V: Beastiality in scifi -- is it ethical? Or legal? by piratenews

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

V: Beastiality in scifi -- is it ethical? Or legal?

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 16:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 21872
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 20, 2009 3:49 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Visitor Laura Vandervoort (Lisa) stripped for her manboy in episode 3.

Ratings needed a boost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(2009_TV_series)

We can see where this is going.

This plotline tends to kill the suspension of disbelief for me. And it's uber sleazy.

Though with GMO spidergoats, glowmonkeys and HIVcorn, the reproductive possibility is now Real World.
www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/Genetics%20Nightmare/sp
ider_goats.htm
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2451866/Monkeys-that-glow-in-the-da
rk.html
www.newscientist.com/article/dn2161-edible-hiv-vaccine-breakthrough.ht
ml

Discuss amongst yourselves.

www.vintagepbks.com/sleazesfcovers.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 6:12 AM

BYTEMITE

Technically, I'm not sure if it's beastiality if the other species is sentient and consenting. I think it's a whole 'nother can of worms entirely.

Still, your point about "sleaze" is well taken. That's why I don't watch much television, I was raised with a strong sense of humility and propriety. All of the panting and moaning in a faked sex scene, you can't even SEE my comfort zone from here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 6:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA

That's as perplexing a question as another age old saw.

"Do catgirls count as furries ?"

Seriously though, you want a more disturbing take on the idea: Galaxy Quest...
"now that's just wrong!"

meh heh heh.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 6:43 AM

BYTEMITE

Most of the furry verse seems to say yes. Of course, there also seems to be different levels of furry and cat-girl within the cat-girl genre.

But it's rule 34 and rule 36 of the internet. If a girl puts on even just a cat-ear headband and pins a tail to their jeans, someone somewhere's gonna be lusting over them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 8:18 AM

KUNOCHAN

BYTEMITE is right. It's not even remotely bestiality.

The golden rule of modern sexuality is consent. You can argue about the advisability of, and social consequences of, promiscuity, pre-marital sex, adultery, polygamy, serial monogamy, polyandry, orgies, S&M, pornography, furries, ad nauseum -- but as long as they are consensual, they are not immoral.

Children can not consent. Animals can not consent. That's why these things are always immoral. (Work subordinates and prostitutes sometimes are not free to withhold consent. That's why these things are sometimes immoral.)

Some people who oppose equal rights for gays do not understand this principle. They conflate homosexuality with bestiality and other crimes because the Bible does so. But consent is the key.

Furthermore, in many primate species and especially in humans, sex serves more than a reproductive purpose. It has a powerful social purpose.

In reality, even a humanoid alien species like the Visitors (or Vulcans or Zentradi or the Starman) couldn't produce any kind of hybrid offspring. But the two species could, and maybe even would, engage in sexual activity as a form of social bonding.

By the way, Mark Wahlberg and Helena Bonham Carter in Planet of the Apes wouldn't be bestiality either. Nor would sex between a human an an Uplifted Chimp from David Brin's books, as long as their social standings were equal.

If an alien looked like Laura Vandervoort, I'd be there. (It's important to note, however, that the Visitor Lisa does not look like Laura Vandervoort. She is deceiving Logan, therefore he can not consent.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 1:28 PM

NCBROWNCOAT

For a female perspective:

How about human/vampire? I'm not talking the sickening whinning and longing of Twilight but one of the hottest and emotional scenes was when Sookie (Anna Paquin) Stackhouse lost her virginity to Bill Compton (the vampire-Stephen Moyer)in Season 1 of rue Blood.

But then, the actors are engaged and living together in real life.

And Bill is so much hotter than Eric Whatshisname (the 6 foot 5 inch blond Viking vampire that most female viewers go for)

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 2:17 PM

KUNOCHAN

Quote:
How about human/vampire?

That's not inter-species. It's Necrophilia. (But unlike regular corpses, a vampire can consent!)

http://www.idesignyoureyes.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 3:12 PM

TRAVELER

Not having seen the episode, I would guess the alien deceived the Earthman. So not consensual. But since the aliens consider themselves above our human laws, I guess there is no governing body that can do anything about it.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 4:09 PM

STINKINGROSE

Thank you to everyone who spelled the topic correctly.

I think the consenting part is the key. I'm not sure I'd find myself irresistibly drawn to a known alien (actually I'm pretty sure I wouldn't), but there always people who find the exotic/strange/different amazingly arousing.

I still don't understand how someone could look at a non-sentient species and think "Hubba, hubba, I gotta get me some of that!"

PS: In the original series there were twin girls born. One had a forked tongue. I remember this clearly, so the "sleaze" goes back over two decades to the 80s!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 8:13 PM

BYTEMITE

Whoops, it is bestiality isn't it?

Oh well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 9:59 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Kunochan:
The golden rule of modern sexuality is consent. You can argue about the advisability of, and social consequences of, promiscuity, pre-marital sex, adultery, polygamy, serial monogamy, polyandry, orgies, S&M, pornography, furries, ad nauseum -- but as long as they are consensual, they are not immoral.

I'd take adultery out of this list.

All the other ones are situations in which all parties enter with eyes open, no lies, informed choice, actual consent.

With adultery, there's often the issue of the non-consent or even non-knowledge of the cheated-on party (with whom the cheater often still has sex), which can have very devastating consequences for them, health-wise and psychologically. To me, the lines blur there. It's not not immoral when deception is involved.

All the rest of it, dead on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:34 AM

KUNOCHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'd take adultery out of this list.

Of course you're right. Adultery is a matter of consent -- if I'm sleeping with someone who is also sleeping with other people, and risking disease/pregnancy/jealous violence, I need to know that before I consent.

Adultery would not just apply to married people -- it's anyone in an explicitly exclusive relationship.

http://www.idesignyoureyes.com
http://www.kunochan.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2009 2:46 AM

ASARIAN

BYTEMITE is right. It's not even remotely bestiality. For one, they're not beasts. Sure, they may look reptilian on the inside, but that still don't make 'em beasts. I would even go as far as to say that, as far as the social aspect of sexuality is concerned, the Visitors are human, simply because they look human. The woman and the human-form alien guy in Starman, that isn't bestiality either, for the same reason. When you look at Lisa, you see the hot girl, not the lizard. THAT is what people are attracted to: the human look. Nobody's thinking: "I'm gonna do the bad thing with a lizard." Instead, they fancy having sex with the girl, and try their darndest not to think about what she looks on the inside. Now, if people WERE thinking of having sex with a lizard, that would be different. It still wouldn't be bestiality, of course, for reasons mentioned throughout this thread.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2009 4:26 AM

STINKINGROSE

Whereas if it were an EARTH lizard lifeform it would most definitely qualify as bestiality, as the animal cannot consent.

"Ew" and that's not even taking the risk of salmonella into account.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2009 2:53 PM

N0IR

Quote:
Originally posted by Kunochan:
Quote:
How about human/vampire?

That's not inter-species. It's Necrophilia. (But unlike regular corpses, a vampire can consent!)

http://www.idesignyoureyes.com

This made me spit out my drink laughing. Thanks, have an e-cookie. =)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2009 6:09 PM

BORIS

Bestiality is never a good thing in Sci Fi or anywhere...what's the point of showing it? it just another cringe inducer. I actually object to any sexual perversion ( I.e anytime involved parties aren't consenting to) being portrayed unless it's pertinent to the plot line(e.g. historically relevant etc)rather than included to create discomfort....also it can serve to encourage the assholes out there who justify their own revolting behaviour
I do not have a problem with consentual inter-alien -species relations...e.g. If a consenting alien looks horse like but isn't actually an earth horse that's ok...coz it's not an actual horse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2009 6:16 PM

BORIS

Am sooo glad I'm not the only one who sees The whole Twighlight thing as a sobby whinefest...my friends are so taken in by it blegh!!!! apparently I'm an old fuddy duddy for not getting into the romance of it all....I try to explain I've been there before on a quirky exciting intense Buffy and Angel level and subsequently do not need to explore the overmarketted boring younger cousin...however I do not mind that it is encouraging kids to read.that's never a bad thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:29 AM

CYBERSNARK

What everyone else has said. Sapient alien species =! animal. We could argue whether xenophilia is, to paraphrase John Stewart "a lifestyle choice or just a random fetish," but that's a different debate.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kunochan:
In reality, even a humanoid alien species like the Visitors (or Vulcans or Zentradi or the Starman) couldn't produce any kind of hybrid offspring.

Unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Vulcans share genetic characteristics with humans (as do almost all humanoid species in Star Trek, thanks to the Precursors).

The Zentraedi. . . take your pick. In the Macross franchise, Zentraedi and humans are offshoots of a common ancestral race. In the Robotech franchise, the Protoculture is actively Shaping the development of both species (the whole point of Robotech is, arguably, that Weird Stuff happens that we can't explain).

Starman, I honestly can't recall that scenario.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:25 AM

ASARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

The Zentraedi. . . take your pick. In the Macross franchise, Zentraedi and humans are offshoots of a common ancestral race. In the Robotech franchise, the Protoculture is actively Shaping the development of both species (the whole point of Robotech is, arguably, that Weird Stuff happens that we can't explain).

The Zentradi (at least as I know 'em in Macross Frontier) are kinda tall. :) Pretty much giant-sized. Making out with them may be the last thing you ever do. But they're humanoid alright. However, since the difference in DNA between humans and, say, a dinosaur is only about 5%, I regard it extremely unlikely that even a humanoid species (likely to be more than 5% different) and a human would be able to produce a common offspring.

Oh, and =! != !=

:)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:14 AM

NCBROWNCOAT

And in the TB verse, vampires are incapable of reproduction because they are,...well, dead, but very consenting.

Another important difference from the Twilight verse.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:34 AM

DRAGO

You can't really call sex with something humanoid that can tell you 'Get off me you bastard/bitch!' bestiality. Even if it's a humanoid lizard, or cat, or any other animal you care to name.

Is sex between a humanoid lizard capable of expressing verbally whether they consent or not and a human being ethical? It depends on your ethics. I'm sure if humanoid lizard aliens landed on the planet and were peaceful and began to live here, to the point of forming relationships with the natives, there'd be more than our fair share of humans who'd call it abomination and a sin in the eyes of God and all that.
There'd also be those who'd just shrug and say "Whatever floats their boat."
The problem is the former would be likely to get violent. The latter, not so much.
Remember, we're still living in a world where people are capable of violent condemnation of relationships between white and black people. And it's a lot more widespread than we as a public are willing to admit.
I'd say the first human/alien couple would also be the first lynched human/alien couple in today's world.

As to its legality, I don't think there'd be anything anyone could do about it. The humanoid reptiles would obviously be capable of conveying consent, which is the only meaningful criticism authorities can find to argue against bestiality. Otherwise they simply charge for sodomy to arrest someone for sexual relations with an animal, which I honestly believe is simply their way of skirting the issue and allowing religion to dictate law without admitting this is what they've done.

I'm gonna do something risky. I'm going to defend zoophilia, because I don't see a lot of that happening here in counterpoint to the other extreme. (Readers take note: The following is likely not going to be child friendly, since it is a discussion on a sexual topic. I will, however, try my best to remain clinical and proper in its discussion.)
Note that I used a different term. There's a reason for this. Amongst people who actually care about the animal, bestiality is a bit of a bad word. They point out that there is a difference between sexual relations with an animal that is willing, which they call zoophilia and argue that some animals are capable of not only clear consent but requesting sex, and bestiality, which is their equivalent of rape - the animal is forced to arousal and then used pretty much as a toy, with no real consideration given to the animal or its own willingness.
Those who practice zoophilia are quick to point out that many recent studies have revealed just how flawed our views on animal sexuality are. The more we study the subject, the more many researchers are realizing that the current views on animal sexuality are a product of flawed understanding of the natural world (That we're superior and thus animals are incapable of most things we are capable of,) and of religious views, which state that animals are lesser creatures, less complex and therefore less competent than us.
Dolphins are one of the older examples that are often mentioned. Studies show that dolphins are perfectly capable of understanding sexual advances, and are wholly capable of consenting or refusing. They're also, scarily enough, capable of rape. During the breeding season, duos of males are known to work together to 'corral' or trap in a smallish area a female, keeping her there until she becomes ready to breed. Now here's the important part - sometimes they don't wait, and proceed to have sex with the female whether the female is signaling consent or fighting and trying to get away. No one who works with dolphins denies that the males are wholly understanding of the fact that the female is unwilling and doesn't want their attentions, yet they will force themselves on her anyway for their own enjoyment- essentially, rape. In short, we have here an animal with an incredibly complicated sexuality that is fully capable of offering consent or refusal of sexual advances.
A more commonly encountered animal, dogs, are a similar story. While not nearly as sexually complicated as dolphins or some primate species, many argue that dogs are not only capable of offering consent but will even request it. A story told to me personally by one couple involves just that. To prevent their dog from scratching them during the act, they often place socks over his front paws. The dog quickly associated the socks with the act, and according to the couple, will occasionally go and get the socks with no prompting, and bring them to the woman in a state of arousal - in short, they say, not only requesting but showing consent for any sexual relations that might follow.
It was argued by someone else that this is simply a case of association - he associated the socks with the pleasure of the act, and this is no indication of the dog's ability to consent. It was then pointed out that, were that true, the dog would be attracted to the socks, not the woman. His attraction was clearly centered on the female, with the understanding that the socks were simply part of the process - in short, the dog was requesting sex in a non-canine fashion.
So it's plain that our considerably antiquated, religiously influenced viewpoint on animal sexuality are fundamentally flawed and should be given considerable further thought, since they are being used as the reasoning behind the arrest and punishment of people.

Please note I'm not a zoophile. I'm just defending them because I honestly believe they get a lot of crap they don't deserve, and because let's face it, I like throwing a live grenade into a full ammo box and seeing what happens. :P

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:54 AM

BYTEMITE

It's possible my not-quite-virgin but still quite prudish eyes are going to regret this, but with the couple and the dog, they aren't including the dog, right? They're discouraging the dog from interfering in the activities with socks, but the dog's reaction in doggy think is "Oh boy! Gonna get me some" anyway?

Trying really hard here to not make a joke about doggy style...

...Damn it.

Anyway, I dunno. Human-human relationships are pretty much impossible for me to figure out without throwing other things in the mix. That's mostly why I tend to avoid these subjects.

I'm neutral on zoophilia. Don't know much about it, to be frank I'm not 100% on whether I want to. Clearly lines need to be drawn about what constitutes abuse (and bestiality) versus more... acceptable (?) relationships, but I'm not the one to draw them (see above).

I think there's clear-cut cases of abuse, though, and don't tolerate animal abuse any more than I tolerate people abuse. If I can be shown zoophilia constitutes abuse (which I might be inclined towards, I see animals at about the mental level of small children, and sex with small children is clearly wrong), then I'll condemn it. Otherwise, I file it under my "whatever" catch-all.

Just don't know. I mean, the only difference I see between someone molesting a kid because the kid just happens to have an erection and someone molesting a dog is that the dog might initiate. Still wouldn't be right if the KID were to initiate, yeah? I mean, someone wrote a book called Lolita about that, you know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:07 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by asarian:
The Zentradi (at least as I know 'em in Macross Frontier) are kinda tall. :) Pretty much giant-sized. Making out with them may be the last thing you ever do. But they're humanoid alright.

In both franchises, Zentraedi can be micronized down to human size (just ignore Klan Klan's. . . uh, issue. She has a genetic malfunction). In fact, it's possible that Michel is actually a half-Zent himself (judging by his ears, and the fact that he and Klan Klan apparently grew up together). And Ranka has been explicitly identified as one-quarter Zentraedi.

(In the Robotech franchise, of course, there are at least two well-known human/Zentraedi hybrids; Dana and Aurora [and/or Maia] Sterling. [There are two different timelines; one has Dana and Aurora, the other has Dana, Maia, and possibly other siblings.])

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:05 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Beastiality on TeeV:

It's a Bright New Day.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 23, 2009 1:22 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

LOL....Frem, your a sick, sick man -:))

Galaxy Quest, even just saying the name makes me smile.

"Now that's just wrong" meh, heh, heh

Mine is an evil laugh........

Anywhozzlebees, where is it writ that aliens can't have sex?
Inquiring minds want to know!

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:32 PM

VEXEM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's possible my not-quite-virgin but still quite prudish eyes are going to regret this, but with the couple and the dog, they aren't including the dog, right? They're discouraging the dog from interfering in the activities with socks, but the dog's reaction in doggy think is "Oh boy! Gonna get me some" anyway?

Oh, I think fido is gettin' a little somethin' somethin' from the misses. If the dog isn't a participant then why do you need socks to prevent bodily harm to the human female? You just kick fido out and close the door. Plus you got "he associated the socks with the pleasure of the act". Watching isn't "the pleasure of the act".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:28 PM

CALHOUN

You guys know its just a TV show? Its not real.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE