Bestiality in Germany

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Germany retains its ban on sex with animals following a court decision.  Not bad, I say!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906

*************

Two complainants have failed in their attempt to get Germany's constitutional court to consider their claim against the laws banning sex with animals.

The two unnamed individuals say they are sexually attracted to animals.

They sought to get the court in Karlsruhe to consider whether the existing rules are unconstitutional.

But the court threw out their claim, ruling that the effect of the ban on the complainants' right to sexual self-determination was justified.

The court said that protecting animal welfare by seeking to prevent them being the victim of sexual assaults was a legitimate aim of the law - which remains unchanged after the court's decision.

*************

There is no law to prevent animals from being eaten however....sadly!

No idea about the legal position in other countries on bestiality....and how long the bans if any, will remain. 

Does anyone think bestiality should be legalized?

Cheers.

Sriram

[floo]

Of course sex with animals should not be legalised, they can't give consent!

[Sriram]

Of course sex with animals should not be legalised, they can't give consent!

They give consent to being eaten, I presume!

[Sebastian Toe]

Does anyone think bestiality should be legalized?

Seemingly it is legal in Denmark, Sweden and Hungary. 

Update, old news!

However in Mexico, Romania, Finland and Thailand and several US states........!!!!

[OH MY WORLD!]

Bestiality can be found in Hindu art. Like on the exterior of the Lakshmana temple. Suppose to represent humans doing god. Other Hindu writings say that if you do a cow, hell awaits you.

[ippy]

They give consent to being eaten, I presume!

There must be hundreds of really bad taste jokes about bestiality, don't worry I'm not going there, no thanks I'll pass on that.

ippy

[OH MY WORLD!]

I'll have to have a chat with Queen Marg. about that. Absolutely weird and sicko of those Danes.

[Nearly Sane]

It would appear that wiki still thinks it OK in Germany due to a decision last year. Not sure if this latest is an appeal of that and having already searched on 'Is bestiality level in Germany' I am refraining from searching too much more.

There is a summary in the attached link, as with everything on wiki some caution is needed but it ties in the main with what can be easily found.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo philia_and_the_law

In general the trend is that this is become more widely illegal, and I suspect that will continue. While there is in general liberalisation of laws on sexual activity, there is also a trend take consent more central to the question, and overall a movement at least to some concept of animal rights. One small point on that is if we saw an expansion of animal rights based on the idea that they would have some form of consent, then it might be argued by those who wanted bestiality legalised that some for of consent could be given to sex.

As to my own opinion, no, I don't think it should be legal as I think consent and informed active consent is crucial.

[L.A.]

They give consent to being eaten, I presume!

I think animal breeders might pursue Douglas Adams idea of breeding a creature that wanted to be eaten.

http://remotestorage.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/douglas-adamss-cow-that-wants-to-be.html

[Sriram]

Funnily, in the US it is still legal in many states.....especially with sheep, I think.   

[jeremyp]

Well, if it is OK to eat animals, I can't see why having sex with them should be a problem

[Nearly Sane]

Well, if it is OK to eat animals, I can't see why having sex with them should be a problem

if it is purely based on the question of being able to do acts that might be damaging to animals, then that would be correct. I think though that there is a whole complexity that surrounds how we view and legislate for sex which involves us entwining the concept of consent to it being legal. So the approach is sex needs consent, animals cannot give consent. You can argue for it, but not simply on the basis of consistency with one other rule very easily because legal systems are generally more complex.

[jeremyp]

I think though that there is a whole complexity that surrounds how we view and legislate for sex which involves us entwining the concept of consent to it being legal. So the approach is sex needs consent, animals cannot give consent.

I'm sorry but I don't get why sex is considered to be a special case where consent matters more than with any other potentially harmful act.

[L.A.]

I'm sorry but I don't get why sex is considered to be a special case where consent matters more than with any other potentially harmful act.

We don't give them an opportunity to consent to artificial insemination.

[jeremyp]

We don't give them an opportunity to consent to artificial insemination.

Nope.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but I don't get why sex is considered to be a special case where consent matters more than with any other potentially harmful act.

Because of the difficulty of establishing it in the first place.you can disagree with it but that doesn't mean that from a legal viewpoint it isn't seen as different. That legal frameworks are not entirely logically consistent is not hugely surprising.

[jeremyp]

Because of the difficulty of establishing it in the first place.you can disagree with it but that doesn't mean that from a legal viewpoint it isn't seen as different. That legal frameworks are not entirely logically consistent is not hugely surprising.

The legal situation is obviously quite inconsistent but I'm not talking about what is legal, I'm talking about what is (or should be) morally acceptable. Given that we don't require an animal's consent to slaughter and eat it, it seems a bit precious to insist on consent in order to have sex with it.

[Nearly Sane]

We don't give them an opportunity to consent to artificial insemination.

I don't think that the restriction is in place to protect animals but in that we think that sex needs consent. That there are inconsistencies isn't surprising as there are multiple motivations and principles involved.

It's rather like my issue with incest. I don't think that there can be no situations where clear informed consent could be given but that looking at it, it is easier from a legal approach to ban it because it is so difficult to avoid the possibility of manipulation, and creates a worse position for people who have been abused.

[Nearly Sane]

The legal situation is obviously quite inconsistent but I'm not talking about what is legal, I'm talking about what is (or should be) morally acceptable. Given that we don't require an animal's consent to slaughter and eat it, it seems a bit precious to insist on consent in order to have sex with it.

But that only takes it a step further to principled I could have one that says 'Sex should only happen with consent'. (Bizarrely spell check offered me ' Vincent's as a suggestion for consent').  In which case I would have a conflict if dependent on my principle in regard to animal treatment.


As noted, part of my motivation against making bestiality legal, and in the context of the thread legality is what was being discussed, is that because of the issues surrounding sex crimes and consent, keeping consent as an absolute requirement brings the best results

[jeremyp]

But that only takes it a step further to principled I could have one that says 'Sex should only happen with consent'. (Bizarrely spell check offered me ' Vincent's as a suggestion for consent').  In which case I would have a conflict if dependent on my principle in regard to animal treatment.


As noted, part of my motivation against making bestiality legal, and in the context of the thread legality is what was being discussed, is that because of the issues surrounding sex crimes and consent, keeping consent as an absolute requirement brings the best results

If you are going to insist on consent to having sex with an animal, that's fine by me as long as you are consistent and insist on having consent in order to kill and eat them too.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are going to insist on consent to having sex with an animal, that's fine by me as long as you are consistent and insist on having consent in order to kill and eat them too.

No, I'm being consistent with the principle that having sex needs consent.  I'm choosing to do so when two different principles I have conflict.

That presupposes that I actually have a principle that I should apply principles consistently.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They give consent to being eaten, I presume!

At least an eaten cow is dead.
An animal which has been in congress has to live with the embarrassment.

[Bubbles]

If you are going to insist on consent to having sex with an animal, that's fine by me as long as you are consistent and insist on having consent in order to kill and eat them too.

How daft is that!

We eat animals because we are omnivores.

Permission for that is not required.

We don't have sex with animals for the same reason we don't torture them.

Living things suffer, therefore we can humanely kill and eat an animal but it is immoral to cause it unnecessary suffering.

It's not immoral to eat meat.

What is immoral is to cause the animal suffering outside and beyond the simple process of killing it humanely as possible.

However, if you are starving, and only have a bow and arrow, you do what is necessary to bring about a timely end so you can eat it and survive.

[Shaker]

How daft is that!

We eat animals because we are omnivores.

We eat animals because we want to, not because we have to. It's inherent in the definition of omnivory that flesh can be eaten and digested but it's not vital as it is in obligate carnivores. Omnivory is a description not a prescription; an is and not an ought.

Permission for that is not required.

Is this a human-only thing or are the cows signed up to it as well?

We don't have sex with animals for the same reason we don't torture them.

Not really - inter-species sex is presumably possible without cruelty inherently involved.

Living things suffer, therefore we can humanely kill and eat an animal but it is immoral to cause it unnecessary suffering.

That living things suffer is not a rationale for creating even more living things to suffer.

It's not immoral to eat meat.

Opinion, not fact. My opinion is that it is.

What is immoral is to cause the animal suffering outside and beyond the simple process of killing it humanely as possible.

Which state of affairs nobody has ever achieved, or gone to any significant lengths to try to achieve.

[Nearly Sane]

Humans are animals, according to Rose I don"t need permission. To kill them to eat, so I can kill Rose and eat her.