Bestiality is NOT abuse in all cases

I am shooting for the moon here, taking a position that I expect will be nearly impossible to prove, but here goes ...
===
I contend that bestiality (the sexual congress between a human and non-human member of the animal species) is not, in and of itself abuse in all cases.

I contend that an opponent taking the "Con" side of the argument will need to successfully prove that all forms of bestiality are abuse.

I believe it necessary for both sides to establish definitions for the terms BESTIALITY and ABUSE. I expect the latter to be a point of contention, but of course I will not know until someone accepts this challenge and either accepts my definition or provides an alternative.

I define
ABUSE as violating the consent (or will) of an innocent being (that is, one not convicted of a crime -- confining an innocent being is abuse, confining a criminal is not abuse) and causing either physical or emotional harm
BESTIALITY as sexual contact between a human being and an animal
CONSENT as some form of indication that a being agrees to an interaction with them, relevant to this debate being sexual contact

I contend that I need not prove that no case of bestiality is abusive, and that if I prove so little as a single exception to the notion that all bestiality is abusive that I have proven my side of the debate.

Given these definitions, I present these "pro" argument contentions to support my argument that bestiality is not abuse in all cases:
PAC #1: Animals can consent. I prove by example: A cat indicates consent to be petted by purring either by responding with purring and 'nuzzling' a person petting them, or by themselves seeking to be petted by insistently nuzzling the being they wish to pet them in and/or meowing in a certain fashion.
PAC #2: Sex is not, in all cases, abusive. (Need I establish an example to this point?) I contend, in fact, that many species enjoy sex outside of procreation. I cite http://en.wikipedia.org... as an example -- and note the last sentence in the article which notes that dolphins (presumably in the wild, undomesticated) have been known to initiate sexual contact with humans. I believe this quite strongly supports my case.

I contend that if, indeed, animals can consent and sex is not abusive, then it is not impossible for an animal to consent to sex and, therefore, an animal can enjoy sexual relationship with a human being and that sexual contact is not, in all cases, abusive.

Therefore, I contend that bestiality is not abuse in all cases.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

===DEFINITIONS===

I agree with his given definitions, and would like to add my own:

Pleasure : The state or feeling of being pleased.

===CON ARGUMENT #1: BESTIALITY IS AN ABUSE OF NATURAL INSTINCTS OF ANIMALS===

In my opponents given link, he cites dolphins as finding sex pleasurable. However, Humans and Dolphins are the only species which engage is sex for pleasure. Also, I quote my opponents article in saying " Dolphin copulation happens belly to belly ". Therefore, Humans cannot engage in sex with Dolphins, because

1) The correct organs are not present.
2) Dolphins live under water.

All other animals engage in sex for reproductive purposes. Dogs, Cat's, Goats, Sheep and Horses are the usual suspects in Bestiality. All of these animals engage in sex for reproductive purposes only. Off springs cannot occur from Bestiality, therefore, you are abusing the natural instincts of animals by engaging in Bestiality.

===CON ARGUMENT #2: BESTIALITY IS AN ABUSE OF THE HUMAN AND ANIMAL BODY===

Furthermore, many diseases, known as Zoonoses, can occur from Bestiality, or Zoophilia [1]. There is even such a thing as allergic reactions to animal, including anaphylaxis [2]. Biting can occur as part of natural sexual nature of animals, putting humans in risk [1]. This is proof Bestiality, or Zoophilia, is an abuse of the human and animal bodies.

[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] = http://en.wikipedia.org...

===PRO:===

>>Animals can consent. I prove by example: A cat indicates consent to be petted by purring either by responding with purring and 'nuzzling' a person petting them, or by themselves seeking to be petted by insistently nuzzling the being they wish to pet them in and/or meowing in a certain fashion.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

1) Petting an animal is different than engaging is sex with them.
2) Animals often give no visible consent for sex. If they do, it is often a misinterpretation.

===PRO:===

>>PAC #2: Sex is not, in all cases, abusive. (Need I establish an example to this point?) I contend, in fact, that many species enjoy sex outside of procreation. I cite http://en.wikipedia.org...... as an example -- and note the last sentence in the article which notes that dolphins (presumably in the wild, undomesticated) have been known to initiate sexual contact with humans. I believe this quite strongly supports my case.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

1) I have proven only Dolphins are the only non-human animals to enjoy sex.
2) You have not presented proof Humans can engage in sex with Humans.

I await my opponent response.

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge and proceeding with this debate in a serious manner. Seriously, I am quite pleased with DDO and the intelligence and seriousness two sides of an issue, even bestiality, can be worked on. Big time kudos on that, Pro to Con!

I do not find anything wrong with Con's definition for pleasure, other than being a bit vague; I cannot think of a more specific definition, however, without making it so complicated that it would dominate my entire argument for this round, so I will accept Con's definition for Pleasure for now.

== REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #1 ==
I sum up Con's argument #1 thus:
Humans and Dolphins are the only species which engage (in) sex for pleasure, and humans cannot engage in sex with dolphins for physical reasons. Con continues with the notion that all other animals (besides humans or dolphins) engage in sex entirely for reproductive purposes.

This argument is flawed for a variety of reasons:
x Humans and dolphins are not the only two species who engage in sexual activity for pleasure, non-reproductive purposes.

I gave dolphins as an example, here are some more and I assert unless proven otherwise that I need not run through every species to declare that a lot of animal species do engage in non-reproductive sexual activity for pleasure.

I assert that homosexual contact between animals is most definitely non-reproductive, and thus http://en.wikipedia.org... provides a much larger list of animal species which engage in sexual activity for non-reproductive pleasure.

Wiki actually has a full article dedicated to animal sexuality, with an entire section devoted to disspelling the myth that animals do not engage in non-reproductive sexual activity for pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I assert that, unless Con can effectively dismiss the evidence on those Wiki articles, that I have disproven using supporting evidence Con's assertion that animals do not engage in non-reproductive sex for pleasure.

== REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #2 ==
The notion that bestiality is "abusive" because of the possibility of zoonotic disease transfer, or allergic reactions, etc.

Essentially, Con is stating that the possibilty of zoonotic-STD or other unintentional harm caused by sex (allergies, etfc.) is sufficient to render a form of sex as abusive. I challenge my opponent to list any form of sex in which STDs are not a risk; further, it is my understanding that zoonotic diseases are many times rarer than human-to-human STDs, as most diseases exist only within a particular species or narrow width of relatives.

While intentionally infecting an animal with disease or other harm as some sort of sexual gratification I definitely agree would be abusive, I assert this does not cover all cases and as I described above, the danger of unintentional disease transfer from sex does not make sexual contact abusive.

In regards to biting that can occur as a natural, normal part of sex for some animal species (lions and horses are two that come to mind where sex normally involves back-bites), a human familiar with this and knowingly continuing with the act is consenting to the cost and while it may be harmful, in a way it is similar to men who engage in "C&BT" -- Cock & Ball Torture, or sado-masochism or other fetishes in which they consent to being harmed in some fashion during sex. Certainly, humans can consent, can consent to this, and while it is true there are risks, the fact that the human can consent to such means there must, indeed, be cases where a human may engage in non-abusive sex with an animal.

== REBUTTALS TO CON'S REBUTTALS TO PRO ARGUMENTS ==

In response to my assertion that animals can consent and citing the example of a cat indicating consent for sex, Con completely failed to even try to indicate that sex is not possible. I thus assert Con has no arguments that animals cannot consent to activity. The point that petting is different than sex is besides the point -- in that particular statement, I was merely making a basic point that animals can consent, that one argument was not the entire statement and that particular argument was over consent, not sex, so the rebuttal that petting is different than sex is irrelevant.

To the charge that animals give no visible consent for sex, I further beg to differ. Male dogs, a popular household pet, are known to grapple a knee or other part of a human and excitedly attempt to initiate sexual contact with a human. I do not see how this could not be determined to be giving very visible consent for sex -- the dog is attempting to initiate sex with a human! I have also seen female dogs 'present' themselves to a human they feel affection for, and unless Con can somehow prove that they do not, I assert that if you accept this as being possible, at least, then I have successfully refuted this rebuttal.

In regards to the second rebuttal, again I re-iterate that Con did not prove that only dolphins and humans enjoy sex for pleasure, and I assert that in this round, I have conclusively proven that is in fact false -- a variety of species engage in non-reproductive sex for pleasure.

I presume con meant that I have not established that Humans can engage in sex with dolphins; I believe it would be ridiculous to argue what Con actually typed (I have not proven humans can have sex with humans!?). I certainly hope I do not actually need to prove the latter.

Dolphins are mammals, and while they are aquatic mammals, they are still mammals. There are some humans who actually have pleasure in underwater sex, but even this is not necessary, as dolphins come to the surface (indeed, being air-breathing mammals, they must). Further, humans and dolphins often interact in captivitity, and while it is illegal in many areas, they do so in the wild as well if a human is swimming in warm, shallow waters in which dolphins are present. Dolphins are known to come, interact, touch and even play with humans swimming in their waters.

Further, in regards to anatomical differences, certainly accepting penetration from a dolphin would be challenging given my understanding of dolphin anatomy (rather well-endowed compared with a human; they are much larger mammals of course), but given that, the counter would not be impossible; one need not be an expert to reason that if a male dolphin is indeed much more endowed in penis size than a human, that female dolphins could most definitely accomodate a penis much larger than humans have, and thus a human penis would not be over-sized. Other forms of contact would also be possible, for instance a "hand job" to the male dolphin.

I assert I have defeated both rebuttals to my arguments, in addition to defeating Con's arguments themselves, and conclusively, it is possible for humans and animals to engage in sex ("bestiality") that is not abusive.

I would like to thank my opponent for his response:

===CON ARGUMENT #1===

My opponent claims that homosexual activity amongst animals is proof that they engage in pleasurable, non-reproductive sex. However, this is far from the case. I quote his wikipedia article [1] in regards to giraffe mating in that:

" Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings. "

Homosexual activities between animals is often for signs of domination and competition. There is no evidence to suggest they find it pleasurable. In terms of it being a greeting, Humans do not find handshakes particularly pleasurable.

Furthermore, animals such as Lions only engage in same sex activities whilst in captivity, where they are taken out of their natural habitat.

Also, one of the Wikipedia articles he gave states that "Science cannot say at present conclusively what animals do or do not find "pleasurable" 2. My opponent, being the instigator, has burden of proof in that he must show animals do indeed find sex pleasurable.

Also, these articles do not reference breeding between two different species, only between same species. Even if Lions find homosexual activities with other Lions pleasurable, it may be that they are attracted to the smell of them, and not find such activities with humans pleasurable.

===CON ARGUMENT #2===

I concede the fact STD's are at risk in any form of sex, however, it is not natural if Humans are allergic to the semen of other animals, a disease known as anaphylaxis [2]. It is an abuse to Humans if they do not know of their allergic reaction to the fluids of animals.

C&BT, which my opponent has compared to biting, is not comparable to Animals biting during sex. For one, the man must physically place such a device on his, you know. It is not a natural occurrence. Biting is a natural occurrence in animals. Furthermore, a bite can leave you with an infection. Again, the allergic reaction can occur, making it abusive to Humans, and furthermore, abusive to an animals natural instincts.

[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] = http://en.wikipedia.org...

===PRO:===

>>To the charge that animals give no visible consent for sex, I further beg to differ. Male dogs, a popular household pet, are known to grapple a knee or other part of a human and excitedly attempt to initiate sexual contact with a human. I do not see how this could not be determined to be giving very visible consent for sex -- the dog is attempting to initiate sex with a human! I have also seen female dogs 'present' themselves to a human they feel affection for, and unless Con can somehow prove that they do not, I assert that if you accept this as being possible, at least, then I have successfully refuted this rebuttal.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

Even if animals give consent to sex, it is often an unknown gesture to the owner. Furthermore, certain gestures can be misinterpreted. At that point it is rape.

Furthermore, Dogs, Cats, etc. cannot enter into a formal agreement of sex. Apart from certain gestures, they cannot give a verbal or written agreement, like Humans, for sex. If a female touches a man's arm seductively, it does not mean she wants sex. If a man was to engage in sex with her at that point, it would be rape. If animals cannot give a visible agreement to sex, then it is rape, and therefore abuse.

===PRO:===

>>Further, in regards to anatomical differences, certainly accepting penetration from a dolphin would be challenging given my understanding of dolphin anatomy (rather well-endowed compared with a human; they are much larger mammals of course), but given that, the counter would not be impossible; one need not be an expert to reason that if a male dolphin is indeed much more endowed in penis size than a human, that female dolphins could most definitely accomodate a penis much larger than humans have, and thus a human penis would not be over-sized. Other forms of contact would also be possible, for instance a "hand job" to the male dolphin.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

In regards for Humans engaging in sex with Dolphins, again, Dolphin cannot give formal consent to such acts. Unless a Dolphin can give a sign they wish to engage in sex with a Human, then it should be taken it's rape.

I await my opponents response.

== REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #1 ==

Among wolves, dominant and submissive personalities are considered pretty static, but seemingly in defiance of the notion that homosexual contact outside the human species is entirely for dominance, the dominant "Beta" and "Alpha" ranks are known to allow the submissive "Omega" ranks to initiate sex-play with them. This would defy the notion proposed by Con that all non-reproductive sex is for dominance.

A variety of males in a variety of species are known to practice forms of masturbation. While "anthroids" (human's relatives -- monkeys, apes, baboons, etc.) are obviously more "handily" equipped for human-like masturbation, the lack of "hands" is no obstacle and species such as equus caballus -- the horse -- have their own means to stimulate themselves, sometimes through what equine enthusiasts call "belly slapping," and sometimes through finding an object they can achieve gratification with, "roundbales" being commonly popular for stallions:

And on that same subject, "rounding the corner" as it were, comes the fact of semen collection. There are a number of chores we put animals through that require significant training, one chore we put them through that does not require much at all is semen collection for husbandry/breeding purposes. While there is quite a bit done with fancy machinery, a lot of horse ranchers have found the 'crump' method works just fine, which involves manual -- that's with hands -- stimulation of the stallion to ejaculate. I doubt you'd find many ranchers who practice this accepted method of semen collection to tell you they have ever performed it on so much as a single stallion who did not express pleasure at the hand-stimulation (unless the stallion had some sort of injury or had 'first-time' uncertainty).

I challenge Con's statement that "Furthermore, animals such as Lions only engage in same sex activities whilst in captivity, where they are taken out of their natural habitat." I assert that animals in captivity are far better documented than animals out of captivity, especially in the case of lions; in captivity they are far safer and more accessible, you don't have to go trouncing through the safari in danger of getting trampled by elephants or facing upset and powerful predators. Among lions, I assert what known documentaries there are have focused on prides, whose only permanent residents are the lionesses. Male lions will fight the incumbent male lion(s) to win ownership of the pride to mate, sire cubs, etc. However, there are often long years for male lions before they are ready to make such a challenge. While some male lions wander as lone males, they can and are known to form small groups of 2 or 3, sometimes with brothers, and while it is not as known as lion pride behavior, these small bachelor groups are known to be affectionate with one another, including for sexual release.

As for interspecies mating, does my opponent have any proof that http://www.google.com... is fake? Granted, its clearly not in the wild, but there is no direct human intervention there either.

I submit to all that I have strongly refuted all claims Con has brought for Con Argument #1.

== REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #2 ==
Con has failed to support the notion that the possibility of allergy to semen proves a special form of medical risk that is different from zoonotic STDs which my opponent conceded (after previously trying to make the argument) that the existence of such diseases is proof that human-animal sexual contact is abusive. I submit that allergic and other similar "incidental" harms are, while not categorically diseases, nonetheless in the same category in terms of being incidental medical harms that are not proof of abuse.

In rebuttal to my remark about C&BT, my opponent has claimed it is not comparable to biting during sex because the man must place a device on himself. I submit that in terms of more generality, the man is consenting to harm that will come for the pleasure of the act and there is no reason to not apply that same general rule toward a man consenting to harm that will come from the pleasure of the act when it comes to getting a "love bite" from an amorous animal lover.

== COUNTER-REBUTTAL ==
"Even if animals give consent to sex" is nearly a concession. "Often being an unknown gesture" I have already established as not applying in all cases when I cited the example of a cat seeking to be petted. It isn't just random chance that an owner, over time, would learn to recognize signals the cat wishes to be petted. I use this non-sexual example as a means to demonstrate on a more familiar term to those who have not explored human-animal sexuality that animals can not only consent to affectionate contact, but they can even initiate or request such contact in ways humans can learn to interpret given enough "bonding time" to become "in tune" with their beloved pet, in the case of an owner who pets their cat, and -- carrying the very same idea -- to one who engages in sexual intimacy with their animal companions. I submit so much as a single instance of this being proof there is at lease one exception to bestiality being abuse in all cases, and thus my case is proven.

I submit "seasoned" humans who have been in relationships have had witness to very informal requests and consents (or refusals) to sexual advances, and that formally expressed requests, consents/non-consents are not necessary to understand each others' wish for (or lack-of-interest-in) sex. Just as a 5-year-old would probably be completely clueless to understand a woman's sly flirts with a man, so too would someone not personally familiar with animal sexuality not be able to understand or perceive lustful signs from an animal that are comparable to human lust which can be met by a willing partner.

A woman who seductively touches a man's arm would not be considered raped if the man responded and, without explicit words of consent, initiated sex with her. The law realizes the reality that formal contracts are less fun than condoms, and that there can be an understanding, request for and consent to sex that is not verbally expressed.

== COUNTER-REBUTTAL 2 ==

Again, I already gave proof that dolphins are known to initiate sexual contact with humans. There can be no more definite a sign of willingness to engage in contact.

I further stipulate that an animal can consent because it can also REFUSE consent by attempting to get away or even attacking their human suitor or other means or signs they are not comfortable with the sexual contact.

I hope, whatever a person's distaste for the idea of bestiality, I have established that there is too real a possibility that humans and animals can willingly engage in sex with one another for mutual pleasure, and that while I do not deny that humans can and would force themselves in rape that is abuse, there can also be non-rape, non-abusive sexual intimacy between humans and animals.

Thank you, Con, for taking up this debate with me and keeping it on a mature level. This has been an interesting debate and I hope you have learned as much as I have. I look forward to the judgement of the DDO jury and I also look forward to future debates with you on other topics.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and apologise for my late argument. I have had computer access issues as of recent.

===CON ARGUMENT #1===

To refute my opponents claim that Alpha and Beta ranked wolves mating with Omega rank wolves dismisses the claim homosexual acts is not primarily for domination, I would simply say it bolsters my argument. It could merely re-enforce the fact that the Alpha and Beta wolves are dominant over them. Homosexual sex would reinforce that notion.

My opponents point on animal masturbation is somewhat irrelevant, due to the fact we are arguing about mating with other animals, rather than animals masturbating.

In terms of my opponent saying ranchers stimulate stallions for semen collecting, he has no proof that Stallions fidn this pleasant or not. Therefore, it has no weight on this argument.

Again, my opponent has no proof to assert Lions engage in sexual for pleasure whilst in small male bands. Again, this probably goes back to domination.

The video of the Dog attempting to mate with the Lion helps my argument, the Lion clearly did not want to engage in sex, and therefore, the Dog was abusing the Lion. In a case of this with a Human, the Dog could be abusing the Human.

===CON ARGUMENT #2===

If someone is allergic to Animal bodily fluids, it is an abuse to their body to engage in sex with an animal. Despite the fact the person may consent to the sex, it still is an abuse of their body.

C&BT provides very little harm to the user, and is mostly cosmetic. When compared to biting, it is not as harmful. A bite can bring an infection, as well as possibly kill someone if the person is bitten in the wrong position. However, C&BT does none of those things, therefore, cannot be compared to biting as an abuse.

===REBUTTAL===

If a human were to take a sign from an animal as a sign for sex, and he was wrong, then that animal would be repeatedly raped. Furthermore, unless a woman make sit completely clear she wants to have sex, and not by merely touching a man's arm in a provoking manner, then it should be taken as rape. Animals cannot enter a formal agreement for sex, and if they can't then it is rape, and rape is an abuse

No formal agreement for sex ==> Rape ==> Abuse

===REBUTTAL===

Animals cannot have a formal agreement or give consent to engage in sex with humans. Therefore, it is rape if Humans have sex with them. I feel I have made this point clear.

I thank PRO for this debate, and look forward to debating him in the future.