A remarkably balanced review of the story to date. You can feel the author struggling a little to not take the standard pot shots while giving both sides of the story a fair shake. I assume this is another result of the NYMag interview and now Malcolm Brenner's interview and new short video.

It seems to me that there is a lot more acceptance out there than there was, but I still don't expect anyone to defend someone who is a zoo in a more than theoretical way.

I could only wish that comments weren't via facebook I'd supply some kudos.

Personally I believe it should stay Taboo and secret...

As a lover and enthusiast myself, although i cannot speak for everyone; i can speak for myself. It's just one of those things i keep at home and under lock and key... Sure i don't "hide" it... and publicly post on this sub-forum.. But it's still something i keep to myself...

I have a very many fetishes which i put under both the "don't care if anyone knows" and "i'll not go out of my way to keep it secret..but i also won't broadcast or openly show" labels. Bestiality comes secondary...

Even as an enthusiast and lover myself... it's taboo to me.. It's one of those few things I prefer not to share with the world..

And although I wouldn't mind if everyone vanilla (and not vanilla) accepted it.. it's also not something i care if they do or don't... I know it bothers some people so i keep it to myself.. Same goes for my ab/dl side.. same instances... same "don't hide, but still don't broadcast" type of thing.

[deleted]

The only argument I would present for why it should remain taboo is that even though not all zoophilic relationships are abusive, they must be handled much more delicately than a normal human sexual relationship because of the fact that one of the parties cannot clearly express their interests to the average human. Take for instance how terrible the average person is at understand their dog in a non-zoophilic human-dog relationship. Even "good" dog owners tend to do a lot of things that are not ideal for their dog.

So the main thing I would be worried about with zoophilia becoming more main-stream and acceptable is if random assholes decided to use their animals for sex, while being either unable or unwilling to determine whether or not it is good for the animal. If it's taboo, they won't be likely to consider it, but if zoophilia become a national issue and acceptance grew for it, there may be more people who abuse their animals sexually.

That being said, I don't really believe that preventing potential animal abuse is worth the "opression" of zoophiles who have loving and mutually-benificial relationships with their animals. Society has to move forward, which means we can't engage in motivated reasoning. That means if bestiality is inherently a bad thing, it should be taboo, and if it isn't, it shouldn't be, regardless of the potential consequences of lifting the taboo. If bestiality is morally impermissible, we should believe it is morally impermissible. If it is morally permissible, we should believe it is morally permissible. That's it. And I'm pretty sure the relationships a lot of zoophiles have with there animals are morally permissible.

There was a remarkable paper by Neil Levy, called "What (if Anything) is Wrong with Bestiality?" which attempts to answer this question. It comes in two parts: the first looks at some of the common arguments in favor of a moral taboo and, in my opinion, renders them incoherent. But the second is what concerns us here, as an argument in favor of the rationality of this taboo. The argument goes like this: humanity is defined by its limits, both physical (strength, speed, intelligence) and cultural (ethical reasoning, aesthetic tastes). The taboo against bestiality is such a cultural limit, meaning that transgressing that bound in a sense makes us something other than human, possibly by cutting ourselves off from a larger community which does not find it acceptable. Responding to the objection that the taboo against homosexuality could be argued as rational in precisely the same fashion, Levy argues that the taboo against homosexuality can be argued about within society, allowing the cultural limit against it to be changed, and it likely would be given their relatively large numbers.

The point is, as far as I can gather, that the taboo is self-authenticating, in that the fact that there is a taboo makes it socially unacceptable, meaning that going against it makes one anti-social, thus justifying the taboo. Circular reasoning, I think, but certainly such an explanation could be used in other cases as a justification for continuing an already existing taboo.

Is it me or does he say a lot of words but never gets round to saying anything with meaning? I dunno, maybe I'm used to reading more polarising articles, whereas he just seems to give facts. I'm going to read it again when I have time.