I wonder why society thinks it is okay for people to pet animals and to keep animals as pets without the explicit consent of the animals but the act of a human having sex with an animal is considered not okay. (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-03-30 06:34:46 by ursusem
Pure doublethink.
Pure hypocrisy.
Pure bigotry.
"It's not the same" is the answer I've gotten to this question.
Srsly, I've seen lots of dogs and horses touched when they are obviously unwelcomeing or uncomfortable by "normal" people. The difference is in the social programming of percieved intent. "Those animal fickers just want rape while I just want to love this puppy so I'm totally different."
This is what makes the difference, the assumption that we are creeps and get off by dominating helpless animals often paints us as terrible people.
Because sex with animals is "gross"
Because keeping animals as pets enforces our superior status over them in a cultural sense, but having sex with them at least in part acknowledges them as equals, which is uncomfortable. Also, sexual activities which people don't understand are automatically labelled as deviant, and therefore terrible.
lol, I love the replies here, guys!
Because society is morally bankrupt and ethically inconsistent
I agree with /u/urusem/ animals cannot give direct consent, but they sure can give indirect consent; if anything, not only pet's shouldn't be allowed if they show lack of consent, they should also not be allowed if they are an endangered species, they are not in a proper environment, or they represent a risk to the environment/community.
If we follow that, then no one is being inconsistent, of course it isn't optimal, but it's not something that deserves to be called moral bankruptcy, appeal to emotions, hipocresy and so forward.
What gets me the hardest is animals put in excessively dangerous situations purely for our benefit. That's totally cool, but doing something not dangerous at all is like, whoa, too much.