Taboo

>animals cannot give consent and are generally powerless to stop the act
I'd say a hoof through the face or a toothy chomp on your cock would be easily classifiable as a lack of consent. Obviously strapping an animal down and raping it is wrong, but what exactly is the ethical problem with allowing your horny dog to hump you of its own volition?

>Because it's filthy and a great way of spreading disease.
So, it would be okay, if it was done cleanly? Then people should just be trained for it.

>Bestiality is taboo because animals cannot give consent and are generally powerless to stop the act, thus it is animal abuse.
Animals can't consent to be slaughtered and stop that either, yet people are okay with that. This is inconsistent.

Is that really true, or more Christian propanganda?

but wouldnt that make animal on animal sex rape aswell
I mean since they dont have any concept of consent animals can not be rapes if they are in an age where they can reproduce (sorry fellas no baby animals)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha

The four major priests symbolically receive the four quarters of space and the four royal queens. On the second of three pressing days, the horse, a hornless goat and gayal are dedicated to Prajapati. Other animals are dedicated to a variety of deities. Three of the queens wash the horse and adorn it with jewelry and ghee.[3] The horse, hornless goat, and gayal are asphyxiated. The chief queen lies down and the adhvaryu guides the horse's penis against the queen's vagina, signifying the birth of a new king.[4][5]

The earliest recorded criticism of the ritual comes from the Cārvāka, an atheistic school of Indian philosophy that assumed various forms of philosophical skepticism and religious indifference. A quotation of the Cārvāka from Madhavacharya's Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha states: "The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons. All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc. and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha, these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests, while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons."[21]

Griffith (1899) omits verses VSM 23.20–31 (the ritual obscenities), protesting that they are "not reproducible even in the semi-obscurity of a learned European language" (alluding to other instances where he renders explicit scenes in Latin rather than English). A. B. Keith's 1914 translation also omits verses.[22]

This part of the ritual offended the Dalit reformer and framer of the Indian constitution B. R. Ambedkar and is frequently mentioned in his writings as an example of the perceived degradation of Brahmanical culture.[23]

I need more. For research purposes, of course.

Hot

>people won't do it

We're talking about muslims, why bring people up?

Epic xDDD Upvote!!

>Animals can't consent to be slaughtered and stop that either, yet people are okay with that. This is inconsistent.
But these are animals which have been selectively breed over the course of millennia to be perfect food-beasts for us to raise, slaughter, and consume. Nature intends for cows to be raised for food, there are all kinds of animals who have this symbiotic relationship, even certain species of ants.

People are always going to look down on animal fuckers for the sole reason that it's sex with somebody who doesn't have a say in the matter, which is why we always imagine goatfuckers as backwoods hillbillies who couldn't make it with an actual woman, which is the creature nature intended for you to be blowing your load into. Half of people are laughing at you, the other half are disgusted.

Too bad they don't. This isn't Appalachia we're talking about.

Found the 14 year old.

There is literally no reason we should not fuck animals who are large enough to take it.

what does ethics and philosophy has to say about the hypothetical case of sex with other species that can be verified to be sapient and capable of giving consent?

>nature intends

If nature intended anything, then it is that you should shove your naturalistic fallacy up your rear.

scandinavia

also, it's taboo because most people are uncomfortable with it, and dont want others to like things they dont like themselves.

I have seen with my own two eyes, iraqis fucking livestock.

commanche infamously fucked everything/body

Who wouldn't want to fuck a horse

>animal abuse
The horses I fuck could disembowel me anytime they feel like it.