KynophileDog lover 2 points on 2016-04-21 17:20:24
An excellent general survey of arguments against sex with animals! My only gripe is that it begins with a claim that it will "demonstrate that no such argument exists," and then lists off the common ones and debunks them, given the assumptions presented at the start. I agree entirely with these assumptions (presuming activities to be permissible until demonstrated to be wrong, and the evaluation of such questions on the basis of potential harm.) This is enough for any secularist or person who views morality in a similar vein. But allow me to play "angel's advocate" for a second, and give an alternative view and an argument upon its basis.
There are those who believe that morality is based on the nature of some authority, usually God, but occasionally the state or something else. On this view, morality is defined by the pronouncements of this authority, which understands the consequences of these things better than we possibly could and which presumably holds our ultimate best interests at heart.
If this authority holds that sex with animals is wrong, then no matter what reason and evidence we bring to bear, it can never be enough, since this authority holds superiority in both cases. Further, by disobeying this authority, one essentially destabilizes its great order, causing problems that one could not possibly foresee.
My question is, how should we respond to this form of authority-based morality? I generally reject its premise and move on, but there may be a better way to look at it.
zarfytezz1 1 point on 2016-04-21 17:22:14
I addressed this in argument 2. It's fundamentally flawed because it's circular. "X is wrong because Y says X is wrong." Such reasoning never allows for change, would condemn MLK as a criminal, etc. I don't think any thinking person accepts it as a serious argument, but I threw in a blurb about it in argument 2!
There's nothing stopping someone from believing in this sort of morality of course. But legally, it's almost indisputable that it wouldn't hold up; see Lawrence v Texas.
myloverhasfurCanidae 1 point on 2016-04-21 18:01:47
I don't think that there's a nice way around it except by rejecting its premise. I myself am a Christian, and, though I've struggled long and hard, I must conclude, if you accept its claims, that sex with animals as wrong. If you believe that there is a moral law that exists independent of what humanity believes or decides, then it's completely irrelevant what arguments you can make for something being right or wrong. However, if one does not accept that claim, I find nothing inherently objectionable with spending some "quality time" with a furry lover. Consequently, I don't think the legal system is the right place to condemn bestiality.
zarfytezz1 1 point on 2016-04-21 18:04:36
Exactly. I have no problem with people choosing, for whatever reason (I'll never comprehend it), to believe in systems of morality that reject the "harm principle," as long as they understand that it's not their place to impose those systems on others through the law. Glad to hear we have Christian allies!
incognito-cognition 1 point on 2016-04-26 02:28:31
For what it's worth, a lot of people don't "choose" to believe such things as much as they're indoctrinated into those beliefs from birth and some (or more) of their worldview is disrupted if that foundation is modified.
My family was not by any means full of religious nazis but they were pious, churchgoing people who did not take things like religion or sexual experience lightly. Even after more than a decade without their influence, I still have a hard time convincing myself that I won't end up roasting in hell for enjoying sex with someone, let alone someone four-legged, outside of marriage.
While the burden of proof in logical terms can be demonstrated to be "moral until proven immoral," for someone who has been told for 20, 40, 60, 80 years that nontraditional sex is immoral/unethical, I can empathize (for different reasons) with how it would be useful to know a true answer, and I can empathize with the innate doubt of how society might get such an obvious thing so very wrong, in so many pervasive ways.
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-04-21 17:56:33
Good read.
I like the points that /u/standerj brings up because it alludes to another argument that's often made: sex is fundamentally different than any other activity.
While I can agree you don't need sex for survival, you also don't need to plow a field for basic survival. And you certainly don't need meat to survive, yet millions of animals are slaughtered for that purpose.
One little thing tho. Zoophobia refers to irrational fear of animals, not discrimination against zoophiles :)
zarfytezz1 1 point on 2016-04-21 17:59:49
Thanks!
"Homophobia" used to not mean what it means today, either - I say it's time we define Zoophobia to suit our purposes and hope it sticks! I've already seen others use the word in that manner. It helps define our opposition as a political view, to be discussed and debated, rather than just "common sense; of course fucking animals is wrong" as many currently hold.
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-04-21 18:37:27
Maybe we should come up with a new, less ambiguous term? I've found a handful of references to "homophobia" as a synonym to "anthropophobia" in the early sixties, but as soon as the term was coined as "negative sentiments towards homosexuality," all other definitions have fallen out of use.
I've found a reference to "zoophobia" defined as an irrational fear of animals dating to 1888 and it still is the commonly accepted definition of that word today, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm sorry, I tend to obsess with words. But I think it's important to use the right ones in a serious argument.
As I pointed out in several previous occasions, the suffix (-phobia) is used to desribe psychological /mental issues and thus it is equally false to call hatred towards homosexuals "homophobia".
Arachnophobia is an intense fear of spiders, not the impulse to yell "spiders are unnatural", waving signs saying "god hates spiders".
If you want to express that someone hates on a certain group, you´ll have to use the Mis(o)- prefix like in misanthropy = hatred for humans, misogyny ( hae gynae = Woman, so: hate for women)...I´ve failed to come up with a witty little, easy to spell term yet, but to be taken serious and avoiding the underlying mockery of people with REAL phobiae, I propose something like Misozooerasteia/misozooerasty = hate for sexual love of animals (zooerasty actually is what zoophiles do when they get physical, not bestiality).
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-05-04 16:21:46
Yeah, I dislike the use of the suffix phobia to refer to negative sentiments towards a group of people, too. It's a loaded term. It implies irrationality. In some cases that's justified (homophobia cough cough), in others not so much.
But words are words. The meaning can change and etymologies ultimately mean very little. The suffix philia as nothing to do with sexual interest, but because of terms like "paraphilia, "pedophilia", "necrophilia" and etc. it is now categorically associated with sexual deviance. Which makes it ludicrous when used in non-sexual contexts (audiophile, bibliophile).
Ideally, I think we should combine zoo + erasty into a single prefix or word, but I have no idea what. Part of the reason is simplicity, the other is because I think every word that starts with zoo sounds absolutely ridiculous. Zoooooooo!
switcherinoreooooo 1 point on 2016-04-21 18:47:04
I have done the write up several times.
You can add to the civilized society argument the notion that societies have existed for tremendously long times that had religious constructs in which many a thing was derived from people having sex with animals. These societies WERE matter of factly the most civilized in the known world back then. If you make a locigal argument however it should work without any societal context which evidently can shift massively (oh we have monotheism now?)
You can add that the comparison child animal doesn't add up. If at all the correct comparison is child == cub, or kitten, or puppy. No one in their right mind would attempt sex with that. If they do = animal welfare case.
You can add to the STD argument the revealing counter question why we then allow millions of normal people to have dogs e.g. as pets if this contact is a source of STDs. Simply by their mass being so much larger, by far more people are licked 'normally' by their pets and have thus fluids exchanged, than are people 'kissing' sexually motivated with their pets. If STDs are so easily transfered they are a concern with this tiny group of 'intense-contacters', then we should outlaw pet dogs etc also for that massively huge group of casually normal 'contacters', because in a risk assessement the small and intense versus the massively huge and less intense contact will even be lopsided to the normal group. If anyone is introducing 'dog herpes' to people or some other stupid notion like this, then it will likely be a normal pet owner.
-Furbag- 2 points on 2016-04-22 04:06:13
Well put. I wish I could put it as succinctly as you do in that thread whenever the topic comes up elsewhere on the internet.
How do you feel about this one? Somebody replied with this today and I didn't really have a good answer for him, so I just conceded the point. The gist of the argument was that because humans possess a superior intellect, that sex with animals is de-facto abuse because we are taking advantage of the fact that they have a lower level of intelligence. It wasn't even really a consent argument, since they argued that even if the animal could consent in a meaningful way, we would still be taking advantage of them because they cannot possibly comprehend the ramifications of their actions or the actions of their owners.
I didn't really like it, but then again, I had nothing to say afterwards.
zarfytezz1 2 points on 2016-04-22 14:52:37
You have to redirect the conversation to the "harm principle." Say "That's great, but are you contending that, even if the animal is not harmed, and is at no risk of harm, it's still abusive?" If they try to argue that position, they're making a great concession by conceding the possibility of harm, and also rejecting the "Harm principle." My response to "Argument 8" then applies.
Also, their position sounds ridiculous. "Ramifications of their actions?" What ramifications would befall the animal, once your opponent concedes that harm does not occur? In all of these arguments that concede harm, simply substitute "petting the animal" for "having sex with the animal." Like so:
"Petting animals is de-facto abuse because we are taking advantage of the fact that they have a lower level of intelligence, and they don't understand that we're taking pleasure from that action."
Ask them: Why do they reject this statement, but accept its sexual analogue? Remember, it can't be "because sex might be harmful;" jump all over them if they even try that because their very argument is conceding harm; they're trying to argue that "Even if it's NOT harmful it's still wrong." I can't think of any possible answer they could come up with to this question that's meaningful.
__
Separately, you can argue that, if they're admitting they are arguing for a view of morality that is not harm-based, they must concede that their argument is legally invalid; ie, while they can use it to try to argue that zoophilia is immoral, they should admit that it should not be used to create laws. Reference Lawrence v Texas 2003, or corresponding EU court decisions, which invalidate all laws which prohibited consensual homosexual intercourse between humans: Morality alone does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest. Some abstract view of morality, based on religion or...whatever this guy's morality system is based on, if not harm...is not a compelling reason to restrict people's rights through the law. If he holds fast to this strange moral system, you can say "You can believe in whatever moral system you want, of course. Some people believe eating certain food is wrong for no other reason than their god telling them so. But can you at least admit, then, if this is your only reason for believing that zoophilia is immoral, that zoophilia should at least be legal; see Lawrence v Texas?"
/r/zoophilia archive
An excellent general survey of arguments against sex with animals! My only gripe is that it begins with a claim that it will "demonstrate that no such argument exists," and then lists off the common ones and debunks them, given the assumptions presented at the start. I agree entirely with these assumptions (presuming activities to be permissible until demonstrated to be wrong, and the evaluation of such questions on the basis of potential harm.) This is enough for any secularist or person who views morality in a similar vein. But allow me to play "angel's advocate" for a second, and give an alternative view and an argument upon its basis.
There are those who believe that morality is based on the nature of some authority, usually God, but occasionally the state or something else. On this view, morality is defined by the pronouncements of this authority, which understands the consequences of these things better than we possibly could and which presumably holds our ultimate best interests at heart.
If this authority holds that sex with animals is wrong, then no matter what reason and evidence we bring to bear, it can never be enough, since this authority holds superiority in both cases. Further, by disobeying this authority, one essentially destabilizes its great order, causing problems that one could not possibly foresee.
My question is, how should we respond to this form of authority-based morality? I generally reject its premise and move on, but there may be a better way to look at it.
I addressed this in argument 2. It's fundamentally flawed because it's circular. "X is wrong because Y says X is wrong." Such reasoning never allows for change, would condemn MLK as a criminal, etc. I don't think any thinking person accepts it as a serious argument, but I threw in a blurb about it in argument 2!
There's nothing stopping someone from believing in this sort of morality of course. But legally, it's almost indisputable that it wouldn't hold up; see Lawrence v Texas.
I don't think that there's a nice way around it except by rejecting its premise. I myself am a Christian, and, though I've struggled long and hard, I must conclude, if you accept its claims, that sex with animals as wrong. If you believe that there is a moral law that exists independent of what humanity believes or decides, then it's completely irrelevant what arguments you can make for something being right or wrong. However, if one does not accept that claim, I find nothing inherently objectionable with spending some "quality time" with a furry lover. Consequently, I don't think the legal system is the right place to condemn bestiality.
Exactly. I have no problem with people choosing, for whatever reason (I'll never comprehend it), to believe in systems of morality that reject the "harm principle," as long as they understand that it's not their place to impose those systems on others through the law. Glad to hear we have Christian allies!
For what it's worth, a lot of people don't "choose" to believe such things as much as they're indoctrinated into those beliefs from birth and some (or more) of their worldview is disrupted if that foundation is modified.
My family was not by any means full of religious nazis but they were pious, churchgoing people who did not take things like religion or sexual experience lightly. Even after more than a decade without their influence, I still have a hard time convincing myself that I won't end up roasting in hell for enjoying sex with someone, let alone someone four-legged, outside of marriage.
While the burden of proof in logical terms can be demonstrated to be "moral until proven immoral," for someone who has been told for 20, 40, 60, 80 years that nontraditional sex is immoral/unethical, I can empathize (for different reasons) with how it would be useful to know a true answer, and I can empathize with the innate doubt of how society might get such an obvious thing so very wrong, in so many pervasive ways.
Good read.
I like the points that /u/standerj brings up because it alludes to another argument that's often made: sex is fundamentally different than any other activity.
While I can agree you don't need sex for survival, you also don't need to plow a field for basic survival. And you certainly don't need meat to survive, yet millions of animals are slaughtered for that purpose.
One little thing tho. Zoophobia refers to irrational fear of animals, not discrimination against zoophiles :)
Thanks!
"Homophobia" used to not mean what it means today, either - I say it's time we define Zoophobia to suit our purposes and hope it sticks! I've already seen others use the word in that manner. It helps define our opposition as a political view, to be discussed and debated, rather than just "common sense; of course fucking animals is wrong" as many currently hold.
Maybe we should come up with a new, less ambiguous term? I've found a handful of references to "homophobia" as a synonym to "anthropophobia" in the early sixties, but as soon as the term was coined as "negative sentiments towards homosexuality," all other definitions have fallen out of use.
I've found a reference to "zoophobia" defined as an irrational fear of animals dating to 1888 and it still is the commonly accepted definition of that word today, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm sorry, I tend to obsess with words. But I think it's important to use the right ones in a serious argument.
I agree, just see this for example:
http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/library/zoophobia/
As I pointed out in several previous occasions, the suffix (-phobia) is used to desribe psychological /mental issues and thus it is equally false to call hatred towards homosexuals "homophobia". Arachnophobia is an intense fear of spiders, not the impulse to yell "spiders are unnatural", waving signs saying "god hates spiders".
If you want to express that someone hates on a certain group, you´ll have to use the Mis(o)- prefix like in misanthropy = hatred for humans, misogyny ( hae gynae = Woman, so: hate for women)...I´ve failed to come up with a witty little, easy to spell term yet, but to be taken serious and avoiding the underlying mockery of people with REAL phobiae, I propose something like Misozooerasteia/misozooerasty = hate for sexual love of animals (zooerasty actually is what zoophiles do when they get physical, not bestiality).
Yeah, I dislike the use of the suffix phobia to refer to negative sentiments towards a group of people, too. It's a loaded term. It implies irrationality. In some cases that's justified (homophobia cough cough), in others not so much.
But words are words. The meaning can change and etymologies ultimately mean very little. The suffix philia as nothing to do with sexual interest, but because of terms like "paraphilia, "pedophilia", "necrophilia" and etc. it is now categorically associated with sexual deviance. Which makes it ludicrous when used in non-sexual contexts (audiophile, bibliophile).
Ideally, I think we should combine zoo + erasty into a single prefix or word, but I have no idea what. Part of the reason is simplicity, the other is because I think every word that starts with zoo sounds absolutely ridiculous. Zoooooooo!
I have done the write up several times.
You can add to the civilized society argument the notion that societies have existed for tremendously long times that had religious constructs in which many a thing was derived from people having sex with animals. These societies WERE matter of factly the most civilized in the known world back then. If you make a locigal argument however it should work without any societal context which evidently can shift massively (oh we have monotheism now?)
You can add that the comparison child animal doesn't add up. If at all the correct comparison is child == cub, or kitten, or puppy. No one in their right mind would attempt sex with that. If they do = animal welfare case.
You can add to the STD argument the revealing counter question why we then allow millions of normal people to have dogs e.g. as pets if this contact is a source of STDs. Simply by their mass being so much larger, by far more people are licked 'normally' by their pets and have thus fluids exchanged, than are people 'kissing' sexually motivated with their pets. If STDs are so easily transfered they are a concern with this tiny group of 'intense-contacters', then we should outlaw pet dogs etc also for that massively huge group of casually normal 'contacters', because in a risk assessement the small and intense versus the massively huge and less intense contact will even be lopsided to the normal group. If anyone is introducing 'dog herpes' to people or some other stupid notion like this, then it will likely be a normal pet owner.
Well put. I wish I could put it as succinctly as you do in that thread whenever the topic comes up elsewhere on the internet.
How do you feel about this one? Somebody replied with this today and I didn't really have a good answer for him, so I just conceded the point. The gist of the argument was that because humans possess a superior intellect, that sex with animals is de-facto abuse because we are taking advantage of the fact that they have a lower level of intelligence. It wasn't even really a consent argument, since they argued that even if the animal could consent in a meaningful way, we would still be taking advantage of them because they cannot possibly comprehend the ramifications of their actions or the actions of their owners.
I didn't really like it, but then again, I had nothing to say afterwards.
You have to redirect the conversation to the "harm principle." Say "That's great, but are you contending that, even if the animal is not harmed, and is at no risk of harm, it's still abusive?" If they try to argue that position, they're making a great concession by conceding the possibility of harm, and also rejecting the "Harm principle." My response to "Argument 8" then applies.
Also, their position sounds ridiculous. "Ramifications of their actions?" What ramifications would befall the animal, once your opponent concedes that harm does not occur? In all of these arguments that concede harm, simply substitute "petting the animal" for "having sex with the animal." Like so:
"Petting animals is de-facto abuse because we are taking advantage of the fact that they have a lower level of intelligence, and they don't understand that we're taking pleasure from that action."
Ask them: Why do they reject this statement, but accept its sexual analogue? Remember, it can't be "because sex might be harmful;" jump all over them if they even try that because their very argument is conceding harm; they're trying to argue that "Even if it's NOT harmful it's still wrong." I can't think of any possible answer they could come up with to this question that's meaningful.
__
Separately, you can argue that, if they're admitting they are arguing for a view of morality that is not harm-based, they must concede that their argument is legally invalid; ie, while they can use it to try to argue that zoophilia is immoral, they should admit that it should not be used to create laws. Reference Lawrence v Texas 2003, or corresponding EU court decisions, which invalidate all laws which prohibited consensual homosexual intercourse between humans: Morality alone does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest. Some abstract view of morality, based on religion or...whatever this guy's morality system is based on, if not harm...is not a compelling reason to restrict people's rights through the law. If he holds fast to this strange moral system, you can say "You can believe in whatever moral system you want, of course. Some people believe eating certain food is wrong for no other reason than their god telling them so. But can you at least admit, then, if this is your only reason for believing that zoophilia is immoral, that zoophilia should at least be legal; see Lawrence v Texas?"