It has been bothering me for a while that there is so little actual effort to put zoophilia and animal rights in relation.
Without giving specific examples, often when animal rights and zoophilia comes up together, the two groups of "zoophiles" and "animal rights activists/supporters" are treated as somehow being on opposite sites. I have even seen somewhere the term "balance between animal rights and zoophiles" or something like that from a group not explicitly being against sex with animals.
I disagree with the basis of this assessment. I do not think sexual contact between humans and nonhumans is a violation of any right animals should have.
Here are a few words: Right to Sexuality. Sexual Autonomy. Reproductive Rights (in the broader sense where it's sort of a misnomer). Bodily Integrity.
I don't want these words to be talked about in relation to zoophiles, but in relation to nonhuman animals. When do animal rights advocates ever speak about these matters? I think animals should have these rights - at least to some extent. And yes, I would advocate to make any sort of forced/coerced "breeding" illegal. On the other side of the coin I do believe that nonhuman animals should have the right to make their own decisions about their on sexuality - e.g. when and with whom to have sex, including members of different species - however these decisions are formed. As I said, I don't believe the animal rights people have a real point against a human and a dog both willingly and not coerced engaging in sex, because I don't believe any animal right is violated here.
In another recent thread here I saw this link: http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/the-key-to-rational-argument-reframe-it-as-a-partnership. And it pretty much fits what I am trying to get at. I consider myself to be a strong proponent of animal rights even though I'm not very vocal about it. I don't believe there is any reason that we should be in any adverse position to animal rights people. In a better world we (or some of us) would be working together with animal rights people to discuss how animal sexuality and zoophilia could and should be handled.
Are there people who are studying the relation between animal rights and zoophilia/sexual contacts with animals and are they publishing stuff that we could read and argue about? Is there any sort of academic debate about it? Yes, I know Heavy Petting by Peter Singer but he only makes a small comment here and doesn't cover in in any real depth.
I'm looking for real academic papers that are meant as serious contribution to the field(s). Or in a weaker form, I'm looking for any articulate and logically sound article that covers these. Is there something like that? Is there interest in collecting ideas about it?
I think I got this link from this subreddit in the first place, but it's on-topic: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/ijsss/article/viewFile/63/53
(This was going to be a brief edit, but then it got far too long):
As far as animal rights go, I'm heading in the direction of abolitionist veganism. Collectively, humanity does an enormous number of things to non-humans that would, if done to humans, be considered "evil". Hunting a species to extinction is closer to the origin of the term "genocide" than the crime against humanity of the same name. Forced breeding for meat is rape as well as murder, so when the 'phobes described breeding stands as "rape frames" they were right for the wrong reasons. Forced incest in selective breeding programs, repeated pregnancies for as long as is physically possible in puppy mills, killing mothers because they no longer have economic value in both. The fetishisation of leather somehow not counting as necrophilia (fur, at least, is normally synthetic these days). Animal testing I can see the point of, but the way it's done still diminishes those involved to purely economic terms. Blood sports are mostly gone in the western world, but not entirely (Spanish bullfighting), and some keep trying to bring back what's been banned.
Sometimes I even wonder about pet ownership, at least as is typical in this country. Cats are fluffy sociopaths, killing and maiming for no apparent reason. Dogs are often left alone indoors all day, and I wonder if they react the same way humans would if we also could not read or tweet. And that's ignoring genital mutilation in the form of neutering (spaying is apparently more ethically complicated, and I know too little about it to know if it would render bitches unable to enjoy sex).
Of course, this all assumes that animals are fluffy bodies with human minds. I don't know that they are, even partially, like us. I try to treat them as though they are to be on the safe side, but I don't actually go round calling meat eaters "murderers" because I don't know for sure that the animals are people, even by my own liberal standards.
With all due respect but it's kind of a stretch to think that everyone would stop eating meat and drinking milk. Would you be okay with cruelty free (or cruelty free as much as possible) meat and milk?
Since I consider killing animals to be unethical, that would mean only eating "roadkill", animals that were accidentally killed, and animals that died of natural causes. If anyone wants to do that... why not.
How exactly do you imagine "cruelty free milk" to be produced? Right now it's being produced this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_cattle#Management. How much "cruelty free milk" could you produce?
once an animal is dead it doesnt know its dead. If they are raised in a happy environment I see nothing wrong with humanely dispatching them and eating them.
Not a vegan, but seriously borderline on it. I try to manage where I get my meat, avoid fast food and pay attention to local farmers and how they raise and butcher their stock for the local farmer's markets... which are much cheaper than grocery stores I might add.
If I had an option, if cultured meat and proteins were available now I would switch in a heartbeat. I tried switching to fish for a while, then learned more about fishing and fish behavior even and nearly had another panic attack. I don't think if I switch to a vegan diet if it will make a real difference in the world, and I surround myself with animal products all day, from my shoes to my work gloves and boots, to the animal testing that was done on medicines that I give to other animals to keep them alive. The more I think about it the less sense it all makes, which is why on other, more public accounts I make a huge effort to talk about cultured meats and synthetic systems for replacing our dependency on animal proteins.
oh absolutely, I would have no issues eating lab (not the dog :P ) meat. I take a more dystopian view of it though as I think this is something we're going to have to seriously consider due to the ever increasing world population rather than animal rights.
just read your other reply, yeah, basically that.
I dream for the day when lab-grown meat is readily available. Another thing to look into: insect meat.
And yeah, animal products are used so extensively, it's nearly impossible to cut them out. Aside from leather, there's all sorts of places they sneak in. Glues, paints, etc. Hell, a vegetable diet probably isn't all that vegan when you consider the fertilizer it was grown in.
After raising and taking care of a lot of reptiles in my day, I frequently have dreams that I'm munching on a bag of mealworms or crickets like it ain't no thing. Weird dreams, but seems totally normal at the time. I know a few other reptile enthusiasts that really do munch on insects all the time.
Er... if meat were murder (I wish to emphasise that I can't prove this, it's a possibility whose risk I am avoiding) ... if meat were murder, then you've just said "murder is fine provided you only kill happy people humanely".
well no because animals arent people.
What do you mean by "people"? Why are non-humans excluded from that? What observation would change your mind?
cannibalism is very rare. animals kill and eat other species of animals that are below them in the food chain.
Im not sure what would change my mind to be honest, I dont think anything would.
I'm not certain if you're saying this, and I want to check: are you saying that eating a member of a different species is OK simply because they are a different species?
yes. Although that is simplifying it far too much.
That makes me sad.
Treating minds differently because of the group they belong to, rather than because of the properties they have, is one of the reasons some argue against bestiality.
I dont treat their minds differently, Im sure they have feelings like us and Im sure if I got to know them and treat them as a pet we'd have a laugh. Its their bodies I treat differently. Unfortunately for them their purpose in life is to provide me a delicious meal. Its unlucky for them, but thats just the way it is.
Hmm. I think I would only accept that claim - that of their purpose in life - from someone who also believes those born to slavery have the purpose of servitude.
(I have more of a problem with internal inconsistencies than with absolute values.)
the inconsistencies are only seen by you because of your belief that all animals are equal. I do not share your view. there are no inconsistencies in my argument in my view.
WTF have I just read???? Maybe your screen name is more accurate than you think...;)
heh, you might be right, I dont love all animals, Im not an 'animal' lover and I dont put all animals on the same level as humans.
I like cows and stuff, theyre pretty neat when they come over to you at the side of the field, but they also have a purpose to be food IMO.
If it's of consolation, we'll probably see a boom in cultured meat and proteins like eggs and milk as well in the coming decades.
Resources are going to become costly and things like beef will be such a luxury as the climate changes and feed and water has to be imported from further and further away, only the rich will be able to afford real beef.
This will create a huge gaping hole in a market that will get filled fast by some enterprising individuals, because I doubt us first-worlders can live long without our hamburgers and steak. That will pave the way for a lot of other bulk culture farms,
Im not against killing animals for food. Im against breeding animals for food and the mass meat industry.
However if I want to stalk a hog on my property, kill him and feast on him for a month, then there shouldn't be a problem with that.
I would only stop eating meat if every animal on the planet stopped Killing and eating each other.
Im working to stop supporting the industry but im not going to remove meat from my diet altogether.
[deleted]
"Cruelty free" meat would be roadkill, "cruelty free" milk would be refusing any from a cow whose calf had been killed.
If I was certain that non-humans had a subjective experience of reality similar to what I call "consciousness" in myself, then I would actually try to force that on everyone. My uncertainty is what holds me back from that. I am certain I can't change that other people enjoy the taste of flesh, it's too basic a part of your desires (I have my own difficulties with cheese), but just as I would try to stop aliens who find us tasty from eating us, if I knew a particular species was "sentient" (for lack of a better word), I'd try to stop that species from being food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGkV43CKlqY
Hah. Yes, my reaction to soy "cheese" is that woman's reaction.
I've found some better substitutes since then, but they still, to paraphrase, taste almost but not quite entirely unlike cheese.
I like parts like
but I'm still missing a real in depth look at points like this.
At least it's a start.
I've always considered myself an advocate for treating nonhumans as equals, or if not then in the best manner possible. I've just never actually known what it would exactly be that I demand come time of a protest of any kind. I mean, sure, treat nonhumans kinder and being more intelligent than we normally give them credit for, but what exact rights would that mean demanding?
I too would be interested in reading these academic papers.
I don't even understand why the vegan topic is coming up. We want to be equal? Well guess who else kills to eat? Other animals.
Eating meat is natural. Don't try to change that.
I agree, so long as the animal who befalls the knife - so to speak - feels the least amount of pain possible and has had a fulfilling life up to that point. I mean, I like meat, but I don't like how we're obtaining it by pumping chickens full of steroids, keeping cattle in cramped pens, locking pigs in cages so restrictive they can't turn around...
Should it ever become cheeper and easier to produce, I'd prefer the only place we get our meat from is from a petri dish.
I've never understood why "natural" is a winning argument, especially on the internet. Look around, and besides the sky you're unlikely to see a single natural thing — even the trees are selectively bred. And even the sky itself, a quarter of the CO2 you breathe is artificial.
Seriously. I don't know what to think anymore. I think I'll just try to be good to animals and live like I want to. Screw it.
Being a vegetarian isn't a part of that plan.
The zealous animal rights people that I've encountered seem to either disbelieve human exceptionalism entirely, or else they believe animals are their helpless children that need to be protected and doted over.
The first category carries the risk of people wondering what you're doing keeping a creature in captivity in the first place, if you believe in its free agency. The second category is, well, not quite zeroed in on reality. In either case I'm not sure of the benefit, and especially if you go trying to illegalize captive breeding, that will make lots of (well-funded, well-connected, animal-loving) enemies.
There is ongoing discussion of the importance of unbiased scientific studies, but so far the best I'm aware of are items like Miletski's accounts, which unfortunately are not too rigorous, and come from people with questionable credentials - although there is plenty of opportunity out there for rigorous study, so I think it's just a matter of time - and to remind such people to study the right population which is to say people who have loving relationships with animals, not just people who "have sex with" them as often happens.
I'm near that. I don't have evidence either way about human exceptionalism, only the experience of a computer programmer that tells me none of the "intelligence" part of our mind is difficult to replicate. The "sentient"/"self aware"/whatever you want to call it part is, so far as I know, a massive unknown at this time. Non humans can be intelligent regardless of whether or not they have a "sense of self", but for my morality it's having a "sense of self" that means an entity should have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
I can confirm the risk you described for my category. That said, I have walked at least one dog who was absolutely certain of where she wanted to go home to, making it impossible for me to keep walking past it in search of the next available dog poo bin. So dogs, at least, are not utterly captive — I know they can choose us because they can be strong willed enough to ignore us or tell us to piss off. :)
[deleted]
And that's part of the problem. These opinions are not really animal rights positions. They just happened to be held by many of the vocal people who think of themselves as being animal rights activists...
I certainly don’t consider zoophilia to be incompatible with animal rights, or there’s no way I would agree with it. Over the much hackneyed question of consent: I can understand the position of anyone saying that, although they accept that not all sexual interactions between humans and other animals are abusive, bestiality ought to be outlawed since a non-human animal can’t complain to the authorities, so it would be all too easy to take advantage of it (even if that position seems a bit over-the-top); but I don’t follow the logic of those who claim that all sex between humans and other species must be abusive because non-human animals can’t give ‘consent’ (by which I take it they mean verbal or written consent).
It’s a common saying that ‘actions speak louder than words,’ and I tend to feel that’s true. By that token, non-human animals can certainly show that they’re willing - indeed eager - to participate in sex with humans. (In fact, it sometimes leads to embarrassing situations for the human involved if the attention’s unwanted!). And it doesn’t just relate to zoophilia; I feel that body language is more important than verbal or written consent in human/human sexual interactions as well. I certainly consider that a woman stripping-off, lying on a bed in front of you with her legs open, her sexual orifice (vulva) glistening and moaning loudly is a more genuine sign of consent than a woman who, after being pestered for days by her over-sexed boyfriend, grudgingly signs her name on a bit of paper saying that she ‘agreed’ to have sex with him.
There is of course the point, which is perfectly legitimate, that a non-human animal might not understand all the implications of what it’s doing (with regard to the transfer of diseases or the ‘mechanics’ of the thing, for instance). That would mean that it’s up to the human to take responsibility for those concerns, and I don’t doubt there are some who don’t – sometimes through simple carelessness. They could correctly be labelled ‘abusers.’ But, contrary to what I’ve read opined, not all zoophiles are retarded so-and-so’s that use animals as a means of working off their lusts because they can’t get it anywhere else. Indeed, many zoophiles would say they were in one-to-one relationships with a non-human partner, whom they care about and would never force into doing anything that they (the animal) would find uncomfortable.
I think the question of consent says more about human attitudes to sex than it does about genuine concerns for animal welfare. Some of these people may be well-meaning, but a lot of them are probably using ‘consent’ as an excuse to state their own distaste over the idea of human/non-human sexual interaction (which is perhaps understandable; but not very honest of them).
But the same is true for many humans to different extents. The lines are drawn rather arbitrarily here.
That's only kinda true for the first one or two times. And it's also true when the animal has sex with another animal of the same species...
I don't think people who say this stuff have really thought it through, but rather use "informed consent" as a pretense, because they need something to justify being against it.
And then, of course, "children tho".