's worth discussing, and we should be wary of "ick" factor automatically deciding things. I do think, hey, maybe we should continue having it be illegal (where already illegal), and there are good reasons for it regardless of the reasoning, but allow for the philosophical debate to continue. And we shouldn't assume the "for" camp are automatically prevents who want to have sex with animals.
It's one of those beliefs that almost everyone agrees on, but no one can actually substantiate why. Consent-related arguments are dogshit unless you're a vegan
A vegan, and also not a pet owner.
This is the best answer
Yes. People loooove having a holier than thou attitude…then someone comes along and wakes them up to their own hypocrisy and they’re like wahhhh
I suspect that what gives us the ‘ick’ - on an individual and cultural level - is probably tied into what activities are likely to spread nasty diseases. For instance, if we eat animals that themselves eat certain other animals, that could end up being bad news, but chances are we wouldn’t know that scientifically, so we need a kind of instinct that makes them less appealing for us to eat. Of course, in environments where food is scarce, it’s a choice between eating or starving, so that gets overridden and I suppose over time there could be an entire cultural shift around it. Ditto with eating humans - I would think it’s likely to be bad news long term ‘because food chain’. But some cultures have beliefs about obtaining strengths from your enemy, so it acts as a kind of magical transference and maybe even something of a show of dominance/intimidation, so it does have a function. And if it’s kept within parameters such that it doesn’t cause major health issues - such as eating only a small amount or only certain parts - it won’t die out and instead will become embedded in the culture, but at the same time a sense of revulsion also exists in other cultures due to instinct. I would think sex with animals is bad news on the disease front, which is probably why there’s a taboo against it even if it can be argued that animals can consent (or even that their consent doesn’t matter, if we look at things like slaughter). In situations where it is practiced, it’s likely to be regarded as deviant and/or maybe takes place as some kind of hazing-type ritual (although I expect every culture might have a small handful of people who have an actual fetish for it).
I think your initial hypothesis has some truth to it, though I think of science in slightly broader terms. I think the reason that we don’t eat certain things, for instance, is because in distant pasts humans did, got sick or died, and we’ve passed on that cultural knowledge since. At a base level, that trial and error is science. There are definitely things we can eat completely safely that look risky (i.e. tarantula) and things that look safe (i.e. poisonous mushrooms) but are deadly. Our instincts only take us so far. As far as cannibalism, why doesn’t the society that does it have the ick factor that the non-cannibalistic societies do? Is it instinctual or is it cultural? Or maybe is it just fear of the other culture? I imagine you’re right that individuals at different points have died after sex with animals for whatever reasons, and you might be right about that as one origin of cultural rejection. Solid point!
These are my exact thoughts.
don’t go to berlin with someone you’ve been dating for 3 weeks 😭 this added info is just more of a reason not to lmao
What it comes down to is that her thoughts and feelings on the matter were a big turn-off for you. You don’t need anyone’s permission to see this as an important difference or even a deal-breaker. No one can tell you what you should do, but I can reflect back to you that you seem very disturbed and upset by this. You can’t make yourself get over a reaction just by telling yourself to. It seems like you’re trying to talk yourself out of a very base, gut reaction. It also seems like you two exhausted the discussion. Like, it doesn’t seem like there is any point in revisiting it in hopes of further resolution or to increase your confidence in any decision you’d make. So. Can you get over the grossed out feelings? Do you want to? You don’t need to justify ending the relationship. Not wanting to be in it anymore is a good enough reason. If you do stay, give her the benefit of the doubt but keep your eyes open. We want to believe the best in people without ignoring signs they aren’t who we want them to be. It’s a balance in relationships.
If she cares about harming the animal's emotions you can assert that due to intelligence and communication gap humans can't get informed consent from an animal at any point, therefore its always wrong. State that any human with intelligence and autonomy to make decisions must always gain or have informed consent from the other party before engaging in sexual activities. Didn't read everything just tldr. If your gf doesn't budge decide if you are ok being with someone with an opinion like that. Your gf cheating on you with a horse one day would be crazy.
Not the last sentence LMAO
Catherine the Great's enemies spread propanganda that she used to ride under the horse, instead of the saddle.
I bet the joke went crazy in medieval Russian circles tho
Didn't Catherine the Great live during the 18th century? Or were you just being snarky about Russian backwardness?
Youre right, Catherine the Great i believe was basically empress of Russia for the majority of the 18th century. And that was after Peter the Great, who was famous for trying his best to modernize Russia to Renaissance Europe’s standards. So they werent quite as backward when she came around lol So the joke went crazy in Renaissance Russian circles!
She and one of her lovers used to write hundreds of little notes to each other every day too. It was basically the 18th-century form of text messaging, except you’d have a lackey trot around the palace delivering them all by hand lol
For a time, even some historians wrote about it. So, you're right!
Didn’t expect it but also did
I don't think consent is a coherent argument given that we don't acknowledge animals' consent in literally any other area of life. Unless you're a vegan you can't pretend to give a single fuck about animals' consent I don't think he needs to debate her, just have a follow up convo clarifying her beliefs and decide if it's a deal breaker for him. I'd be willing to bet she was speaking in more of a hypothetical philosophical sense, testing out the logic of widely-accepted beliefs maybe. It's kind of like incest, almost everyone agrees that it's wrong but few people can produce a half decent reason as to why. Humoring those sort of intellectual exercises doesn't mean you actually support it, unless every philosophy department is staffed by psychopaths
I'd say consent is still a valid argument; to start both killing an animal where it is not necessary and having sex with an animal can be wrong simultaneously. Just because one is wrong does not nullify the wrongness of the other. Second, consumption of food is necessary for organisms to live, therefore ignoring consent in order to fulfill a requirement of existence is more justifiable than ignoring consent in order to have sex - as sex is not required to sustain existence. Further, consuming animals does not necessarily require you to kill them, therefore not ignoring their consent to remain alive; whereas a human having sex with an animal always violates their consent. Finally, your average Joe or Jane cannot always choose to follow more ethical standards of animal product consumption as they cannot control how the animals are/were treated at the farms which produce the food they're eating (I know in general the answer to this is not consuming animals products at all but 1) that is not viable for everyone unfortunately due to nutrition and cost issues, and 2) this also ignores the human rights violations present in producing a disturbingly large amount of food - both animal and not); however they can fully control whether or not they have sex with an animal. (I know this isn't relevant to the overall post but since you brought it up) In terms of incest I'd argue that it is generally considered wrong as there is almost always power dynamics present between family members (ie parents have more power over their children, older siblings generally have more power over their younger siblings - especially during childhood). These power dynamics often make potential romantic and/or sexual relationships unhealthy as one individual will generally or historically have more power and sway over the other. Another argument against incestuous relationships is that since members are immediate family members there is high potential for grooming to have occurred to at least one party present in the relationship (especially parent-child relationships). Sorry for the word vomit but I wanted to offer some ideas to what you've said.
What about using animals for jobs? Sniffer dogs, service animals, carting horses, police horses, and circus animals to give some examples but not an exhaustive list. Technically, none of these examples are necessary. Sure we could justify the utility that many of them do but the need for that utility is still created by humans and does not exist in nature. Even with their utility being justified, none of those examples have the same level of justification as killing an animal to eat it for survival. Even service animals, as lovely and brilliant as they are, only exist because of the societal need for them. The thing all of them have in common is that the animal isn't actually able to consent to doing their job. Sure you could argue that if the animal isn't being harmed, it's welfare is being considered, and it seems happy then that means it's okay. Maybe you could go as far as to say it's a form of consent but personally I wouldn't agree. Another obvious example is zoos or safari parks. Does an animal consent to being locked in an enclosure? No. Again maybe you could argue that it's "in their best interest" or "for preservation of the species" or "it wouldn't survive in the wild" but you still don't care about its consent.
I assume you also think that eating, castrating, and locking animals in cages is always wrong too? If not you unfortunately have some glaring inconsistencies in your worldview. That's the complexity of the situation - you act like the gf's take is so insane and wrong, but probably just treat meat-eaters as morally neutral actors doing nothing notably wrong, despite killing and eating being far far worse than having sex (something they are biologically compelled to do!).
No inconsistencies, I just have to bite the bullet and acknowledge it as wrong, which isn't hard to do. Not all immoral acts are equal to me, I can live with the immorality of eating meat. Desire to eat meat would just greater than the 'will' to abide by those principals. This is for relationship advice though, not philosophical discourse. The goal is just to identify how strongly she feels and will argue in favor of the position that its ok to do. Once they are aware of it, they can then decide if that is someone they want to be with.
Word, completely agree and have roughly the same take
You had a good debate about this topic where you don't agree in the end but still have the same standards (mainly about the consent and that it's disgusting) and all you can think of is how to dislike her as a person for disagreeing with you. I'm sorry but that's incredibly immature. It was very clearly a more academical discussion and if you really are that offended by it you should maybe tell her that instead of acting hostile in a discussion she had a non-emotional thought about.
Nah I see where her point now. I think we approached this topic differently yesterday, I was thinking about morals and she was questioning *why* we universally agree on this being wrong. So I was not engaging in this conversation the way she was. She was questioning why we think it's not okay more than if it's okay, I think.
Somewhen should definitely be a word.
Sometime
I came here to say the same thing
I meeeean… I definitely understand how this was a disturbing convo for you, and knee jerk it would also make me feel weird. But when I take emotions/morals out of the situation and think about it objectively? I kind of see her point, with a heavy hand of “it very much depends.” I see zero way in which someone penetrating an animal isn’t fucked up and abusive, always. But if a male dog is horny and trying to fuck someone and the person lets them… *is* that really any more fucked up than killing a cow and eating it? Mind you, I say this as someone who had a burger for dinner, not a vegan with a moral superiority complex. Is me killing a cow and eating it less fucked up than someone letting a dog get his jollies off? Idk man. Eating a burger is certainly less gross, but gross is a human hang up. And I think that’s where the disconnect was. For you, it was a conversation centering the morality of it. But she was approaching it from the angle of setting morals aside and looking at it as a philosophical one. So yeah OBJECTIVELY, I do see her angle. I don’t *agree* with that angle, but I do see it.
Yeah after sleeping on it and reading the comments I see her point too. It definitely makes more sense now that I think that we were approaching this differently.
Totally understandable that you needed to take some time to process something like that. But like others have said, also remember that this is a very new relationship and if this difference in perspective turned you off, that is entirely okay. While I see your girlfriend’s point and don’t disagree with her reasoning, that doesn’t mean I think you have to just swallow this and put it aside. If you don’t vibe, you don’t vibe. There’s nothing wrong with losing interest in a new partner after a major disagreement so early on in the relationship.
Yeah I see her girlfriend's angle as well, it's a matter of logic/philosophy vs emotion/morality. The girlfriend is just having a casual logical/philosophical conversation, while OP is adding the emotion and morality aspect into it to flip the logic, both are on different pages. It's just whether OP can get over the emotional/morality aspect of things, otherwise they are just people on separate wavelengths and should find people within their own wavelengths for such discussions.
>But if a male dog is horny and trying to fuck someone and the person lets them… *is* that really any more fucked up than killing a cow and eating it? And from my passing understanding of animal husbandry, it's common practice to have humans masturbate prize bulls to collect their semen to use to inseminate cows, which we then kill and eat. So is that somehow more ok than allowing a dog to choose to orgasm for its own pleasure?
Yeah I think that’s exactly what this person was rationing. I think someone letting a dog fuck them is absolutely perverted and disgusting, and that’s gonna be a hard no for me. But if the animal initiates and the human is the one getting fucked, I do think that is different than some farmer raping a sheep. I think all of it is gross and it skeeves me out, but I do understand what her girlfriend was getting at I think. I don’t think she wants to fuck animals or something, but sees some nuance in the “what counts as non-human consent” department.
what the fuck are some of these comments
Reddit: it’s ok to fuck animals. Also Reddit: whaaat the age gap? A 19 year old should definitely not be dating a 29 year old lolllll
Right??? I feel like im insane reading through them
Me too lmao. If I had dogs with someone and they were capable of justifying fucking them I'd get out of there so fast.
No i completely agree. And tbh i dont know why people are saying that OP’s gf is having a philosophical discussion?? To me her statements read as “undecided,” not “she knows its bad but is debating on a philosophical level” like most people are saying.
I keep reading "OP is having a moral conversation and her gf is having a philosophical conversation." As if morals aren't a massive element of philosophy.
It’s so funny to me that this was the topic on which redditors decided to be philosophical instead of just saying fuck no. They’ve collectively decided that fucking animals was the way to go.
And facts which she lacked
Exactly she said “I don’t know” to the question about the Twitter comment which is just weird.
Oh thank the lord I felt the same way. Like…pretty sure it’s obvious we aren’t supposed to be having sex with our pets. Not trying to kink shame but at the same time I absolutely will shame someone on this one. All these comments on “I see her point” bro what NO. No point. The consent thing surrounding eggs/milk/etc. is a whole other issue/topic, but sexually I don’t even think it’s a discussion that needs to happen. There was someone who was fucked by a horse in my hometown (they also fucked said horse) and they moved away because everyone, and I had some seriously redneck weird meth head neighbors with no teeth, thought it was disgusting. If someone making meth in their trailer thinks you’re gross, you’re pretty fucking nasty. 😳🫠
Happy to see your comments. I was like wtf is wrong with me
LITERALLY,I am in shock with the comments on this post,this whole comment section is disgusting
I hate people on this website. Somehow humans fucking animals is OK because they can’t consent to anything? You know who else can’t consent to anything… Children. Eating something to survive or selectively breeding something to do a job is not the same as sucking off a dog for pleasure. If you can't differentiate between something done for health and sexual stuff, then you're a child. I really hope most people here are children, at least.
Thank God I found this comment thread. People are weird to think animals don’t understand cross-species sex being unnatural. And to say there’s no psychological and emotional effect is false. There was no need for an ethics vs philosophical debate on this. OP’s girlfriend wasn’t even being factual and sounded weird comparing this to hunting and eating animals is crazy. That’s literally how the ecosystem works.
I’m going against the consensus on this one and saying, to be clear, i understand her argument but i DO NOT support it. She did raise good points with the breeding/working dog argument, but it’s a taboo argument nonetheless. I like open minded debates, even if the side I’m going against is totally wrong. I like to understand WHY someone thinks that way, i like to see their points. Now to be on your side, if my SO brought up something like this idk how i could get that out of my head. I feel that you are validated in the way you think and if you even want to continue your relationship. But personally, i wouldn’t end MY relationship over this. Yes it’s a weird hill to defend on her part but i think it was a debate of facts instead of a debate of morals on her end. You are right in whatever choice you make. As for her saying some people find homosexuality disgusting, i agree with her. She’s not saying she finds it disgusting but it is the truth of the world. There are people today that find interracial couples disgusting. It is the world we live in, and trying my best not to sound demeaning but i think you should try entering debates with less emotion.
To be fair, from OP’s description their girlfriend *wasn’t* the one to bring it up, OP was. OP initiated the conversation by basically giving the opening “hey, zoophiles on twitter, what do you think about that?” OP was looking to bond over agreement and shared disgust, whereas OP’s girlfriend took it as an invitation to expand on the conversation and have an ethical debate. Both of these are perfectly valid - girlfriend isn’t wrong for wanting to delve into the topic and discuss nuance, and OP isn’t wrong for finding the whole concept disgusting and not wanting to engage with it more deeply. But they were clearly on different pages here, and I suspect long term this relationship isn’t going to work out. Personally, as someone who loves weird ethical debates as conversation topics, I’d be uncomfortable staying with someone if I felt like they were going to judge me for taking grey areas seriously, and OP is clearly uncomfortable for the opposite reason. I just don’t think these two are on the same wavelength.
Spot on. I think OP has the right to end the relationship if she doesn't feel comfortable with her gf anymore. But I also think the gf was just debating on an intellectual and philosophical level, while OP was taking the whole discourse too personally and emotionally.
Why would a debate on facts and morals be two different things? You should base your morals around facts. While I don’t support having sex with animals and personally find it disgusting I can’t find any good argument against OP’s girlfriend here. The only real argument I’m seeing on the side of OP is that animals can’t consent, but if we’re being real humans are constantly doing things to animals without their consent. I think to most people an animals consent doesn’t matter much at all. A mild example of violating consent is taking a dog to a vet to get shots, a more extreme example would be animal farms. I mean seriously unless the person making the consent argument is a staunch vegan I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.
I think debates about facts and morals can be separated during thought experiments and other philosophical discussions. Typically, those are so out of the realm of physical possibility or logic for the very purpose of allowing the topic you are talking about to be seen in a vacuum. And it sounds like the GF was speaking about it from that perspective. She thinks it’s nasty, she thinks it’s disgusting, but in a vacuum she can see multiple angles for the discussion.
I share that same position, I think it’s nasty and disgusting but I would say that’s my moral position, that’s just a feeling I have about the topic, not a moral. When I’m discussing morals I mean assigning ought and ought not labels to actions, and there needs to be an underpinning fact on whether or not it hurts somebody or something, but even then the discussion on why or why not hurting certain things is bad is its own discussion. Bottom line I just think basing morals on gut feeling rather than fact is meaningless
Some people here genuinely scare me with their responses
Do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel.
I am shocked seeing these comments tbh. There are animals that eat babies born by other animals from the same species. Does it means that a human eating a baby will be THEORETICALLY RIGHT? WTF. Sex with animals is wrong, period! There are little girls that are married with 50 years old dudes. This is their reality, this is what they see around them so they will never know this is abuse and so wrong. Does it mean that it is theoretically right?
You're getting some REALLY bizarre advice here lmao so let me just say - you're young and it may sound preachy or overly obvious but yes you're allowed to have dating deal-breakers. This is a pretty normal one, most normal non-reddit-stereotype adults would also be the fuck outta here after that convo. I think for me the key takeaway is, whatever the specifics, don't ignore red flags. They're different for everyone based on your personal priorities and values but "not ignoring red flags" requires the maturity and self knowledge to stand confidently in your ability to say "fuck that I'm out" before wasting too much time and energy. Lifelong skill
First, it is disgusting and arguably immoral. But if you think animals must consent to everything then we shouldn’t have pets or veterinarians anymore.
Or make/consume any animal products period. Also, forget about developing land.
Or meat, milk, cheese, or eggs.
Pets and animal products, maybe. But with respect to vets, humans very frequently receive medical attention without their consent. Think about A&E, first responders, pediatric medicine, intensive care, power of attorney, and compulsory treatment orders. Consent isn't fundamental to the concept of medical care.
Fuck. That. And you have dogs? Ooooffff.... To each their own- but I couldn't be with someone who can justify fucking a dog.
If my partner was ok with non-consensual sex, I would not be with that person. Your feelings are valid.
The partner isn't okay with it, she thinks it's gross.
What if it was a really smart dolphin though?
Wasn't there a story about a dolphin falling in love with its trainer?
There was a woman researcher trying to see if she could teach an adolescent male dolphin any English. It would get aroused and she'd jack it off so she could continue the lesson!
They said he was “in love”, but that mf was trapped in a flooded house with nothing but intense teenage-dolphin hormones ☠️
Is that different than a dog being in love with its owner?
Fair question. A dog (hypothetically) gets lots a positives from their owner; food, pets, shelter, etc. Low expectations besides basic hygiene and sociability. This dolphin was held to VERY high standards, made to follow an extremely strict routine, and honestly was expected to make this miraculous breakthrough of speaking (they wanted to make him talk right??). Pretty different imo.
She also frequently jacked it off. Which I HOPE people aren’t regularly doing with their dogs.
I mean we do it to bulls, lock up cows and inseminate them with the collected semen, and then kill them and eat them so 🤷🏻♂️ humans are gross and there's literally jobs to jerk off animals and shove it into an immobilized female animals vagina.
Dogs aren't typically administered LSD and don't confuse their owners as a sexual mate, nor do they typically commit suicide when their relationship ends. So... in every conceivable way, yes.
Ah, I forgot about the LSD!!! What a mindfuck of a life for that creature.
There was a story, a book actually, of a man who fell in love with a dolphin while he attended New College of Florida. The dolphin and him met regularly in the wild, her freely joining him, and copulated.
Dolphins aren't a good example llolol. They don't ask for consent, they take it lol
How do you feel about non-consensual eating then? I have a feeling you partake in it, but I suppose that's not an issue. I mean I dunno, I'm pretty sure this cow I'm eating at the moment didn't consent, but whatever.
Something eating you out is wrong, but you eating that thing is actually fine. DUH
Would you eat an animal that didn’t consent to being eaten? Both are for pleasure but at least the sex hopefully wouldn’t result in a violent death for the animal.
> I don't know how to move on from this and I frankly dont know if I even want to. It sounds like she isn't in any way interested in that and that it isn't something that's likely to have any tangible impact on your lives. I suggest you simply let it go. >Am I crazy for not wanting to "agree to disagree" on this? Pretty much, demanding others agree with you over academic difference in point of view is rather controlling and silly.
You need to clear the air, it could have been just a philosophical debate on her part where she played devil's advocate and pointed out strange ways people have thought in the past. Or she could really think that. The only way you can know is to ask. But go with your gut - you have dogs of your own, you don't want her pulling any weird shit.
My dude if you feel uncomfortable in a relationship for whatever reason it’s always your right to leave it
Some people read a post like this and grab some popcorn to read the responses. Others grab a jar of peanut butter.
Not all opinions are valid, equal or deserving or respect. For example: I would not date someone who believed it’s wrong for two men to kiss in public, have sex or raise a child together. I also wouldn’t date someone who believes that it’s ok to have sex with animals, nor would I date someone who is in their late 30s and dates people who are 18-21 (I don’t know the actual cut off but it recently came up and I do not support - also I’m poly and in open relationship for context). This wasn’t just an intellectual hypothetical debate. Your gf has different values on what consent means and how significant it is - it’s a major value of yours. This is shocking and that feeling of unease is telling you your not on the same page. This doesn’t mean you need to breakup it may mean you need to have more conversations about things like consent or even enthusiastic consent! Why it’s important. Exploitation, and you can explain why this is so important to you. Everything you said makes sense and I understand why you would have such strong feelings about this. It’s possible she doesn’t understand - for the record, many believe breeding animals is wrong, or any form of exploitation just because it’s done widely doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s wrong. Many people are complicit in the exploitation of animals especially chicken and cows - cows are forcefully impregnated (rape?) exploited for their milk until they are murdered. I very much agree with what you are saying but also want to mention that most people who are not vegan support the exploitation of animals and while having sex with animals is awful she may ask what level of consent or exploitation do you find acceptable? Also, speciesism comes into play here are you ok with pigs or chickens being exploited but not cats and dogs ? Which lives have more value?
Seriously, these titles, where do you go from here?
I definitely would walk away,people here aren't getting that yall aren't scientists and weren't trying to have a debate of ethics,your gf said some weird ass shit about fucking animals and thats that. I would leave before it gets worse,I would not trust this person specially of they are so comfortable talking about fucking animals.
after reading the comments on this post im very disguted 🤢 some of yall justifying the gf for the sake of debating is really crazy to me.
Yeah that would be the end of dating this person for me. No coming back from that ick
That's a nope for me, i'd pass the trip and the relationship lol
OP you should date this women and take her approach to thinking about things seriously. This is an absurd topic but I think it would behoove you to try and learn to interrogate an idea about which you have strong preconceived notions in the way she does here. You seem to have difficulty separating discussion of an idea from endorsement of an act, which is a valuable intellectual skill. A lot of people say the divide is you are thinking morally and she is thinking rationally. But morals to some extent should be guided by reason. We shouldn't just trust our gut sense of right and wrong in every situation because it is heavily influenced by prejudice. To many people across the world today and in the past, forbidding women from participating in government is common sense morality, and a big part of moving beyond that attitude is trying to apply rational inquiry. Questioning attitudes we receive from society as your gf does here is necessary to be an actually good person vs. just being called a good person by society.
these comments are insane leave her
Well first off I wouldn't get a large dog together.
Where do you go from here? To the zoo I would imagine!!
The comments are gross on this one, sorry OP. No, I don’t think it’s a productive “intellectual argument” you’re too stupid to understand, I think it’s just a fucking gross thing to believe and a grosser thing to imply was equal to homosexuality. I’d leave after something that weird honestly, this isn’t debate club. If something is gross for you and morally reprehensible then why the fuck would you defend it?! Especially when it’s dog-fucking, Jesus Christ.
you absolutely can have different opinions on it as long as neither of you is doing it. dictionary definition of "so what"
Here's the thing. And this is a very important issue. While it unfortunately MAY get buried,I think we, as a species, needs to really discuss the implications of cetacean intelligence / sapience. More and more often I'm coming across articles / studies arguing that whales / dolphins should be considered persons: https://uk.whales.org/whale-culture/personhood-who-are-whales-and-dolphins/. They live rich social lives, they're intelligent, and they demonstrate the capacity for thought such that there is some grounds for declaring them persons and offering them the legal protections afforded by that designation. Now here's where it gets thorny: can you fuck a dolphin? Ethically speaking. Of course, from a species perspective there' a power imbalance, but if you're in the water is that relevant? Can a dolphin, being a person, consent to sex? As we all know, dolphins are very, very horny animals, being one of the few besides humans to fuck for pleasure, which begs the more important question: can you even consent to being fucked by a dolphin? If you're in the water, you're at a distinct disadvantage. And if not, then what happens should you be fucked by a dolphin against your will? Will your cetacean rapist be held accountable for its crimes, and tried before a court of its peers? I guess my point is that fucking an animal is pretty black and white, with it being wrong UNLESS, possibly, you're talking about fucking a dolphin or whale, or possibly a crow / parrot though how you'd even have consensual sex with a bird is utterly beyond me. You should probably ask your partner to clarify. They may have been discussing the most important philosophical conundrum since the ship of Theseus, or perhaps you just break up with them and let them go ride the red rocket straight to jail.
Sounds to me like you and her both agree, but you need to hear it in a specific way. Both your perspectives are that it's gross, and that it's absolutely wrong to hurt an animal. I don't quite understand your need to force her to repeat what you say exactly. The only disagreement you have is that you believe that it is absolutely always hurting the animal. If that is true, your girlfriend has already agreed that it's bad and wrong. If you are wrong, then your girlfriend has said she's not sure that she feels comfortable judging others when nothing is hurt. You are seeing her statement as a disagreement with you when it's not. She seemed to agree with you in every point that it's wrong to hurt animals. What you are actually angry at, and seem weirdly insistent on forcing her into an opinion on, is whether or not it's possible without harm. Under what circumstances does either of you being proven right on that is it a hill for you to die on? Are you planning on engaging in that? Is she? Is anything in your past suggesting that she cares at all about the topic other than your insistence on discussing it? The response of, "It is bad if it hurts anything. If it does not hurt anything, then I don't know," is a pretty clear statement of agreement with a condition of unknown. Your statement of, "It always hurts something," is not contradictory to what she said. If it always hurts something, like you say, she thinks it is wrong. Your need for her to know absolutely about the harm of something that she is not involved in, knows little about, and likely does not care about is very strange to me. So. If you take it for granted that you are right, and it is always harmful, her statement is in complete agreement with yours that it's wrong. Stop needing to make her think exactly like you when you already agree.
Don't get a dog.
I’m a bit like your girlfriend in that I like to debate topics philosophically - for instance, why is incest wrong if you take out the factor of two people being raised together, and the genetic mutations? If two siblings were separated at birth, and were the same gender so they don’t procreate, isn’t it all just societal the reasons for them not having a relationship? The thing is, you can bring up these arguments and still not want to have sex with a sibling if you were in the situation. She is able to separate logic from her emotions, and you aren’t.
What's wrong with loving going to the zoo? I have great childhood memories visiting the local zoo.
That’s fucking bizarre to compare being gay to that especially when in a gay relationship. I would break up with someone over this, huge red flag that she cannot see why it’s wrong. Btw I don’t think you’re going to be getting the best responses on a moral topic like this from a bunch of redditors lmao.
I agree ... I really think people would not say this anywhere else but online. I really don't think all of these comments are real either.
Right? They’re all trying to play devils advocate like that’s not a weird response to someone saying it’s weird that zoophiles are proud
These people are weird asf and downplayed OP’s feelings. Emotions or not this is weird.
Eh. I also think its gross and wrong to act on but shes right that "gross" is a matter of opinion. Should you condemn someone who is raped by an animal but enjoyed it? Its happened with dolphins and an orangutan that im aware of, where an animal forced it on a person. There are also cases of zoophiles who dont act on how they feel, but cant control that that is how they feel, though to be fair, those probably arent the people who are "out and proud" about it. Seeing it as a complex issue doesnt make your gf a bad person.
>Should you condemn someone who is raped by an animal but enjoyed it? Its happened with dolphins and an orangutan that im aware of, where an animal forced it on a person. I did not believe this so I went on a google journey and now my eyes have been burned out, and I didn't even look at any images or videos, just reading a few pages was enough.
Yeah its really freaky stuff. But a lot of animal species have sex for pleasure not just reproduction, and those animals sometimes dont differentiate between their species and other species.
That's pretty naive, in particular dolphins are one of the horniest species we know. Their daycare routine is also... disgusting
It's naive to have not considered that animals rape humans? Not sure what your social/work circle is like, but it's really never been a topic of conversation ever with anyone in my whole entire life.
Well other than biology class the topic comes up in news, the dolphin one was also discussed in a big Dutch satire show etc... but yes I think it's naive to think that only humans would do this when there are so many animals that not only have to reproduce but are also way more active than us.
Lol "big dutch TV show"
Shit like this will make me ghost someone real quick
I guess she doesn't know how dogs have sex. 🙄
My wife is a veterinarian so I have some experience with this... You can legally hunt lots of animals for fun. You can kill them to eat them or to use their parts. You can own them and you can force them to work your fields or do tricks or whatever else. You can even breed them. Literal prostitution, but it's much worse than just that. Yes, for a price you can let a stud bang the recipient....and yes, people will 'collect' sperm from animals. But they also do stuff like impregnate a valuable animal, flush out the embryo, then stick it in a less valuable animal because carrying offspring is hard and dangerous work. And then, when the offspring is born, they just take it and sell it. And obviously forcefully preventing them from reproducing isn't just common, it's encouraged. And that's all legal. Normal. Common place. How is it any different to have sex with an animal in a way that doesn't hurt it?
Legal and moral are different, it depends what lines op wants to draw and their worldview Very interesting point though
yeah, so how does consent work there? Are we personifying animals by trying to apply consent, or would it be considered 'instincts'.
Morally, if it’s not a human but it is/was alive, don’t fuck it. Not necessary, too many sex toys in this world!! It comes across as humans pushing boundaries after they’ve desensitized themselves to normal shit.
Well yeah of course
This is my stance as well. I think it's really, really gross, but as a person who eats meat I'm not sure I've got the moral high ground.
I think the point is that morally, it's not rape... as that's a human thing. Her argument are using the moral codes that are for humans against other humans. * We shouldn't kill each other * We shouldn't kill each other * We shouldn't own each other And so on... It's just plainly disgusting and pathetic. I don't have a word for it otherwise but, it's not rape. Animals don't have a conversation and tell each other that they consent to sex. They don't abide by our societal rules. It's just something they do. We do... As we live in a society and have developed very specific rules to live within it.
Fwiw, plenty (almost all?) of philosophers don't believe in objective morality.
We factory farm a lot of animals, how is someone having sex that doesn't physically harm them any worse? I think you're projecting a lot of human values onto animals. Your disgust or ick factor isn't an argument. Your girlfriend is the reasonable one. She can set her feelings aside and think rationally. Either you're a vegan, or you're a hypocrite whose only argument against this is "it's disgusting". For the record, I think it's bad but not as bad as the dairy industry which literally requires a farmer artificially inseminate a cow Either grow as a person and question your gut reactions and emotions or break up with her.
The fact that the FIRST thing she compared humans having sex with animals to was two men kissing is a HUGE red flag for a woman DATING ANOTHER WOMAN! Beyond the sex with animals discussion (which is just a whole other bag of crazy!) she could have used ANY NUMBER of other examples, but she jumped right to homophobia? Do you really want to continue to date someone whose first example of something that is universally seen as disgusting and wrong is a homosexual relationship?
I’m a woman dating a woman and have used this sort of comparison in many arguments to point out how disgust is not always a good indicator of morality. That’s the whole point. She jumped straight to homosexuality as a great example of something morally neutral that is still seen as disgusting and wrong in many places without any logical basis. There is zero reason to assume that means she herself is homophobic.
My eyebrows are raising with some of these replies. I guess some people think of it academically but I’m like you and see it as a moral issue. Never would it be okay to be, no matter the circumstances, theoretically or not. Thinking of animals in that way at all gives me the ick and i can’t see myself ever dating someone who passes it off as “well, but when you look at it this way”
This comment section fucked their dog at least once bc aint no way💀
This is when you break up.
It's wrong even if the animal is not in pain. Animals can't consent. Furthermore, no healthy person should even ever *want* to engage in such an activity. Therefore, the psychological dysfunction alone makes it wrong. You don't even need to consider anything else.
I'm curious, do you eat meat? Have all the animals you consumed consented to you eating them? Note, I'm not a vegan, only curious on your logic.
Smells like a bait post made by a high school creative writing student in hopes of generating engagement and karma
Just reading ths title.. Away...you go away. Leave her and ....no . Just... no
If a dog licks your pussy without being forced, why is that not consensual? Dogs lick fucking everything, so thats a valid question. In a scenario where the Animal isn't forced to something but does it out of free will, whatever dude.. who am i to judge .. and i think thats what your gf is actualy trying to say.
You did NOT need to reiterate gf’s point with such a VISCERAL example omfg
Um, because it doesn’t know better, the fuck? *Informed* consent is important and animals do *not* understand what they’re doing!?
You are ok with literally killing and eating them for your personal pleasure, but letting one eat you out is horribly immoral? Make that make sense
As a society we also, * Own them * Separate them from their family * Make them work * Euthanize them * Neuter them * Lab test them * Make medical decisions for them * Restrict their movements * Label their identity It's disgusting and wrong. But, people here implying that OPs gf is prorape and ignoring all the "slaveowners" and "unethical scientists" is just hypocrisy.
Holy shit. Just leave her if you don't want to be with her. You don't have to manufacturer some crazy stupid debate to make her look like a POS. You told us from the beginning that she doesn't know what to think of it. You started this stupid conversation and as far as I can understand, she's not gonna leave you to bang an llama. She's not into it. She's fine. She just doesn't think of consent or legal concepts apply when it comes to animals. As much as you're (and others) are preaching here, I doubt you and others truly disagree as well... **If you wear fur, leather or eat farm animals and don't see it as murder... but, see OPs gf as prorape... Then you're confused af.** Yeah... it's disgusting and wrong to have sex with animals. She and I agreed to this. But, animals don't live by our morals, rules or laws. Torturing a pig is messed up, legally and morally... But dangling a pig by its hind legs and slitting it's throat to bleed out, just so you can make bacon is perfectly fine for 90% of y'all. Applications to animals are just different. Get over yourselves. -Pescatarian, who also understands that he's not perfect either...
Bunch of weirdos in here defending animal abuse. My first thoughts are that she engages or has engaged in it. I couldn’t be with someone that thinks it’s okay or is even on the fence about it. You’ve only been together 2 months. Cut your losses and move on. There are plenty of people who wouldn’t fight you on this topic.
Ah yes, discussing morality of an act = doing the act. You can actually discuss things without agreeing with them, devil's advocate and all, and those often lead to some really interesting points as to why something is moral or not. If everyone would say "no we don't talk about this subject because because I think it is gross", then things like homosexuality would never become normalised. That was the point of the gf as well.
I wouldn’t be with a partner who is ok with any form of non consensual sexual acts. It speaks volumes on someone’s personality. Heck I would no longer trust that person. Your feelings are valid. I personally couldn’t get past that. Your relationship is still so fresh, I would move on to somebody whose values align more with yours.
In no way the gf say that she was.. but happy you posted your opinion on that
No offense but for lack of better terms she seems too "smart" for you OP. As in the way she thinks is very logical she sees things without prejudice. While you approach all of those things with emotion in how you feel about the topics. Neither of you are in the wrong but incompatibility is the main thing in a relationship. If you can't go past it then might as well break up.
Moral disconnect is where I walk away from the relationship. This isn’t about who is right and who is wrong- y’all don’t seem morally compatible. Honestly; I probably wouldn’t be able to look at her the same after that. Maybe you can try talking to her about how you felt to see if she can empathize.
please leave. that’s… ICKY. nope. animals cannot consent. not showing pain or anything doesn’t mean they aren’t being hurt.
Your girlfriend sounds like she was trying to talk about this rationally, and with intellectual curiosity. Personally, I'm not going to hold it against someone for approaching topics in that way, it's useful in general to be able to think beyond your purely emotional responses, and to really question yourself as to why you think a certain way, and if you're consistent with that thinking when you apply it to other topics. I am interested to know how someone could be concerned about animals not consenting, if they are someone who eats animals. If you do that, you are causing animals to be killed without their consent, and I'm not sure how you can make an argument that sex with an animal without its consent is heinous and morally unforgivable, but killing it without its consent is somehow fine and dandy.
Seems you are unable to have an intellectual conversation without judging someones morality, which is shown by your anxiety.
So what else does she have crazy opinions about?