Bestiality is NOT abuse in all cases

Seriously, I am quite pleased with DDO and the intelligence and seriousness two sides of an issue, even bestiality, can be worked on. Big time kudos on that, Pro to Con! I do not find anything wrong with Con's definition for pleasure, other than being a bit vague; I cannot think of a more specific definition, however, without making it so complicated that it would dominate my entire argument for this round, so I will accept Con's definition for Pleasure for now. == REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #1 == I sum up Con's argument #1 thus: Humans and Dolphins are the only species which engage (in) sex for pleasure, and humans cannot engage in sex with dolphins for physical reasons. Con continues with the notion that all other animals (besides humans or dolphins) engage in sex entirely for reproductive purposes. This argument is flawed for a variety of reasons: x Humans and dolphins are not the only two species who engage in sexual activity for pleasure, non-reproductive purposes. I gave dolphins as an example, here are some more and I assert unless proven otherwise that I need not run through every species to declare that a lot of animal species do engage in non-reproductive sexual activity for pleasure. I assert that homosexual contact between animals is most definitely non-reproductive, and thus . http://en.wikipedia.org... provides a much larger list of animal species which engage in sexual activity for non-reproductive pleasure. Wiki actually has a full article dedicated to animal sexuality, with an entire section devoted to disspelling the myth that animals do not engage in non-reproductive sexual activity for pleasure: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I assert that, unless Con can effectively dismiss the evidence on those Wiki articles, that I have disproven using supporting evidence Con's assertion that animals do not engage in non-reproductive sex for pleasure. == REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #2 == The notion that bestiality is "abusive" because of the possibility of zoonotic disease transfer, or allergic reactions, etc. Essentially, Con is stating that the possibilty of zoonotic-STD or other unintentional harm caused by sex (allergies, etfc. ) is sufficient to render a form of sex as abusive. I challenge my opponent to list any form of sex in which STDs are not a risk; further, it is my understanding that zoonotic diseases are many times rarer than human-to-human STDs, as most diseases exist only within a particular species or narrow width of relatives. While intentionally infecting an animal with disease or other harm as some sort of sexual gratification I definitely agree would be abusive, I assert this does not cover all cases and as I described above, the danger of unintentional disease transfer from sex does not make sexual contact abusive. In regards to biting that can occur as a natural, normal part of sex for some animal species (lions and horses are two that come to mind where sex normally involves back-bites), a human familiar with this and knowingly continuing with the act is consenting to the cost and while it may be harmful, in a way it is similar to men who engage in "C&BT" -- Cock & Ball Torture, or sado-masochism or other fetishes in which they consent to being harmed in some fashion during sex. Certainly, humans can consent, can consent to this, and while it is true there are risks, the fact that the human can consent to such means there must, indeed, be cases where a human may engage in non-abusive sex with an animal. == REBUTTALS TO CON'S REBUTTALS TO PRO ARGUMENTS == In response to my assertion that animals can consent and citing the example of a cat indicating consent for sex, Con completely failed to even try to indicate that sex is not possible. I thus assert Con has no arguments that animals cannot consent to activity. The point that petting is different than sex is besides the point -- in that particular statement, I was merely making a basic point that animals can consent, that one argument was not the entire statement and that particular argument was over consent, not sex, so the rebuttal that petting is different than sex is irrelevant. To the charge that animals give no visible consent for sex, I further beg to differ. Male dogs, a popular household pet, are known to grapple a knee or other part of a human and excitedly attempt to initiate sexual contact with a human. I do not see how this could not be determined to be giving very visible consent for sex -- the dog is attempting to initiate sex with a human! I have also seen female dogs 'present' themselves to a human they feel affection for, and unless Con can somehow prove that they do not, I assert that if you accept this as being possible, at least, then I have successfully refuted this rebuttal. In regards to the second rebuttal, again I re-iterate that Con did not prove that only dolphins and humans enjoy sex for pleasure, and I assert that in this round, I have conclusively proven that is in fact false -- a variety of species engage in non-reproductive sex for pleasure. I presume con meant that I have not established that Humans can engage in sex with dolphins; I believe it would be ridiculous to argue what Con actually typed (I have not proven humans can have sex with humans! ?). I certainly hope I do not actually need to prove the latter. Dolphins are mammals, and while they are aquatic mammals, they are still mammals. There are some humans who actually have pleasure in underwater sex, but even this is not necessary, as dolphins come to the surface (indeed, being air-breathing mammals, they must). Further, humans and dolphins often interact in captivitity, and while it is illegal in many areas, they do so in the wild as well if a human is swimming in warm, shallow waters in which dolphins are present. Dolphins are known to come, interact, touch and even play with humans swimming in their waters. Further, in regards to anatomical differences, certainly accepting penetration from a dolphin would be challenging given my understanding of dolphin anatomy (rather well-endowed compared with a human; they are much larger mammals of course), but given that, the counter would not be impossible; one need not be an expert to reason that if a male dolphin is indeed much more endowed in penis size than a human, that female dolphins could most definitely accomodate a penis much larger than humans have, and thus a human penis would not be over-sized. Other forms of contact would also be possible, for instance a "hand job" to the male dolphin. I assert I have defeated both rebuttals to my arguments, in addition to defeating Con's arguments themselves, and conclusively, it is possible for humans and animals to engage in sex ("bestiality") that is not abusive.