Recently, the question occurred to me about this sub and some other similar places.
The question is "Why do you think sex with animals is wrong?"
It is pretty obvious with the convoluted arguments that are being made here that sex with an animal is wrong. I'm not sure how "love" or "emotional connection" or "transcendental physics" can change the fact that an act is wrong.
So, can you please explain to me why sex with animals is wrong and requires a set of special rules to make it okay? You can start with the rules we would also apply to heterosexual sex if you like and work your way out from there, explaining why each difference is a requirement to make sex with animals "less bad". It might be valuable to view these exceptions in the light of our social expectations of other interactions with animals and the requirements thereof.
Please note, I am talking about sex. Not love, not close emotional bonds but the physical act of bestiality.
'cuz quite frankly, if that is your starting point, you should stop what you are doing with animals.
Why is your starting point that anything other then hetro, with same species the only thing that is right?
If that is your starting point and the only way you feel your opinion might change is by "going from there" then it's clear your opinion will not change.
Defining it by any other means is the same as saying masturbation is wrong because it does not result in the creation of offspring.
I did not say this was my starting point, but that it seems a common attitude on this sub. My question is to highlight the issue and get some thoughts on it.
My starting point is that there is nothing wrong with it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Oh, that was a big misunderstanding on my part.
No worries, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the idea I see expressed here abouts regarding sex with animals. I did ask it in a controversial way. Many of the arguments I see from zoophiles come from a place of "sex with animals" is wrong.
It's one thing to put our best foot forward in mixed company when we are challenged but entirely another to gate keep or shame people for enjoying something that causes no harm.
self loathing is a step every zoo takes on the way to accepting themselves. Its our job to support to help them get over it themselves rather than pointing out why they are wrong.
Well, I don't think sex without love is wrong, even with an animal. But you have to show respect, remember that it's a living being, an individual. No one, human or otherwise, should be treated like a living sex toy (unless they've specified that is their wish). You have to remember the language barrier with animals. Doesn't mean it's impossible to communicate with animals, but because we do speak "different languages" in some regards, you should take your time to learn that language and be sure of the animal's well-being before having sex. Among zoophiles, this kind of respect seems to be a common requirement. But among bestiality fetishists I've talked to, they don't seem to get it. They talk about dogs as if they are living dildos, they might train or bribe the animals for sex, and don't seem to care much about the well-being of the animals used in porn. A generalization, sure, but quite often the truth.
The argument that zoophilia is love as well, I think it's more pointed towards those who think that people who sleep with animals only do so because of desperation or perversion. The truth is more complicated than that. By showing that it's not about desperate men who can't get women chosing to rape animals, you can break a stereotype and make them listen. Some people who were very anti, when I told them that some people really do fall in love with animals, were shocked at first. Then they started to think. The idea of actual romantic attraction to an animal had not even occurred to them.
Sex is wrong until proven not to be abuse. That is roughtly the norm. It has nothing to do with the fact we are talking about animals, gays or whatever you have in mind.
I think of it in the opposite way, sex is okay until proven to be abuse.
agreed
Logic isn't what these people operate on so using logic towards them to try to make them realise the error in their arguments is futile. These people need to be told what to think and societies voice is louder than ours (for now).
I don't think it's wrong just like how any other 'kind' sex isn't wrong.
But I'll tell you my likes and dislikes of bestiality.
Wrong
1. The animals can be raped without anyone's knowledge.
Animals have their own language, but they can't tell you if they have been raped or not.
2. Animals are seen as sex toys.
Ofcourse, real zoophiles who actually care about animals don't think this.
However, most bestialists think like this.
It's pretty sad if you think animals are just for sex.
Animals have so much potential, and yet people waste all of that to use them as a sex toy.
Also fencehopping is a big part of it too.
It's wrong to have sex with other people's animals without them knowing.
It doesn't sound right, but animals are property.
You can't just do stuff with animals without their owner knowing, and I already think it's wrong to have sex with anyone you don't have a relationship with.
One of the reasons to have a partner is sex, no, not to use as a sex toy, but if you're horny your partner can help you with that.
I mean, I'd be shocked for my fucking life if I've found out that someone shagged my girl. No mercy for the unlucky degenerate who'd ever try that.
Good
1. You help them release stress.
Animals, just like us, can feel horny.
If you have sex with them while they're horny, you help them relieve.
Sex is a part of their lives and can feel stress if you don't help them relieve that horny feeling, and it's kind of cruel.
2. You can both enjoy it.
It's even better when you both enjoy it, right?
It's fun, too.
This will release both of your sexual thoughts, as partners.
You can feel the emotional bond when you're both enjoying things together, that's the same for sex.
But ofcourse, the animal needs to show she/he is into it.
No forcing going on.
Really, it boggles my mind that people don't think animals can't consent to sex.
It's so medieval to think like that, we've got the obvious truth in front of our faces but people ignore it because of bigoted reasons.
So...
I'm in a dilemma, should bestiality be legal?
I'm leaning towards yes, but what about rape?
It's a discrimination against us, we don't do that.
I don't think anyone that would rape an animal would care about the laws in the first place, while a real zoophile would think about it because that zoophile cares about the wellbeing of their partner, and you know what happens when the cops find out that you had sex with them...
But if you want a shorter answer:
When talking about sex, there is not really a 'wrong' if the non-human animal/human wasn't abused, forced, drugged and for an animal: fucked without their owner's permission.
The problem is this: animals can't talk.
With humans, it's possible to know in great details how a situation has affected them or what intentions motivated a particular action. With animals, we are left with nothing than conjecture.
Even if animals don't have a language as sophisticated as a human's, they can still communicate. This means that it is possible, to some extent, to assess the state of mind and wants of an animal. However, thorough knowledge of the specie's methods of communication and of the individual animal are absolutely necessary to make sure this assessment is accurate.
There's an excellent philosophy paper by Neil Levy, called "What (if Anything) is Wrong with Bestiality?". It goes through the various arguments, from violating the hierarchy of man and beast, to the comparison with pedophilia and the skewed power dynamic. All of these are logically debunked from utilitarian and virtue ethical grounds, with the conclusion that zoophilia is not wrong on ethical grounds. In the second part, the author argues that the taboo against bestiality may still be rational as a defining limitation of humanity as we know it. Though this argument is overly broad (it applies equally well to the taboo on homosexuality, or any other widely held taboo), I might use it to argue against bestiality in practice if I were forced to do so.
When one has sex with animals, one enters a world of experience few other humans can relate to. If done once, or only a few times, it may be a secret shame of adolescence which one takes pains to forget. If, on the other hand, it becomes habitual over a longer term, it causes one to make drastic changes in life to survive, including secrecy and difficulty in relationships with humans. Either way, it causes its share of psychological scarring, and makes one overall less fit for human company. This detachment from humanity, great or small, is a moral ill, and better avoided altogether.
Why do you feel it "makes one overall less fit for human company"?
And what does habit have to do with any of this?
The goal of this thread, as I understand it, is to explain the taboo against bestiality in a rational way. To most people, if you have sex with animals, it means you're missing some fundamental part of humanity, one which biases you toward humans over other creatures. Also, by spending time, resources, and emotional energy on nonhuman animals, you are in some way robbing society of those resources, to which other people are entitled. This is especially true of long term relationships with animals, over years or even decades.
To be clear, I personally reject this view, because I think individuals should be free to decide for themselves how to live so long as they don't harm others too much in the long run. But from the standpoint of one who thinks the needs of a larger society come first, or even that one must prioritize humans over other species, these are the sorts of reasons that make bestiality wrong even in cases without explicit harm to an animal or person.
Sex with animals doesn't require special rules. I don't know what you're on about.
Required for sex not to be wrong: continuing consent, care for the other partner, general absence of harm.
All three can apply to sex with animals, and all three may apply to sex with humans.
No comparison to heterosexual human-on-human sex necessary.
I don't even really get what you're on about here.
I think it could have been stated more clearly. "Taboo" instead of wrong.
For me, that's the entire sum of law and societal objections to bestiality: the "eeew" factor. Most religions say it's wrong and even punishable by death, because it's seen as deviant (and by some measures zoophilia is one of the rarest paraphilias, with less than 1℅ of the population identifying.)
I think homosexuality is a great comparison point. There's nothing wrong with same-sex boinking, yet death penalties still exist for it. Makes no sense. It's a cultural artifact.
The consent argument, which is important for zoophiles who are on the wrong side of a cultural prejudice, is kind of a straw man. How many people got consent to eat a burger, own a cat, wear leather shoes, and so on? But it is a way for zoos to distinguish themselves from animal abusers.
Bestiality is taboo culturally. There isn't a good reason for it. In some areas it's not so taboo, farm boys have released steam on the livestock in a tribal society (sorry I can't cite source, probably Jesse Bering's article). And I'm not sure if you can really dissect *why" it's taboo. Probably as a way to define a small religious group against the immoral greater world 2700 years ago.
Is a sexual relationship between a mother and her adult son wrong, if both diligently use protection? I'm not comparing incest and bestiality, only pointing to a knee-jerk emotional response of "wrong" that's a powerful cultural bias, but not necessarily a true ethical evaluation.
Right and wrong are often determined by cultural consensus, not logical argument.
Why is it wrong in the first place ? U seem to be starting from a place that says its wrong so explain why it should be ok. Sex is not good or bad, right or wrong, sex is just sex and its how you do it determine whether its right or wrong. My example would be heterosexual sex, just to be simple if hetro sex is good dues that mean that rape is good too? See what I mean u can't just paint every one with a broad brush it has to be case by case unless u can find some universal problem that's inherent to the act.
P.S I realized that sex with animals is wrong is not your position but I was responding the article the way u wrote it. No hard feelings.
I personlaly don't believe sex with animals is inherently wrong, So long as everything is done with consideration and respect towards the animal you are having sex with.
It's just too easy for people to use and abuse them.