Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I was reading this manga called "Shamo" and in the beginning the main character (a male) is raped while in juvenile prison multiple times. This is followed by the phrase: "the human being is sexually narrow minded." It made me consider something:

I have heard of animals having same-sex intercourse. It happens naturally and apparently is not uncommon. But do animals even have "romantic relationships" at all (let alone monogamous)?

You're interested in this because of.. the idea of people being human vs. animals?

I don't know what you'd call what you see animals do.

Just animals period. We had a discussion before about artificial intelligence and imitating emotion so I just want what people think about animals.

People think animals are a primitive form of sex. People think other people are animals, according to race and further according to failure. Some people believe in evolution and diversity or "one planet."

Well there are incidents in nature of certain species being monogomous and not searching for another mate if their mate dies. Whether this is emotionally influenced or not, I don't know.

Wild animals have more than one mate, while pets usually have one. Just because of how harsh life is. It's usually healthier that way. Otherwise, it would be messed up. Humans don't have the need to have more than one sexual partner. They date when they are young adults and marry either early or when they are 30 or so.

The example given is true regarding this idea. People are really animals if not confined to some NYC/London-type culture. Why would someone keep getting raped? That's just silly. It proves people are related to animals in some ways. Animals appear more civilized in being in tune with things like fearing for their life, but their mating in comparison to humans is a feeling of something that is wild and less advanced. Animals seem pretty magical, but usually humans seem a bit moreso.

That post seemed so contradictory... so if people are not "civilized" (in a "civil " culture) they act as animals?

I am from a civil culture, and I have a civil family. I am a civil person. It has to do with intelligence and faith in the family legacy. People are uncivilized when they do not listen to their family and are uncultured if their family makes mistakes. In an uncivilized society, they might hope that everyone is like them in the world, but they will find they are very, very, very different. It's all about having a stake in the world. Some places are more French, for example, and do not really connect with the world, much like China. It's mostly because of the mistakes the rest of the world lets happen, mainly meaning the mistakes by the Irish Americans. Even if you are civil, people you will find only speak according to culture and being impressive and completely comfortable. That's why I base my life on things like working out every day and eating good food, enjoying the entertainment I do, etc. It revolves very much around this, the idea of people vs. animals. It's mainly about getting after the kinds of people I've met who've ruined my life. Like, when I try to enjoy it, and they just get upset for no reason. And it all reflects in everything you see, particularly movies and what others' jobs are centered on.

Originally posted by chithappens


I have heard of animals having same-sex intercourse. It happens naturally and apparently is not uncommon. But do animals even have "romantic relationships" at all (let alone monogamous)?

That's the argument I read from places that promote beastility. Such as a horse enjoying intercourse with a woman. They say it's a romantic sexual experience between the two species. I personally don't know and not sure if it's true. I can't call it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's the argument I read from places that promote beastility. Such as a horse enjoying intercourse with a woman. They say it's a romantic sexual experience between the two species. I personally don't know and not sure if it's true. I can't call it.

My argument for bestiality is quite simpler. We ****ing kill them to eat them, boning them should be a nice break in that routine.

I call it super HOT!

Originally posted by Bardock42
We ****ing kill them to eat them, boning them should be a nice break in that routine.

I can't picture myself sticking my manhood inside a hamburger. Sorry...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I can't picture myself sticking my manhood inside a hamburger. Sorry...

Oh, me neither. Wouldn't deny it those freaks though.

Originally posted by chithappens
I was reading this manga called "Shamo" and in the beginning the main character (a male) is raped while in juvenile prison multiple times. This is followed by the phrase: "the human being is sexually narrow minded." It made me consider something:

I have heard of animals having same-sex intercourse. It happens naturally and apparently is not uncommon. But do animals even have "romantic relationships" at all (let alone monogamous)? And I thought my mind was odd...

Ewe understand me soooooooooo well.


LOL

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's the argument I read from places that promote beastility. Such as a horse enjoying intercourse with a woman. They say it's a romantic sexual experience between the two species. I personally don't know and not sure if it's true. I can't call it.

Well I'm just not sure why when it is two people we call it "love" and "romance" but it is just savage lust when it comes to animals.

There are certain standards in philosophy as to what makes a sentient being but those standards don't necessarily cover emotions, certainly not the notion of love. And, as shown so far by the posts, most people find it idiotic to even think an animal could "love" another animal.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well I'm just not sure why when it is two people we call it "love" and "romance" but it is just savage lust when it comes to animals.

There are certain standards in philosophy as to what makes a sentient being but those standards don't necessarily cover emotions, certainly not the notion of love. And, as shown so far by the posts, most people find it idiotic to even think an animal could "love" another animal.

it really, imho, comes to a matter of definition.

I'm not an expert on this, but it really matters if love, to you, must be defined as the human condition (with all our cultural and linguistic things not really seen in animals) or if love is a measure of emotional response to a creature.

blah, hopefully this doesn't just go all over the place. I think monogamy probably has a survival advantage for genes, especially in animals like humans that require a large investment in raising by the parents. For instance, human take around a year to walk, cows are born on their feet. Therefore, the parents of the human must be around to raise the child, and because of genetic survival, it doesn't make sense for you to invest into a child that isn't yours. Thus, monogamy increases the liklihod that the genes you invest in raising are your own, and increases the chance they will be passed on. While I'm unaware if the relationship between length of child development and parental monogamy is present in nature, there are other monogymous animals, the penguin iirc.

It is likely that, as a species, we have something that is also likely shared with animals, which drives us to be with one person (its not a 100% certain thing at all, just a drive). The purpose of this drive is for sexual reproduction.

In human culture, that drive is accompanied by both social and linguistic definitions, which are not going to influence it, as much, in animals. If the drive is defined as "love" or if it is the cultural stuff. Very few animals give gifts, courtship is a "mating dance" or something, which may be analogus to humans, but is not "love" in the same way that writing poetry and buying presents are, if one uses the anthromorphic definition of love.

I don't know if that is an answer. I personally think this might be making too much of what humans really call love. I think a lot of people have very serious illusions about their "lovers" or what "love" is supposed to be, when much of it, imho, is probably defined better in the way we would talk about animal sexuality.

I feel that whenever people compare animals and humans that instead of using wild creatures or pets, they use people of different races. Can we narrow the question away so that we mean a certain race of people versus non-humans?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
GTFO, Czarina.

Originally posted by inimalist
it really, imho, comes to a matter of definition.

I'm not an expert on this, but it really matters if love, to you, must be defined as the human condition (with all our cultural and linguistic things not really seen in animals) or if love is a measure of emotional response to a creature.

blah, hopefully this doesn't just go all over the place. I think monogamy probably has a survival advantage for genes, especially in animals like humans that require a large investment in raising by the parents. For instance, human take around a year to walk, cows are born on their feet. Therefore, the parents of the human must be around to raise the child, and because of genetic survival, it doesn't make sense for you to invest into a child that isn't yours. Thus, monogamy increases the liklihod that the genes you invest in raising are your own, and increases the chance they will be passed on. While I'm unaware if the relationship between length of child development and parental monogamy is present in nature, there are other monogymous animals, the penguin iirc.

It is likely that, as a species, we have something that is also likely shared with animals, which drives us to be with one person (its not a 100% certain thing at all, just a drive). The purpose of this drive is for sexual reproduction.

In human culture, that drive is accompanied by both social and linguistic definitions, which are not going to influence it, as much, in animals. If the drive is defined as "love" or if it is the cultural stuff. Very few animals give gifts, courtship is a "mating dance" or something, which may be analogus to humans, but is not "love" in the same way that writing poetry and buying presents are, if one uses the anthromorphic definition of love.

I don't know if that is an answer. I personally think this might be making too much of what humans really call love. I think a lot of people have very serious illusions about their "lovers" or what "love" is supposed to be, when much of it, imho, is probably defined better in the way we would talk about animal sexuality.

Having seen few men who stay faithful to their wives (my personal experience of course), I'm not sure how much humans "value" love or if we can give it some sort of pedestal above that of animals. In fact, I'm not sure a person can give a "secular" argument for marriage or being with one person (this is not to say I think humans should all **** around because I have only one girlfriend and I plan to remain faithful; it's something I choose to do because I want that bond with someone I love).

And as you mentioned last, I believe humans think far too much of themselves (and this I attribute mainly to how monotheistic religions place humans as the most important creature) as if all other creatures are completely incapable of having a cognitive process in learning or even having/imitating emotion.

Originally posted by chithappens
Having seen few men who stay faithful to their wives (my personal experience of course), I'm not sure how much humans "value" love or if we can give it some sort of pedestal above that of animals. In fact, I'm not sure a person can give a "secular" argument for marriage or being with one person (this is not to say I think humans should all **** around because I have only one girlfriend and I plan to remain faithful; it's something I choose to do because I want that bond with someone I love).

And as you mentioned last, I believe humans think far too much of themselves (and this I attribute mainly to how monotheistic religions place humans as the most important creature) as if all other creatures are completely incapable of having a cognitive process in learning or even having/imitating emotion.

I'm absolutely against beastiality. Horses and donkeys would get all the women.

When penguins pick a partner its for life. Bull however will never have sex with the same cow twice.

And both examples are romantic. There you go, animals act like humans, or vice versa.