Bestiality is NOT abuse in all cases

== REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #1 == Among wolves, dominant and submissive personalities are considered pretty static, but seemingly in defiance of the notion that homosexual contact outside the human species is entirely for dominance, the dominant "Beta" and "Alpha" ranks are known to allow the submissive "Omega" ranks to initiate sex-play with them. This would defy the notion proposed by Con that all non-reproductive sex is for dominance. A variety of males in a variety of species are known to practice forms of masturbation. While "anthroids" (human's relatives -- monkeys, apes, baboons, etc.) are obviously more "handily" equipped for human-like masturbation, the lack of "hands" is no obstacle and species such as equus caballus -- the horse -- have their own means to stimulate themselves, sometimes through what equine enthusiasts call "belly slapping," and sometimes through finding an object they can achieve gratification with, "roundbales" being commonly popular for stallions: http://www.youtube.com... And on that same subject, "rounding the corner" as it were, comes the fact of semen collection. There are a number of chores we put animals through that require significant training, one chore we put them through that does not require much at all is semen collection for husbandry/breeding purposes. While there is quite a bit done with fancy machinery, a lot of horse ranchers have found the 'crump' method works just fine, which involves manual -- that's with hands -- stimulation of the stallion to ejaculate. I doubt you'd find many ranchers who practice this accepted method of semen collection to tell you they have ever performed it on so much as a single stallion who did not express pleasure at the hand-stimulation (unless the stallion had some sort of injury or had 'first-time' uncertainty). I challenge Con's statement that "Furthermore, animals such as Lions only engage in same sex activities whilst in captivity, where they are taken out of their natural habitat." I assert that animals in captivity are far better documented than animals out of captivity, especially in the case of lions; in captivity they are far safer and more accessible, you don't have to go trouncing through the safari in danger of getting trampled by elephants or facing upset and powerful predators. Among lions, I assert what known documentaries there are have focused on prides, whose only permanent residents are the lionesses. Male lions will fight the incumbent male lion(s) to win ownership of the pride to mate, sire cubs, etc. However, there are often long years for male lions before they are ready to make such a challenge. While some male lions wander as lone males, they can and are known to form small groups of 2 or 3, sometimes with brothers, and while it is not as known as lion pride behavior, these small bachelor groups are known to be affectionate with one another, including for sexual release. As for interspecies mating, does my opponent have any proof that http://www.google.com... is fake? Granted, its clearly not in the wild, but there is no direct human intervention there either. I submit to all that I have strongly refuted all claims Con has brought for Con Argument #1. == REBUTTAL TO CON ARGUMENT #2 == Con has failed to support the notion that the possibility of allergy to semen proves a special form of medical risk that is different from zoonotic STDs which my opponent conceded (after previously trying to make the argument) that the existence of such diseases is proof that human-animal sexual contact is abusive. I submit that allergic and other similar "incidental" harms are, while not categorically diseases, nonetheless in the same category in terms of being incidental medical harms that are not proof of abuse. In rebuttal to my remark about C&BT, my opponent has claimed it is not comparable to biting during sex because the man must place a device on himself. I submit that in terms of more generality, the man is consenting to harm that will come for the pleasure of the act and there is no reason to not apply that same general rule toward a man consenting to harm that will come from the pleasure of the act when it comes to getting a "love bite" from an amorous animal lover. == COUNTER-REBUTTAL == "Even if animals give consent to sex" is nearly a concession. "Often being an unknown gesture" I have already established as not applying in all cases when I cited the example of a cat seeking to be petted. It isn't just random chance that an owner, over time, would learn to recognize signals the cat wishes to be petted. I use this non-sexual example as a means to demonstrate on a more familiar term to those who have not explored human-animal sexuality that animals can not only consent to affectionate contact, but they can even initiate or request such contact in ways humans can learn to interpret given enough "bonding time" to become "in tune" with their beloved pet, in the case of an owner who pets their cat, and -- carrying the very same idea -- to one who engages in sexual intimacy with their animal companions. I submit so much as a single instance of this being proof there is at lease one exception to bestiality being abuse in all cases, and thus my case is proven. I submit "seasoned" humans who have been in relationships have had witness to very informal requests and consents (or refusals) to sexual advances, and that formally expressed requests, consents/non-consents are not necessary to understand each others' wish for (or lack-of-interest-in) sex. Just as a 5-year-old would probably be completely clueless to understand a woman's sly flirts with a man, so too would someone not personally familiar with animal sexuality not be able to understand or perceive lustful signs from an animal that are comparable to human lust which can be met by a willing partner. A woman who seductively touches a man's arm would not be considered raped if the man responded and, without explicit words of consent, initiated sex with her. The law realizes the reality that formal contracts are less fun than condoms, and that there can be an understanding, request for and consent to sex that is not verbally expressed. == COUNTER-REBUTTAL 2 == Again, I already gave proof that dolphins are known to initiate sexual contact with humans. There can be no more definite a sign of willingness to engage in contact. I further stipulate that an animal can consent because it can also REFUSE consent by attempting to get away or even attacking their human suitor or other means or signs they are not comfortable with the sexual contact. I hope, whatever a person's distaste for the idea of bestiality, I have established that there is too real a possibility that humans and animals can willingly engage in sex with one another for mutual pleasure, and that while I do not deny that humans can and would force themselves in rape that is abuse, there can also be non-rape, non-abusive sexual intimacy between humans and animals. Thank you, Con, for taking up this debate with me and keeping it on a mature level. This has been an interesting debate and I hope you have learned as much as I have. I look forward to the judgement of the DDO jury and I also look forward to future debates with you on other topics.