Show me the girl that fantasizes about Unicorns, and I’ll show you the man who humps hogs.

Because animals have no ability to consent. Even if it’s a pet, it’s raping an animal.

It’s only acceptable on Tuesdays when it’s raining.

Do you mean the kind with 4 legs or 2 wheels?

@rooeytoo . . . does it matter?

Does @filmfann hold the answer to this question?

Oh @SpatzieLover, you have a good memory… I was about to provide a philosophical answer but now it just seems silly…

Nice one filmfann.

<——Awaits philosophical answer from @bookish1—

Because you don’t ask the hog is she is OK with it first. It is rape, pure and simple.

If loving a hog is wrong do you really want to be right?

Only if the pig’s face resembles Ned Beatty?

Can I just add that the title of the question itself is NSFW? The content is relatively mild in comparison!

A guy comes home dead drunk with a duck under his arm
He goes to the bedroom and wakes up his wife
He says “I want you to meet the pig I have been screwing for the last 20 years”
She says, “You drunken asshole, that’s a duck!”
He says “I ain’t talkin” to you!”

I don’t frown against such a union.

If an animal is in heat, it means it wants sex.
That is my excuse.

I prefer cats myself.

Buggery! Buggery!

Ahem, what girls have sexual fantasies about unicorns? May I just say….ouch!

My criminal law professor’s girlfriend works at a vet’s office and once received a call from a woman who was concerned because, after a passionate lovemaking session with her dog, his penis had swollen and was stuck inside her. The response? “You’ll just have to wait it out.” Tough break…

Is this where the expression “porking” came from?

I do not think that it is wrong to be sexually attracted to hogs, or to be attracted to whatever else we polymorphously perverse humans end up attracted to. I do not think that sexual attraction is something that can be characterized as right or wrong. I do think that it is utterly wrong to act on such a desire, because of the reason that @zenvelo gave – hogs, intelligent though they are, are animals that, as far as we know, are not capable of giving consent.

I just noticed that Sarah Palin is one of the topics on this question. I award that spit take to @filmfann.

I think I’ve lost my appetite for bacon.

I agree with @wildpotato. It’s not wrong to be sexually attracted to hogs. However it is wrong to do anything harmful to the hog, except perhaps for killing it. Of course, after it’s dead, I’m not sure it matters what you do to it. Certainly butchering is not a problem.

But definitely raping a hog is not ok. Killing it is just fine. Keep your yinyang in your pants, dude!

@jonsblond – heheheh!

Some good answers here, I am handing out lots of lurve!

Well played, @filmfann.

While that’s very candid of you to say your wife resembles a pig, I can’t help thinking she may be a little dis-grunt -led at this shocking revelation.

So why is it not ok to rape a pig but it’s ok to kill one? If you view animals as a means to an end, does it matter that they can’t give consent?

@bookish1 Ooh, nice one! No, I do not think consent matters when it comes to the animal’s death, for a few reasons. Death is an inevitability for all living things; rape is not (unless you are a duck, in which case it seems anything goes). My guess is that no hogs ever consent to death, whether it be of old age or the farmer’s axe. So I don’t think of consenting to be killed as a necessary requirement for me to eat the animal. Douglas Adams cows would be great, though.

As thinking animals, unlike ducks, we can choose to rape and to kill – or to distance ourselves from the state of nature and forswear these acts. To me, the latter is morally defensible, and the former is not. I believe that killing animals for food is defensible because raising and slaughtering animals can be accomplished without any loss to the animal (I would even argue that, done properly, husbandry is beneficial for most of our food animals) except it’s life. Additionally, I believe that eating animals, particularly if you have had the experience of killing one yourself, is a more authentic way to Be in the world than vegetarianism.

@wildpotato: I did not mean to ask about animals’ consenting to be slaughtered. What I meant to ask was, “Why is consent even an issue (in the context of sex with animals) if you view animals as a means to an end and therefore feel that it’s morally acceptable to kill them [or have industry kill them] for food?”

Guess I’m not authentically in the world, and neither were my thousands of Hindu vegetarian ancestors…Well you know, that is why the Brits conquered India, because they were More Authentic and Ate Beef~

Bingo @bookish1! I’m glad you picked up on that!

Of course, logically, it doesn’t make sense that it’s ok to take an animals life, but not ok to do something to it that doesn’t even hurt it. We brand animals all the time. That hurts a lot more. Also animals don’t appear to have much of a sense of a larger self-interest. They can’t think in the long term. They can’t see the consequences of their actions other than direct, personal consequences, so they don’t have a sense of morality.

However, a prohibition against animal rape makes sense for emotional reasons. Humans tend to identify with other mammals. This is cultural, and not all cultures identify with animals as strongly as the wealthier European-derived cultures.

Still, when people emotionally identify with animals, they attribute human feelings to them. Obviously, rape is a an act of emotional violence even more than it is an act of physical violence, and humans think it is about as horrible thing as a person can do to another. It is taking their womb over and forcing that woman to bear a child she doesn’t want to.

With animals, of course, they probably don’t even associate sex with creating new life. They certainly wouldn’t know that sex with a human couldn’t get them pregnant. But that doesn’t matter. It is the human idea of rape of another human being placed on animals that makes people feel all wrong. It doesn’t matter that the animals probably don’t feel it is much of a problem. It doesn’t matter that the reason we own animals is to eat them. Rape is a purely symbolic act, and the symbolism is all wrong, and it makes humans feel emotionally violated in a way that killing the animal does not.

I’m not saying this is logical. I don’t think it is logical. But it makes emotional sense, and emotions probably motivate about 95% of human behavior. Logic and science might motivate 5%... if that.

My guess is that, given a choice, a hog would much rather be raped than turned into bacon. But I seriously doubt most humans would feel that way. They’re fine with bacon. The idea of hog sex makes them totally queasy. There are a few people who think both rape and killing is wrong. They’re vegetarians. In my opinion, for a human to be consistent, if they were against hog rape, they’d also be against hog killing. But I’m not sure there is a human alive who is consistent.

From my youth, I would think that trying to have coitus with a hog would be very dangerous! They are incredibly strong and mean! So I guess if someone were able to get-er-done, it would almost HAVE to be consensual. Now, sheep is another matter entirely. lol

@bookish1 I don’t think that animals’ being a means to en end has much to do with whether I eat them or not. Everything is a means to an end in some way. I try not to use that argument to justify anything. You could come back and say well, I am using them as a means to the end of living more authentically, and that is how I chose to make my moral justification. I’d say sure, but you’re just adding an extraneous step onto the argument, and that the more constructive way to debate such a thing would be to get into what I mean by authentic living, and how the killing and eating of animals is tied up in this.

In response to your second paragraph, it’s a personal belief that I came to after much thought, informed by the writings of Michael Pollan and Martin Heidegger, primarily. No need to get defensive. It is a mistake to assume that authenticity is another word for “good way to live” – it does not mean that. Two of my favorite philosophers, Reinier Schurmann and Simon Critchley, believe that inauthenticity is equally, and perhaps more, important at times. I did say that omnivorism is better than vegetarianism, and I certainly did not say anything about Hinduism. I suppose I may be getting a bit defensive here myself – maybe you are fully aware of what authenticity means. In which case I would say that yes, under this conception of authenticity, in this part of life omnivorism is more authentic than vegetarianism. Which says very little about the rest of a person’s life – eating meat or not is not the characteristic I would hinge living an authentic life on. From what I have read of the Upanisads, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the Rig Veda, Hindus appear to have other, very fine ways of mediating authenticity.

I guess I don’t see why you think that seeing animals as a means to an end would have anything to do with justifying different types of harm to them, or how the concept of consent is involved. Is it that because I attribute importance to consent, that I am concomitantly presumed to not think of animals as a means to an end? Not sure why that would be…but maybe you meant something else?

Gah! Sorry guys, it’s hard to review long posts on the iPhone. I meant to say in my first sentence, “a means to an end,” and in my second paragraph, I meant to write, “I did not say that omnivorism is better than vegetarianism.”

Also, I think I was being a tiny bit unfair to feign surprise that people would interpret “authentic” as “good way to live.” I realize I did sort of present it that way in my first response to you, by giving it my personal endorsement. I’m trying to squish too much down, I think – to explain further, my belief is that authentic life is important but properly cyclical with inauthenticity, that it is unrestricted to particular forms, and that what is authentic for some people is inauthentic for others.

@Blondesjon The question did say “sexually attracted” . So I’m just curious what is it about the hog? The flirting, the possibility of close intimacy shared secrets? Or their short hairy legs?

Sorry for the thread necro (seems kind of fitting though), but I want to get this straight:

It’s OK to kill and eat the pig, but it’s not OK to have sex with the pig?

What about killing the pig, having sex with it, then eating it?

As this thread is nearly two years old, I admit that there’s probably a mountain of context I’m missing…

No, you pretty much have the gist.

God I miss these people….