Dont

I remember that she killed her dogs doing just that.

I remember her! Grim is right, she ended up killing the dogs

Wait so like how does a dog die from dicking a human? I most definitely don't want any details just like HOW?

There is a particularly messed up piece of human filth that lived near me about 9 years ago that was caught having sex with a horse as well as his three year old daughter. So yeah some humans get some sort of thrill out of that stuff and really should be summarily executed for it.

Why the hell was she even allowed on youtube..
-
I remember reading about some guy who would leave his dog outside at night and one day he started noticing she would whimper and yelp and such when he touched her. He finally decided to set up a security camera in his yard and discovered his neighbour was sneaking into his yard at night, drugging the dog, and fucking it.

Ok where did we leave the torches and pitch forks?

Kill that piece of fucking filth

Last I heard of the garbage, he got his face introduced to a cement floor in a holding cell. So problem solved, fortunately I didn't have a kid then or if he'd have gotten with visual range of my kid I'd have ended his existence in the most painful ways I could think off.

Why is this a foreign concept for you, diseases and worse could come of it

It's a thought experiment. Diseases and other risks with being intimate with non-human beings. I'm not talking about a dog; I'm talking about Jeogryff the alien who works with you at the company.

Unless the species is considered by law as a) capable of giving consent, which would indicate a decent, if basic, knowledge of language, and ability to grasp concepts such as having sex with a different species in the first place, b) not identified as human "property," and c) given basic human rights, it is not sentient or enough for you to have sex with it in any manner that is not rape at the very least, cruel and deplorable beyond reason at most.

Perfectly reasonable. I like testing certain areas when people say something rather vague. Most people don't really question some things, and I find it necessary for a sound mind to question beliefs. Creating a neat little list of criteria fits that nicely.

But what if they enjoy being human property? Imagine they were a species which coevolved with another species to the point where serving others was as natural an instict as eating is with us. Ignoring the unlikelyhood of such an evolution, what if they viewed themselves as property and/or wished it? This extends to human rights as what if they don't need/want certain human rights but also need/want other rights?

Wanting and having are two different things. I imagine, given the option, most animals would not *want* to be viewed as having fewer rights than people, but that hardly means humans are going to be eager to give in to those desires anytime soon. Hell, it took us centuries to conclude we should give basic equal rights to ourselves-- and some of us still haven't gotten there.
If being "owned" is your thing, you're free to go and have someone buy you a collar. You're free to eat food from the floor, never speak unless permitted, do all those things. Not so different from some BDSM relationships. The submissive doesn't have to want to be viewed as a person with rights. And they can adjust their lifestyle accordingly. But the rights are there, nevertheless. And if they're never judged as being worthy of having those rights in the first place, then you already are refusing to view them as something capable of giving consent.

Granted, there probably were situations where slaves had consensual sex with someone who owned them, but the undertones are still there. It calls into question the nature of the master's relationship/viewpoint, the intention's of the slave (were they doing this out of genuine desire? To further their position? Etc), and the situation in general. In the end, overall, it just reiterates that, unless you can treat it (<- using this terminology since we're talking about humans, animals, and alien species) as an equal, you can't treat it as a consenting partner and shouldn't be looking to have sex with it.
-
If they want other rights, that largely depends on what they are. Most other rights beyond the scope of human rights would largely violate human rights in the first place, and so would likely make the species incompatible with us in the first place

You're looking at this the wrong way; you're looking at this like a human. We call them human rights because not having them is harmful to us and, likewise, some things aren't human rights because they are harmful. What if this species was such that having freedom of speech as a thing which actually causes them harm? You're looking at this as a real example rather than a thought experiment about what human rights are and how they'd extend to other species.

There are thirty human rights accepted by the United Nations. https://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-1-15.html
' '
Btw, putting a space (' ') on the line instead of '-' still gives you line skip without the jarring view.

Technically another sentient sapient intelligent human+ level species wouldn't be an animal as (most likely) it wouldn't be terrestrial and as such not a member of Animalia so the post about not fucking animals no longer applies.

I'm looking at this as a human because the question was about humans not fucking other species, and dictating what guidelines humans should follow in regards to fucking other species. And if speaking freely causes them harm, there is absolutely no way for them to give consent in the first place. Additionally, they wouldn't be compatible with our way of life, so fucking them would hardly be a beneficial experience.
I'm looking at this as a thought experiment applied literally. I'm not certain how to make my responses more fitting since they are the only responses I have. There's dozens of games and movies out there about interspecies relationships. Mass Effect, Guardians of the Galaxy, hell, technically even vampire or werewolf fiction fits the bill, and that's not even touching on anime. Monster no mosume (or however you spell it) comes to mind.

The general guidelines that seem to be recurring:
-compatible genitalia. Which usually indicates basic humanoid form. If a creature is unable to become aroused and/or interact physically by other means without causing damage to either party, it is incompatible, and sex should not occur.
-communication/comprehension. If the creature is unable to express basic understanding of your intentions and it's own, and is unable to offer consent, nor is it able to properly express limitations and comfort levels, then it is incompatible, and sex should not occur.
-If a creature's rights would be violated, or violate another by assuring either of the former things take place, it is incompatible, and sex should not occur
Edit: changed an incorrect "and" to "then."

Congratulations @bethorien, you've missed the point of this post in such an impressive manner that even I was impressed.

This also doesn't directly apply to intercourse due to the shift in topic. My previous post was about "Human" rights and how they'd apply to non-human entities due to their different needs. Werewolfs, Vampires, and other "Totally human with a different name" species don't exactly count as severely.

Also, disliking all my comments doesn't make me wrong, it only makes you feel better.

Hey don't tell @bethorien off for disliking your comments. That is my doing.

The point still applies, dear.

I must have missed the part where you shifted it from sex to just rights in general. When it comes to rights in general, I'd then view it more or less as visiting a country that has policies the original country disagree with. You can assess the harm taking place as a result of their rights, and either engage in polite democracy, or you can disengage from that country entirely, or, further still, impose sanctions. its not so different with other sentient species. You can choose to engage cordially (or otherwise), avoid interaction with them, or actively fight their rights.

I can't think of a better way to explain what you just did than this:
Mayor: "What would you do if you fell off a building?"
You: "Not fall off a building?"
Mayor: "But what if you did?"
You: "I won't!"
Mayor: "But hypothetically."
You: "Hypothetically, I wouldn't fall off."

I in no way see that's what I did at all?
If this in regards to the hypothetical about how something cannot be given freedom to talk without violating their rights, I addressed that by saying that would make the species incompatible. We have rape as a definable part of our society as a species, and consent is a demand to be able to have sex. If another species fails to have those, there's not really any way the two can be compatible
Your scenario is saying:
Person: "This person HAS to fall off a 40 story building."
Me: "That's their problem I guess."
Person: "THEIR problem? Why aren't YOU climbing to the top of the building and pushing them?"
Me: "I don't want to? That's illegal by our standards, I'm morally uncomfortable with it, and I have absolutely no reason or obligation to do so. They're perfectly capable of getting on without me."
Person: "But they HAVE to fall off the building!"
Me: "Then off they go. I'm not going to be involved in this."

How can you literally see the written word of what I was trying to say and then say I'm saying something else?

I'm telling you my interpretation of what you're saying, as you were telling me your interpretation of what I was saying, since what you said was in no way the same as the point I've been attempting to get across, so I offered you an alternative scenario that better explained my perspective. This tends to be how conversations go, typically. At least in my experience. I genuinely don't know how to have an intelligent discussion otherwise

Fucking an animal and eating it are 2 separate things

Yeah, eating an all is fine because it is raised to be that way, an animal for consumption, not for fornication mate

By that logic you could raise sex sheep or some shit and because you specifically raised it for sex it's all fine

What I mean is, you kill the animal quickly before it feels anyhing. Forcing a human sized penis into a small animal will cause them tremendous pain.
A bigger animal might not get hurt, but its fluids on your penis and your human fluids in the animal is bound to get one or both of you seriously sick

Force your customers to wear sex sheep condoms and have them sign a thing that says you aren't responsible for anything that happens to them if they don't wear it or if it breaks and if they don't wear it they have to pay for any damages to the sheep? Not only would that get rid of fluids (theoretically) for both sides it would also protect you from legal action (assuming you didn't already get arrested for selling access to sex sheep)