Wolf/Dog Rape

[Daiba]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partner
Seems pretty well defined to me, unless your hypothetical vibrator is a large wooden beam. Strictly tools until they're visited by the Blue Fairy.

I'd also like to point out that:

DP

is a much more interesting post in the context of this discussion.

[fectin]

I was serious with my two dogs question before. It's not a trick question, I'm just not sure how it interacts with your paradigm.

[tzor]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partner
Seems pretty well defined to me, unless your hypothetical vibrator is a large wooden beam. Strictly tools until they're visited by the Blue Fairy.

Since that specifically refers to "person" it tends to blow out of the water Frank argument of applying it to non-persons like dogs.

[Spike]

Oi, and here the thread was starting to move AWAY from Dogfucking and into the much more interesting 'What is personhood?'...

... and with one Frank post we are back to Dogfucking all the time.

[Username17]

I was serious with my two dogs question before. It's not a trick question, I'm just not sure how it interacts with your paradigm.

What about it? Subhumans aren't moral agents. Tigers aren't "evil" when they rip a human's spine out of their back and eat their cooling flesh. House cats aren't even "evil" when they torture mice to death for fun.

Worrying about the "double standard" that we condemn or laud behaviors i people that we shrug our shoulders about in moose or geese is a waste of time. It's a stupid argument. Yes, there are animals that have reproductive cycles that are fucking appalling. And that doesn't mean that it is suddenly OK for you to paralyze someone and lay your eggs in their abdomen. Nor does it mean that wasps are morally anything.

-Username17

[Daiba]

Since that specifically refers to "person" it tends to blow out of the water Frank argument of applying it to non-persons like dogs.

a : one associated with another especially in an action

a : an individual of a vaguely indicated group : anyone at all <one never knows>

Depends on whether dogs count as individuals. I'm pretty sure inanimate objects do not.

[mean_liar]

For sex to be moral it has to have three things. Just three. Fucking. Things.

• Your partner has to have adult human intelligence.
• Your partner has to have mental competence at the time.
• Your partner has to consent.

That's it. That's not a high fence to jump over.

THIS IS THE FACE OF RAPE

[PoliteNewb]

And that doesn't mean that it is suddenly OK for you to paralyze someone and lay your eggs in their abdomen. Nor does it mean that wasps are morally anything.

-Username17

If you, as a human being (or better yet, let's say a human-intelligence alien with an ovipositor) was to paralyze an animal (say, a dog) and lay your eggs in its abdomen, I'm not seeing the big problem. Because it's a fucking animal.

Using an animal as an incubator for your young is no worse than shooting it in the head, carving off a portion of it's body, and roasting and devouring it. It is more gross from a human standpoint, but from a moral standpoint, what's the diff?

There is no argument over what is repulsive and immoral when you do it to people, no matter who is doing it. What is at issue is what (not who) you are doing it to.

[fectin]

Please point out the holes in my logic, because I don't really like where it goes.

I'll buy "not a moral actor", but it doesn't fit with this:

Wait, so is it OK to get fucked by wolves? In case it comes up.

Situations in which someone is raped by someone or something that is not a consenting adult are incredibly fucked up, but they do happen. It is not "OK" to get raped by a child, or a mentally retarded person, or a farm animal. It's disgusting and humiliating and traumatizing. But the person who got raped didn't do anything wrong necessarily.

Both posts together are not compatible.

The simplest explanation is that you used "rape" as a shorthand here, but didn't intend for it to have moral connotations. That fits with the rest of your logic, but leads to it being okay to be sexed by a child, or a mentally retarded person, or a farm animal, especially so long as the sexee puts up at least a token resistance. That's clearly wrong.

The complex answer is that a child, a mentally retarded person, and an animal are not morally the same. I like that answer much better (because I reject any paradigm that okays statutory rape), but it also means that kids and retards are a false analogy for wolves.

Alternately, wolves rape each other all the time (related to this: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650 ), and we don't care, but hold ourselves to a different standard for currently unexplained reasons.

[MGuy]

Animals =/= People and shouldn't be given the same moral/ethical/your mom considerations as people are given.

[Slade]

What about it? Subhumans aren't moral agents. Tigers aren't "evil" when they rip a human's spine out of their back and eat their cooling flesh. House cats aren't even "evil" when they torture mice to death for fun.

This isn't D&D where animals get to be neutral.
I do think a mouse bring tortured by the cat is leaning toward evil.
The Tiger is at the least eating the human (neutral); the house cat is "playing" with the potential food item (not neutral).

[CatharzGodfoot]

What about it? Subhumans aren't moral agents. Tigers aren't "evil" when they rip a human's spine out of their back and eat their cooling flesh. House cats aren't even "evil" when they torture mice to death for fun.

This isn't D&D where animals get to be neutral.
I do think a mouse bring tortured by the cat is leaning toward evil.
The Tiger is at the least eating the human (neutral); the house cat is "playing" with the potential food item (not neutral).

A cat's attack strategy is predicated on minimum personal harm. It tries to exhaust and stun prey as much as possible before going for the kill and exposing itself to counter-attacks.

Unfortunately, after the instincts have done their job many house cats don't know how kill and eat their prey. Does that make them more evil than their experienced feral cousins?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

As a ridiculous hypothetical, consider animals that practice lifelong monogamy, such as bald eagles and other raptors. Say then that one was to be 'uplifted', in the transhumanist parlance. Would continuing to mate with the unuplifted partner be unethical? Assume that in the process of increasing intelligence the myriad of factors that lead to this lifelong monogamy are not, and even can not be altered, due to vagaries in the superscience.

One could then apply this to serial monogamist animals, such as wolves. Since, as I understand it*, the werewolves who fuck wolves were born wolves and could already be sexually mature at the time they discover their werewolf nature, they could already be in a monogamous relationship with a non-werewolf wolf.

*I always found WoD to be unspeakably lame, so I could be wrong.

[norms29]

Since that specifically refers to "person" it tends to blow out of the water Frank argument of applying it to non-persons like dogs.

a : one associated with another especially in an action

a : an individual of a vaguely indicated group : anyone at all <one never knows>

Depends on whether dogs count as individuals. I'm pretty sure inanimate objects do not.

a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group b : a particular person <are you the individual I spoke with on the telephone?>

Individual Either refers only to a person, in which case dogs don't count, or refers to inanimate objects as much as animals. either way the dog-fuckers win the exchange.

[Prak]

actually, as far as moral agents go in WoD, it's a true Crapsack World, where the basic predication is that "Humans Are Bastards." At best they're self absorbed, selfish bastards unaware of the deeper evils, scurrying around trying to keep themselves alive like prehistoric rat-like mammals in a world of thundering reptilian monsters. At worst, they're indistinguishable from the true monsters of the WoD, and often times associated with them. Charlie Manson is, in cannon, kinfolk to the Black Spiral Dancers, the evil werewolves. Many murderers and rapists, while horrible people on their own, attract wyrm spirits which often possess them and drive them to more and greater acts of evil so as to feast on the torment caused.

Animals get off easy, and are often found to be neutral survivors, or noble avengers, when compared to the black morality of humanity.

[ubernoob]

For sex to be moral it has to have three things. Just three. Fucking. Things.

• Your partner has to have adult human intelligence.
• Your partner has to have mental competence at the time.
• Your partner has to consent.

That's it. That's not a high fence to jump over.

THIS IS THE FACE OF RAPE

I'm pretty sure subhumans don't have a moral compass. As someone who's uncle is actually retarded, I would definitely put retardation as a lack of both adult human intelligence AND mental competence. Yes, I just said that someone with a certain genetic disorder is subhuman. I stand by that statement.

Note- Retard on retard is just like dog on dog. Neither party is capable of making a distinction between moral and amoral, so there is no good or evil in the act.

[Vnonymous]

Consent itself is a really nasty issue to talk about too. When a woman thinks you're jewish but you're actually palestinian, is it rape when she finds out later? Even if you didn't deceive her at all, she just assumed?

Is consent possible if there are power differentials involved(personally I think the answer to this is of course yes)?

And when two people don't have mental competence(two people get drunk at a party and fuck), is it rape? Who's raping who?

And the adult human intelligence thing is contentious as well. What happens when two thirteen year olds have sex? Is it rape on both of their behalfs? What if one of the thirteen year olds is much smarter than the other?

A lot of these situations exist and happen(somebody on a blog I frequent reported seeing a 12 year old girl go up and get a boy's number). Is there a moral element when two little kids hook up with each other(this happens a lot) ?

I mean, is it moral when somebody lies to you about consent? Is it rape if she regrets it in the morning? Is it rape if she finds out that you were two-timing on her(hi Julian Assange)?

When it comes to the moral discourse on sex, we've only just penetrated the surface of this complex and messy issue. There are a lot of grey areas and problems, which ultimately comes to mean nothing because no amount of moral programming is going to stop men being men and women being women.

[virgil]

Because we eat animals, it's OK to screw them? That's messed up. At minimum, there's the fact that there's a slight difference between eating something and having sex with it; and it's part of our nature to eat animals. I'm sure we might argue differently if we, as a species, were more like wasps. But we're not. And really, why the hell are people defending this?

Here's an article that discusses it some.

[Xenologer]

And really, why the hell are people defending this?

Why are people defending the idea that there's nothing wrong with choosing a partner who can't give or deny consent for sexual activity? Because for some people the question of whether it's okay to fuck a partner which cannot give or deny consent is an interesting abstract sort of a thought experiment that has nothing to do with their everyday lives. Then again, for some other people, we're trying to pick out of a crowd the people who are most likely to rape us if they catch us passed out somewhere.

Again, I don't think the dog is harmed by having a human penis in it, or by having its penis in a human. It's not about the dog's experience or perspective so much as what's going on with the perspective of the human involved. I think humans who don't get off on consent (or who don't at least consider it a prerequisite for sexual contact with another creature) are fucking rapists waiting to happen. The "what's the harm if they don't comprehend what's going on" argument probably holds more water for the people in the thread who aren't aware of it being the reason why unconscious people get raped at parties.

And yeah, I'm aware that there are people in the thread for whom a live sexual partner who isn't capable of granting or denying consent to sex is little more than a sex toy for the partner who has the power to discern and decide these things (making the "use" of that partner no worse morally than using a vibrator). I know. I read your posts. If you really believe that and aren't just being fucking sophists who think this is a cute abstract question with no bearing on actual life, feel free to actually go act on it, kids, and enjoy introducing yourselves to your neighbors for the rest of your lives.

[Kaelik]

You must not be very smart. I mean, Are you fucking retarded, just because someone's unconscious doesn't mean they lose ownership of all their property, this isn't about unconscious people. Yes, it is perfectly rational to punish someone for doing something you don't want them to do while you are unconscious with your stuff as if they had done it while you were conscious.'

Just like we punish people for joyriding in your car when you aren't using it.

The issue is whether or not things that don't have any rights can be abused.

If you can cut the things head of with a samurai sword right now, and no one will get mad, then who the hell cares if you stick your dick in it? No one.

If someone is Terry Schiavoed, and you happen to be their next of kin, and have power of attorney, and you want to get to fucking, I don't give two shits, because that is not a person, and we have no compelling interest in protecting that thing.

But if someone is unconscious, we know that they usually wake up in a little bit.

Frankly, I'm an error theorist, so the whole point of these discussion for me is to prompt people to recognize that their moral frameworks are decided pretty much entirely by their personal preferences. Beyond that, I don't care.

[Orion]

Xenologer--

Let me grant your premise that dogfuckers are more likely to be rapists. That doesn't prove that dogfucking is wrong, only that it is sick and gross. There are all kinds of desires people have that imply ugly things about their characters, but acting on those desires is only wrong if it actually hurts someone.

There's probably a positive correlation between liking fake-rape porn and being a rapist. That doesn't make fake-rape porn wrong either.

[PoliteNewb]

Xenologer, your argument was idiotic when you made it before, and it's still idiotic. And you're making Kaelik and I agree on something, which is dangerous and wrong.

No matter how many times you want to try to draw the equivalent, NO, the people arguing that there is nothing wrong with intelligent wolves (garou) fucking non-intelligent wolves are NOT arguing that it is perfectly okay to fuck unconscious human beings, or give people roofies, or whatever. So knock it the fuck off, because it's lazy and insulting.

I am well aware of how often rape of drunk or otherwise incapacitated women occurs, and it's fucking disgusting and wrong. But it is wrong because you are doing something horrible to a person. How this has anything to do with dogfucking is beyond me. If you can't tell the difference between a human being who has been robbed of their consciousness and self-determination and a creature that never had those things to begin with, I can't explain it to you.

Finally, YES, this is a cute abstract question...because no one is talking about doing this in real life. We are talking about fictional werewolves having sex with fictional wolves. It's abstract in the same fashion that we can argue about the fantasy morality of face-stabbing goblins and taking their stuff...even though being stabbed and robbed are things that happen to real people in the real world.

Because we eat animals, it's OK to screw them? That's messed up. At minimum, there's the fact that there's a slight difference between eating something and having sex with it; and it's part of our nature to eat animals.

Why is it messed up? I'm failing to comprehend, and maybe you can explain it to me, how allowing a wolf to put his penis in you is somehow so much more horrible than killing that wolf and eating his corpse. Because I'm not seeing it.

As for "part of our nature"...for a lupus garou, having sex with wolves has been part of his/her nature for his/her entire life. When they're in lupus form, they literally are a wolf. So how is wolves fucking wolves not "part of their nature"?

[Gods_Trick]

Huh, on this board it always comes down to dogfucking.

Heres a fun one, which may have been presented earlier. If a cow could prefer (ie have opinions and brains and all that jazz), would it prefer a human penis or a butchers knife? It probably prefers neither, but most of us like our steak, so fuck your opinions cow.

Bestiality is reprehensible because its a taboo in human culture. Human cultures don't give a damn about the powerless. If a human alters from its base culture, lets say Vampire, Garou, or whatever the fuck, some percentage are definitely going native.

RPG players have death counts in the hundreds at least. No one spends time debating ethics on it. Whys murder less relevant than sex taboos?

[Psychic Robot]

Hey, guys, have we started talking about pedophilia and bestiality yet?

[Parthenon]

At least the space opera race thread hasn't degenerated into the morality of inter-species sex and whether it would be like dog-fucking to have sex with a single member of a hive mind or if you are required to have a three or moresome to be okay.

By the way, that wasn't an invitation to do so. Please, please don't fuck up another thread with it.