I once heard a comment that went something like this: Bestiality is one area where the left and right can come together. The right thinks it’s wrong because of sexual holiness, the left because of animal rights. The rest of us just say “who cares?”. Originally I was on the animal rights side of the issue, shocked that anyone could have a who-cares attitude. But thinking about it for this post I’m not so sure.
The holiness argument doesn’t need much refutation. It’s wholly religious. But if you’re religious, you’d also need to classify 100 other sexual activities as unholy, eg. NOT marrying your dead husband’s brother (Deut 25:5-10). There’s no secular holiness argument against bestiality [that I'm aware of] that doesn’t use the naturalistic fallacy (drawing moral conclusions from statements about how nature is). But the animal rights argument isn’t obvious either:
- If you say it’s wrong as the animal can’t consent, this would rule out any contact with the animal that it would not perform without you. This prohibits all pet ownership, perhaps even rescuing kittens from a trees.
- Maybe the distinction is that pet ownership don’t harm the animal (and even benefits it) but having sex harms/traumatises it. But surely non-abusive bestiality is at least possible (
Skatje makes this argumentEDIT: link is broken). - Maybe it’s wrong because though it may not harm the animal, it won’t benefit it. But this prohibits many other actions. If you’re driving and a cow blocks the road you wouldn’t be allowed to move it out of the way because, although it wouldn’t harm the cow, it wouldn’t benefit it either.
Which brings us to the elephant in the room. How is it even remotely possible for anyone to think it’s ok to kill animals for food and NOT ok to use animals for sex? I don’t want to discuss meat-eating or animal rights in this post — but surely you could never make a reasonable distinction. If you argue that meat eating is necessary for survival, even then it would only be ok to eat meat on VERY rare occasions. Most people are ok with eating meat for enjoyment’s sake alone. But then you should also be able to use an animal for sexual enjoyment, if this is something you’re into (even if this harms the animal since slaughter obviously doesn’t benefit the animal much).
There’s a very exclusive underground restaurant in Tokyo where “members pay a hefty fee at the door to be allowed to…’have their way’ with the animal of their choice – which is subsequently killed, cooked and served to the violator and his party for dinner”. Though I’d love to find a way to morally distinguish between the 1st part of the meal and the 2nd, I don’t think this is possible. On the bright side, it shows there’s at least some objectivity in morality, since reason gives a different answer to the gut. So, either bestiality isn’t wrong or meat-eating is; you must make a choice.
66 comments ↓
From a utilitarian perspective, torture and rape should be worse crimes than murder, no? You could make the argument that bestiality in the case of that restaurant is akin to torture/rape, if it hurts the animal – which I think it is very likely to do. I eat meat, but I prefer that meat to come from animals that have been treated well and had a quick, more or less painless death. Being a meat-eater doesn’t mean I think it’s ok to treat animals any which way!
I think most meat eaters would agree but as I said I was only talking about a case where the animal is not harmed. Obviously there are problems with measuring this but there are cases where animals actually approach humans for sex:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/04/uk.dolphin/
So I guess this would be an extreme case: surely if eating meat is ok having sex with this dolphin would be ok?
From a more realistic perspective all people know the basic signs of an animal that’s in distress, so if these signs were absent I think the torture argument disappears.
This post resulted in several intriguing discussions (with predictable reactions from by-standers). There was an interesting point made from a Darwinian perspective. If bestiality starts to compete with procreation this could harm our species. It’s a bit of a long shot, but it’s a shift from looking at individual harm to potential collective harm.
Obviously it’s an extreme example where we die out because everyone would rather screw dolphins, but I wonder if such harm could be measured statistically.
Oh and I guess this point is much more relevant to homosexuality…
I’m surprised someone in your conversation made this “Darwinian” comparison. That this argument can be used with equal force against homosexuality (or childlessness in general) only undermines the ARGUMENT, not homosexuality, childlessness etc.
Just to be contrarian — given the catastrophic population sizes we’ll be seeing in the next 20 years, any person who chooses not to reproduce can be considered contributing to the collective good.
Of course reproduction is not the same as sex, and as reproductive technology improves and cheapens this will not be relevant at all as any gay, lesbian, celibate or whatever person will be able to have kids.
Finally, on the extreme side the same argument can be used for ANY activity that could be competing with hetero-penetrative-sex-without-contraception: including work, reading, going to the movies etc.
…and, of course, the argument isn’t “Darwinian” at all, as evolution has nothing to do with the good of the species…
Beastiality is morally wrong, animals are meant to be with animals of their ow kind. Or else why dont cats have sex with dogs. Or mice with snakes. This matter is common sense. What human being in there right mind would find an animal sexually attractive? There is no doubt in my mind that those who do are mentally ill and might have suffered from sexual abuse. Animals are defenseless in the hands of man {male and female} so are children. Hence the reason why animals share a fondness of children. ie zoo animals that have rescued children in accidental cases. I feel truly sorry for those with this sick fetish. I dont mean sick in a bad way but literaly.
Hi Destiny, thanks for commenting. I think you’d have to agree that “animals are meant to be with animals of their ow kind” will not convince anyone who didn’t believe it already, which is what arguments generally try to do. Anyhow, inter-species sex does happen in the animal kingdom.
I’m not sure animals that rescue children have a different attitude to them as adults, adults get rescued by animals too. Also animals often attack defenceless young of other species too (including human children).
If you think it’s wrong because animals are defenceless, as per my post, are you also a vegetarian for the same reason?
This is a very convoultued post. It has not developed into a simple arguement for or against bestiality. Rather, it has incorperated food choices, homosexulality, evolution theory, over population, mental illness, and ‘morality’ (which in my mind is a whisper thin veil for “do what I do because that is what I know”). However it is intriguing discussion.
What I fail to see clearly outlined in any of the discussions are the 2 most fundamental issues: Consent and Harm.
Harm is the most easily addessed. If a female mammal is not ‘in-heat’, it is an assault. She percieves it as such and reacts accordingly. If you have ever spent time on a farm, you would know this. Harm cannot be measured by offspring obviously. As to psychological trauma, I cannot comment other than to say I have seen ewes eating again a few moments after ram tried to mount her when she was not receptive.
Consent is a sticky issue. Prized males of many species are used as sperm donors. And that is not surgically obtained. Most often, they are aroused purposefully and allowed to ‘finish up’ in a collection container. You cannot force males to ‘finish up’ if they feel threat or harm. That part of mammalian anatomy turns off.
I really dont know where to come down on this other than to say, who is harming whom? Can an animal consent? I hope any rational reader would concede that the well being of the offspring is not an issue. What if a shepherd used a ewe in heat to staisfy his own biologial imperative. Were either of them harmed? What if a young woman played with the German Shephard she raised from a pup? I am not sure I have the right or the need to step in and stop either of those senarios, or to judge them. It is not what I would chose. But what I do and dont chose does not make me an authority on anyone else’s choices.
Hi Craig, thanks for commenting. However I don’t see any discussion of homosexuality, evolution, overpopulation in the post etc — do you mean the comment discussion?
The post itself aimed to make the single point that it’s hypocritical to think that it’s ok to kill an animal for food (as most people do) but NOT to have sex with it (as most people once again do). Your discussion of animal physiology whist relevant to the discussion doesn’t disprove the original idea.
However if you suggest that male farm animals cannot ejaculate if they feel threatened you wouldn’t have the problem of a double standard since from your comments you seem to conclude that this means there are no grounds to condemn bestiality.
A counterargument to what you said though would be when an animal is being penetrated (and thus there is no mechanism to test if it’s threatened or not) — would you then have some kind of other criteria for when it’s “consent” vs “rape”?
I’m a vegetarian, so I’m going to fall on the ‘wrong to eat meat’ side of things. However I have no real problem with non-harmful bestiality. If a dog can enjoy having his/her ear rubbed, why not another part of their anatomy? Specific dogs (or horses, sheep, dolphins, unicorns, etc) might have different reactions to different people touching them in different ways, but it’s difficult to say with a straight face that all members of a species will react a certain way. It flies in the face of all science and practical experience.
Regarding Felicia’s reasoning… I cannot agree. In the case of torture or rape there is the possibility of things getting better. You could use your pain to draw attention to the plight of your fellow victims, and possibly prevent others from suffering your fate. It would be a bit of a phyric victory, and definately a remote one in some cases, but it is something. With murder though, there is no possibility of improvement or recovery.
Consent is a tricky issue. But animals do have teeth, claws, and hooves, and their subtle little ways of letting you know if they don’t like something. Beyond that people assume consent is either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. But a lot of the time consent is also a matter of ‘I don’t give a damn one way or another’. If a house cat jumps into my lap and starts pawing my leg, I have not consented, but don’t really mind either.
Oh, and further to what Michael said above, if animals cannot consent (at all) then it follows that they cannot consent to having sex with each other, and extinction becomes an ethical duty.
Most other (ahem) intelligently contrived arguments against bestiality fail basic examination in similar ways.
ANTI, that’s a very consistent position (as per the post I haven’t actually thought about it enough, I was just pointing out the conclusion that if bestiality is wrong meat-eating is also wrong.
However I don’t agree with your last paragraph. If we say animals can’t consent to an action that we believe requires consent then this just stops us from performing that action on the animal. It doesn’t obligate us to stop them doing it to each other.
As an example, if you say it’s wrong for humans to eat animal meat you wouldn’t (presumably) say that it’s an ethical duty for all meat-eating by all creatures to stop (and hence for everyone to become extinct).
Michael… It would depend on your position regarding consent. Most regard sex without consent as automatic rape, and something that must be actively opposed, irrespective of whether we are the one performing the act or not. I brought it up because it is an argument used against bestiality.
My point wasn’t that organized extinction was moral, but that the traditional arguments against bestiality are all very silly. Either animals can consent, or they can’t. If they can, bestiality is okay, if they can’t then rape is the ‘natural’ default for their sexual experiences, and hence the nature argument means bestiality is okay as well. Or we stop them from having sex altogether. A logical examination of the claim fails to reach the ‘desired’ conclusion.
Here’s an even sillier argument. If you define animals as non humans, then it follows this also includes fictional animals, like dragons, unicorns, and vulcans from Star Trek. Which means that characters like Spock are the product of bestiality, and that shows like Star Trek with cross-species couples not only promote certain (limited) forms of bestiality, but stand as proof public acceptance of said (limited) forms of bestiality. Getting even sillier, werewolves (who can change from human to non-human) can be used to create some particularly convoluted and entertaining scenarios…
Of course that’s entirely theoretical. But principles of ethics, like the laws of physics, should hold under theoretical scenarios. That’s why we ask questions about people standing on train tracks and (completely unrealistically) not noticing the large train approaching them at high speed. Like physics, if ethical guidelines come up with ‘wrong’ answers, or fail completely, then they are probably flawed.
More seriously, and to answer your question at the end, my belief it that it is wrong to cause suffering and/or kill for personal pleasure. (The same root cause for my objection to bullying.) The vast majority of humans don’t need to eat meat, they chose to. I’ve no objection to killing in self-defence though, or hunting in survival situations. I just wish for it to be avoided where at all possible. It might be hypocritical of me, but under this rule carnivores have a bit of a get out clause.
If only they didn’t look so gosh darned cute, and have such obvious higher levels of intelligence then herbivores. Both traits I find highly admirable and worthy of protection. Oh the irony…
I’m still not sure about how the argument carries over to animals — you seem to be saying that if say animals can consent and there’s a particular case where an animal does not consent (ie. “rape” of an animal by another) we are obligated to stop it in the same way we’d be obligated to stop humans.
In the same way you seem to be saying that not only would it be wrong for humans to cause suffering by killing animals but that it would be wrong for carnivores as well? Or am I misinterpreting? If not, I’m not sure how this follows.
In any case I can’t see how carnivores can be problematic since they require meat.
>>you seem to be saying that [...] where an animal does not consent we are obligated to stop it in the same way we’d be obligated to stop humans.
No, I am pointing out that the opposition to bestiality claim that, “it is always the case that an animal cannot ever give consent of any kind in any way under any circumstances. Therefore any sexual interaction is rape and must be prevented.” That is not my claim. I believe this view to be false, and my proof is that if their claim was true, then animal-animal sex would be rape, and under their morals, must therefore be prevented with equal vigor.
I believe animals can give and signal consent. I believe that humans can learn these signals (like we learn a foreign language, or how to operate machinery). And that some animals can learn/create new signals that humans can more easily recognize. If a dog dropped a leash in my lap, I might assume she wants a walk. If she drops her food bowl in my lap, I might assume she is hungry. If she drops a vibrator in my lap… Well, she *might* want a game of fetch…
>>If not, I’m not sure how this follows.
It is wrong to cause pain and suffering if you can avoid it. A simple application of The Golden Rule. Humans can live their lives without harming animals. They can chose. Wolves and tigers can’t chose. They lack the mental capacity and (in the wild) the biological option. Basically what you said in your last sentence.
the bestiality claim can be modified to a slightly different version: “it’s always the case that an animal can’t consent…therefore any sexual interaction is rape and must be prevented if the perpetrator is a moral agent” — this claim might have other weaknesses but it doesn’t have the implication you mention.
but basically i of course agree with you in that i’ve never seen a sound argument that bestiality is wrong.
Just a thought (on the human side) – why is consent the big deal? Surely that is mostly a moral disgust argument, it should be the harm (psychological, possibly due to the lack of consent) physical and emotional.
Anyway, true or not animals cannot give their consent to anything even if they wanted to, not in any legal sense (you have to understand what you are consenting to). They are like children in that the owner (parent) has a duty to them and also has control over them.
So it must fall on the harm issue. Does the act harm the animal – in most cases no so that must be fine but in cases where the animal is harmed the owner should be punished.
Problem, what if it is someone else’s animal and the owner hasn’t given consent?
If an animal can be unnecessarily killed for food (humans can survive perfectly well on vegetarian diet and if the population grows we may have to) then we can do anything we want to them isn’t torturing them.
Michael…
> the bestiality claim can be modified to a slightly different version: “it’s always the case that an animal can’t consent…therefore any sexual interaction is rape and must be prevented if the perpetrator is a moral agent� Problem, what if it is someone else’s animal and the owner hasn’t given consent?<
I assume you mean in the event that the animal consented (in the emotional, not legal sense)? There might be a charge of trespassing. But nothing *needs* to happen. The owner can make the accusation of abuse, but without physical evidence of harm, there should be no legal case.
Or if we get a little fanciful, I can imagine the distraught ‘lover’ suing the owner for custody.
NB: Last post malfunctioned for some reason. Second try.
Michael…
>> the bestiality claim can be modified to a slightly different version: “it’s always the case that an animal can’t consent…therefore any sexual interaction is rape and must be prevented if the perpetrator is a moral agent�
This does though require that animals are not moral agents, and that humans are. I am reluctant to endorse such arbitrary distinctions between one species of the animal kingdom and everything else. Over the past few decades science has shown an increasingly large list of such distinctions are actually false. The idea that there is anything fundamental that separates us from the animals is actually very much pre-darwinian, and not entirely compatible with that theory. We are of course the most skilled tool makers, tool users, and communicators on the planet, but I believe it is false to say we have any gifts or capacities that are uniquely ours.
I believe it has been shown that some species of animals, the great apes, some monkeys, and to a much lesser extent dogs, do have a sense of morality and thus can be said to be moral agents. As such while I would agree your modified statement reduces the scope of the problem it does not eliminate it.
Keddaw…
>>Problem, what if it is someone else’s animal and the owner hasn’t given consent?
I assume you mean in the event that the animal consented (in the emotional, not legal sense)? There might be a charge of trespassing. But nothing *needs* to happen. The owner can make the accusation of abuse, but without physical evidence of harm, there should be no legal case.
Or if we get a little fanciful, I can imagine the distraught ‘lover’ suing the owner for custody.
So, if you pimp out your bitch (sorry), it is no different to loaning someone your car?
And if you can sue the owner for custody of your ‘lover’ does that not bring into play the concept of marriage???
And if you’re muslim in Afghanistan does that mean the animal cannot deny their ‘husband’ more than four nights in a row?
ANTI — good point: if i saw a great ape assaulting another great ape i WOULD feel much more obliged to interfere than say a crocodile against a crocodile. but not sure if it’s because i take the perpetrator to be the moral agent or the victim.
>So, if you pimp out your bitch (sorry), it is no different to loaning someone your car?And if you can sue the owner for custody of your ‘lover’ does that not bring into play the concept of marriage?And if you’re muslim in Afghanistan<
Which I’m not. And again, you’re wondering off topic. What does 21st century enforcement of 14th century interpretations of a 9th century reconstruction of the 8th century ramblings of a illiterate shepherd have to do with the sexual ethics of bestiality?
Damn stupid html interpreter…
>So, if you pimp out your bitch (sorry), it is no different to loaning someone your car?
I think you’ve been drinking too much caffeine. You’re bouncing around all sorts of ethical issues like a hyperactive child. What do you want to talk about? Bestiality, sexual fidelity/swinging, or prostitution?
Under western social ethics, which I do not agree with, yes, selling or loaning an animal for sex should be no different to selling it for meat, or experimentation, or entertainment. The fact that it might invoke a more squeamish reaction from you than (say) the activities within a slaughter house does not make it less moral than a slaughter house.
But if my hypothetical bitch enjoyed having her hears rubbed, and I (shock!) allowed someone else to rub her ears, and she enjoys it… How is that different from gently stroking her nipples, or teasing her with a well lubed vibrator, or indeed sex? You may not like it, but why should I give a damn? What difference do *your* likes and dislikes make to myself, or my hypothetical bitch or friend?
>And if you can sue the owner for custody of your ‘lover’ does that not bring into play the concept of marriage?
Marriage is a legal umbrella term covering a variety of ownership, inheritance, contractual, and tax laws. (In the western term we also imbue it with romantic notions, but this is historically a recent idea. The ‘sacred institute’ crap the religious right like to harp on about is even newer than that.) I suppose there might be a marginal loss to the state if a tiny minority of people chose to marry an animal for the purposes of paying 5% less tax but I can imagine no other harmful effects of this idea. Having a mentally incapacitated spouse would make adoption impossible.
And what makes you think the idea of marriage is desirable to zoophiles? They’ve already chosen to abandon yawahian morality for a (significantly!) more secular (and saner!) system, and have by definition chosen not to have children. Beyond a lamentable desire to proclaim their love from the roof tops, why would they want to get married?
>And if you’re muslim in Afghanistan
Which I’m not. And again, you’re wondering off topic. What does 21st century enforcement of 14th century interpretations of a 9th century reconstruction of the 8th century ramblings of a illiterate shepherd have to do with the sexual ethics of bestiality?
ANTI – did you read my previous post (pre-pimping)?
It quite clearly shows that I think the joining of two species in a carnal act is fine so long as neither participant is harmed.
All arguments against it go towards disgust.
And what’s wrong with throwing ideas around like a hyperactive child on caffeine throwing a tantrum? Anything that makes you think must be good.
Keddaw – did you read my previous post (pre-pimping)?
I did read it. However the phrase ‘pimping yo bitch’ has negative implications. So does implying that this leading to marriage would be bad. As does comparing it to behavior of extremist Islam. In a prior post you also seemed to compare animals to children, and thus bestiality to child abuse. With respect, you might have been sending mixed message.
If I misread your post, I apologise. If you intended to be sarcastic or ironic… That doesn’t always work on the internet.
ANTI,
pimping has negative connotations ONLY if you consider prostitution to be bad… It was also a play on words.
Marriage – i was saying if you can sue for ownership of your ‘lover’ how is that much different from taking a daughter from a father in a marriage?
I did not compare bestiality to child abuse, I was simply saying that informed consent is assumed not to be possible for any legal contract for a child. I would assume that no court would ever assume informed consent was ever possible by an animal either – not (necessarily) sexual, simply legal.
“If you intended to be sarcastic or ironic… That doesn’t always work on the internet.”
Doesn’t always work in real life either
(Skatje makes this argument) this link doesn’t work yet.
It worked but it’s now broken — I think she must have had a server crash — I’ll strike it out, thanks
What about this situation (based on a joke) – a dog grabs your leg and starts humping. Normally we push the animal off; it’s something that give most people get no enjoyment. But the joke goes “what do you do if a pitbull humps your leg? Fake orgasm.”
If you don’t push them off and the male humps till ejaculation, is that consensual or rape? If rape, who is raping? Or is it similar to drawing samples for artificial insemination? Ok, same situation but instead of just the leg, a person submissively kneels (ick!) The animal has done the same behavior, only the state of the human has changed. If there is no actual damage of the animal from this, except from the noted ick factor, where does harm enter here?
A cartoon I saw once asked (when petting the belly of a male dog) ‘When does belly hair turn to pubic hair?’ If you get pleasure from petting the animal (not a natural state, how many feral wild animals stand still for petting?) and the animal is happier for it AND actually moved your hand so as to cause you to pet them; where is the assault? You are invading their space and they cannot give consent.
I think that there is a gray-area with animals: consent can be explicitly given (pet me) and can be explicity denied (grrrrr BITE! YOWL..) and that when it is explicitly denied, it becomes clear molestation.
It’s definitely a very…murky topic.
So far, I’ve been seeing two distinct arguments being made, not just on this page but on other websites as well. Bestiality is one of those topics where both sides are right, but each side asserts that the other side is wrong, and everyone ends up in a huge stalemate.
1. Religion
Against bestiality: The Bible explicitly states that sleeping with an animal is forbidden. I’m not going to quote the passages, since you’ve all heard them before.
For bestiality: If the person is for bestiality (and perhaps has already engaged in the act himself/herself), s/he obviously doesn’t give too much of a damn about religion.
2. Consent
Against: The animal is very much like a child in that it is incapable of verbally consenting to sex; therefore, having sex with the animal is by definition “raping” it or manipulating it.
For: The person engaging in the act of bestiality would argue that the animal’s consent is given by the fact that it is willing to engage in sex in the first place. If the woman bends over and the dog mounts up, is that consent? The pro-bestiality woman would certainly argue it so.
For: Also, if the animal is incapable of expressing consent, it is therefore unlawful for animals to have sex even amongst other animals of its own species, since animals cannot give consent.
Against: The animal’s sexual rights are irrelevant; the matter at hand is that animals cannot consent to sex with humans.
For: Then what makes humans different than dogs?
So yeah. Whenever I get into an argument with someone over whether or not bestiality is ethically correct, I’m always defeated on the premise that all of the anti-bestiality reasons have inherent flaws–in other words, the pro-beast argument is primarily centered around proving that bestiality is -not wrong-, as opposed to proving that it is -right-.
However, I am still personally against the act, partly due to personal bias. All of the people who I know who engage in the act do so because they are unhealthily compensating for a social deficit that they possess: either they have no friends, or they’re too shy to go get a boyfriend/girlfriend, or something along those lines. As a result, they turn to their house pets, since it leads them to believe that their pet “loves” them, and therefore they garner the satisfaction that they are “loved” by something.
This is an unhealthy practice because in their compensation these people are using bestiality as a crutch, as an excuse to not go out and actually solve their problem. I’ve found that once they’ve been with their house pet for a while they lose the incentive to go get friends or a boyfriend/girlfriend at all, at which point they’re ultimately no better off than when they first started. In other words, these people get so used (or, arguably, addicted) to the crutch that they never learn to cast it aside and actually walk.
I am sure that there are others in the world who practice bestiality and are otherwise fine, upstanding people, with plenty of friends and a boyfriend or girlfriend and all of that. However, I do not know any of those people, and for the general population I consider bestiality too great of a risk in that regard.
Furthermore, just thinking about it empathetically, here. I’m male. If my girlfriend or my hypothetical wife came up to me and said that she’d be screwing a dog, I wouldn’t necessarily be disgusted, but I would start to become suspicious of how much she actually loves me. If she loved me enough, why would she have turned to a dog? Was I not good enough for her? Does she value the dog more than she values me?
I would probably, now that I think about it, end up breaking up with her and going out with someone else. Even if I did really like her, why would I waste my time with a woman who I’m unsure about when I could go find other women who are more faithful?
Overall, I think my stance on bestiality is this: If someone were to come up to me and ask me what’s ethically wrong about bestiality, I wouldn’t be able to provide any reason that couldn’t be shot down, and I would lose that argument. So, bestiality, then, for sure, by the reasons we have now, is “not wrong”.
I still, however, do not think that it is “right”. I think it is compromising to relationships that we have in life, and also has the risk of being used as a crutch for people who are insecure about their lack of friends or boyfriends/girlfriends and so forth.
NOTE: So there’s no confusion, yes, I’m aware that not everyone who engages in bestiality does so because they are insecure. However, I am still against it in that it possesses THE RISK of being used improperly, and its implications are not quite as obvious as other things in life that can be used improperly (i.e. over-the-counter medicine).
Thanks for your comments. Firstly, I’m surprised you say you know several people who have engaged in bestiality — I’d think it’s very uncommon for this to be talked about.
I agree that most of the pro-bestiality arguments are simply counters against reasons why it’s wrong. But I’m not sure that’s a problem — generally for a given behaviour the default position is to assume that it’s not wrong unless someone can show us that it is.
In terms of whether bestiality inhibits healthy relationships, you could argue that the same is often said about, say, sex toys, but I don’t think that makes it wrong. And of course a true pro-bestiality proponent might say that (1) this simply dismisses their choice just like those prejudiced against same sex relationships might say that people “resort” to them because they can’t get someone of the opposite sex and (2) begs the question since it assumes that bestiality is unhealthy sex.
I’m very glad that you say you’re against it for personal bias — it’s quite uncommon to admit this so frankly and given the lack of proper arguments against bestiality this seems to be the only reasonable position to take (or to say that most humans are evolutionarily programmed to be disgusted by this). I’m the same, I am also “against it” for personal reasons, I guess the gist of the post is that at least there don’t seem to be good reasons to make it illegal (or to ostracise people who engage in it) if we’re willing to kill animals for meat.
Consent just muddies the waters, why not just say harm, or potential harm.
If an act constitues no potential harm then it should not ever be illegal.
If it is no actual harm, but has the potential for harm then it should be evaluated differently. That is beyond the scope of this 9 line comment.
I think that this debate shows that while human being are logical beings we are also emotional beings. Sure, logically there is no moral problem that i can see with bestiality as long as it does not hurt the animal. But im not a computer.
I find value in “listening to your heart, your gut feeling etc.”
If we ignore or emotional and spiritual side we start thinking its ok to fuck dogs.
David — so what do you advice to people who listen to their hearts and find their gut feelings tell them they should bludgeon to death their Jewish neighbour or lynch their local Catholic because they are Protestant?
It sounds like what your saying is that if people act emotionally they may be inclined to commit horrible acts. This is of course true but the same horrible acts could be carried out based on a logical calculated decision.
This is the nature of man and it will not change.
Yep, but by coincidence I’m working on some posts about morality and meta-ethics and will publish one in a few mins — so if you click to the homepage it should explain a bit more about what I mean.
still… that’s just my 2 cents. I think the discussion you guys are having is really interesting.
David – “It sounds like what your saying is that if people act emotionally they may be inclined to commit horrible acts. This is of course true but the same horrible acts could be carried out based on a logical calculated decision.”
You present a false choice. Naughty! People can chose to act based upon internal emotion, internal logic – or based upon *science* which is externally varifiable logic. Your mind and senses are vaulnerable to being decieved in all sorts of ways, internally and externally. Science has tools to help us filter out both kinds of deceptions. Specifically the double blind test. It has a fantastically good track record.
Science can be applied to morality because morality is based upon a number of physical testable assumptions. (Human exceptionalism for example.) It won’t always give you the answer you want or like, but it can expose all the wrong answers that are based upon lies.
I agree that science can inform morality by giving details about specific truth claims and whether they suit our moral commitments, but I don’t see how it can possibly inform those moral commitments themselves. Isn’t this the flip side of the creationist argument that the theory of evolution somehow “compels” cruelty to those “unfit” to survive? Of course even if acceptance in evolution was correlated with cruelty, a scientific theory cannot compel anything unless the motivation is already there. In either case, Hume was right in that reason (or in our case, science) is — and should be — a slave to the passions.
I think bestiality is a total turn on! I love beasty porn, and I’m a female! But, I only like MALE animals (mostly dogs) to be having the sex, because their erections and orgasms and ejaculations tells me they’re consenting and happy… But a female animal, well, it’s dubious as to whether or not they’re consenting and happy, so I am only for bestiality between male animals giving their penis to humans, not the other way around.
One exception: A female animal giving oral — clearly that’s a choice for her to do or not… I had a friends female dog follow me up the stairs once, and she went right under my dress and licked my pussy so well and so insistantly, that I pulled my panties down to let her have full access and it was amazing! Clearly SHE chose to do that!
To the guy who feels he can’t trust a woman who is letting doggy dick into her pussy, well, I totally agree with you. I think if you’re in a relationship, then it needs to be exclusive, period!
But if you’re single and horny, and the dog wants it and you let him, then why not? It’s like masturbation with a dildo that’s alive and warm and squirting, so who cares? I’ve never done it myself, but that’s because I am happily married, but honestly, if I were single, I doubt I’d turn down a pet’s wet tongue and dripping stiffy if he wanted to offer it to me…
I own no dog at this point — wouldn’t want to cheat!
As to the bozo who says this is all a mental illness, really? Then masturbation must be a mental illness, too, because that’s all bestiality is — it’s just masturbation with a dildo that’s alive and warm, nothing more than that… It’s just a way to orgasm, just like a girl humping a pillow, or using a silicone dong, or 2 girls grinding it out on each-other’s snatches — an orgasm is an orgasm, and to me, those activities I just mentioned, or sex with a dog (oral or his penetration of you), is just a form of highly erotic masturbation… NOT a mental illness… Just something to use to get your orgasm on… And if the male pet is willing, why not? Or a female pet offering you oral… But again, only if you’re single… Orgasms are always best shared only with your partner you’re committed to or married to… But when you’re single, what? No orgasms for you? I think not…
Again, I do NOT think FEMALE animals should EVER be penetrated, though, cuz you can never be certain they are consenting, aren’t going to be hurt, or will be happy, so leave them alone!
Ashleigh…
Agree with you about the licking. However…
Generally speaking, a canine erection is an effect of orgasm, not a indication of arousal. It’s part of the knotting process, and indicates that he’s pretty much lost interest.
It’s foolish of you to automatically assume consent when you are holding one of the most sensitive parts of his anatomy in the one part of your body (your hand) most designed to kill. Imagine someone held a weapon to some sensitive part of your body. You’d hold still wouldn’t you? Consent wouldn’t enter into it.
And do you realise it’s a little hypocritical of you to only disapprove of the aspects of bestiality you cannot enjoy? And to say that penetrative orgasms are great for women, but bitches shouldn’t get them?
Do I know if a bitch is consenting if I diddle her? In the absolute sense, no. But I also have no way to absolutely tell if she’s consenting to me scratching her ear. It is possible to learn if a dog/bitch enjoys being touched in any given way. They go completely floppy, press against you, glare at you if you stop, etc.
Consent is largely a legal term for agreement. Saying animals can’t give consent (for anything) is simply saying that bestiality is illegal. A more important question before you ask about consent is, “Does the animal actually care, at all, one way or the other?”
I think beastiality is completely wrong. The people that become involved with sexual activities with another animal is disgusting. If you think about it, an animal cannot really consent, and it is considered thatthey cant, because they arent as sophisticated as humans are. Almost any animal is going to love sex, so people who do have sex with them is just taking advantage. I think that it is okay to eat meat, and i have no problem with it. Animals eat other animals too, so why is it not okay for us to? When people have sex with animals, the animals will most likely let it happen, because they cant tell the difference between whats right and whats wrong, for example, a dog and a woman. In my opinion, it is not necessary. I dont see how someone can be so selfish to have an animal around just for pleasure. People who commit these acts, should really get help. And a date. Theyd rather have sex with something that is not as intellegent, advanced, and superior as a species. Although some of you dont find it a big deal, think of it this way. How would you feel if you came home early from work, and you find your wife mounted by the family dog? How would that make you feel, and how well would you like to stand up for it then? Would you start to care? Im not saying that ive had this happen to me, but im more than sure that its happened to alot of people. Next time you meet someone, whether it be a zoophile, or just someone who likes to do the nasty with the dog, please help them, and show them that they are making a mistake and lead them doen the right path, which is a relationship with the same member of their species.
Let me just pull out some quotes that show where you contradict yourself:
If you think about it, an animal cannot really consent…so people who do have sex with them is just taking advantage.
I think that it is okay to eat meat, and i have no problem with it. Animals eat other animals too, so why is it not okay for us to?
No seriously. We arent the first to eat meat so its not that big of a deal. Damn. Its not like anything lives forever. Stop trying to go against ehat im saying guy. If we were meant to fuck anything other than animals, there would be nasty ass interspecies anials among us, between humans and other animals
1. How does the fact that non-human animals eat other animal species make it ok for us?
2. Do you really want to hang your argument against bestiality on the assumption that there’s supposedly no interspecies sex in non-human animals when this can probably be dispelled by a Google search (or if it’s not documented today can easily become documented tomorrow or next year)?
Well, if its not okay, dont you think that we wouldnt have been able to digest meat at all? I see nothing wrong with eating meat at all, but i will say that its wrong that the way they treat animals before processing them.
Why do you have to be such a dick towards everything? Stop not giving a shit and actually pick a side.
Who really wants to have sex with an animal? Anyone that gets caught should be cast out of society and shunned out for being so disgraceful as a human.
Joe, humans can digest human flesh too, are you suggesting we should not be squeamish about eating other humans?
Casting people out of society for doing something you don’t like when it harms no-one is one heck of a statement. I don’t like cricket and think anyone that does is a freak, should all cricket lovers be cast out too?
Show that any harm is caused to human or animal from bestiality and I’ll say that it is wrong, but if there is no harm then it cannot be any of my business.
I dont think there is anything wrong with cannibalism, as long as there are no other altenatives. You have to do what you can to survive, but most of us are civilized and we live in a world where food is provided for us.
And i really dont know what cricket is, and who cares? Its just a sport. Some harm can be caused from human to animal.
If I’m a dick for pointing out flaws in arguments then I take that as a compliment. Since however you’re interested in name-calling I’ll give you more to name-call about: you say “Well, if its not okay, dont you think that we wouldnt have been able to digest meat at all?”
The natural retort isn’t even about cannibalism, it’s “Well if bestiality is not okay, don’t you think we wouldn’t have been physiologically able to orgasm by having sex with animals?”
And your comment about who really wants to have sex with animals is question-begging since bestiality does happen on a regular basis.
However, as per the post I’d be happy to shun anyone from society if you can prove I should shun them, we’re just not quite there yet.
Speaking of the devil, a timely study quoted on Dan Savage’s blog: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/03/30/horses-ass
[...] interesting followup to my old post on bestiality, some new research which suggests some people really are attracted exclusively to [...]
It’s been touched upon, but consent is one of the weakest arguments against bestiality I’ve come across. When evaluating all the interactions with animals we have; even on a socially acceptable level, what really separates sexual interaction from everything else?
Consent is a non-issue for many reasons, one of them is consistency and the other being training. It is possible to train animals to actively engage in sexual interaction with human beings.
Some people would say that is immoral, but from my perspective it’s no more immoral than teaching a dog to do tricks or to fetch the paper in the morning.
Then there is the animal’s intelligence, either the animal can have the ability to consent or is too “dumb” to understand what is happening to it. Animals constantly give us signals of what they do and do not like. My cat, like most cats, hates water and when I bath him he fights back. Try that with a 1,500 lb+ horse and see how consent works out.
Exceptionalism is another inconsistent, a general socially accepted fact is that we are superior to animals in every way. But yet we give them human rights, but only the rights we feel comfortable giving them. Applying sexual consent restrictions, but denying them any consent from being slaughtered, chained or trained.
It seems to me that the common drive behind it all is society’s sexual intolerance, we are still struggling with homosexuality. When it boils down to it I believe the only concern towards human and animal sexual interaction should be whether or not the animal is harmed in any fashion.
But even then someone would come along and try to play connect the dots; inventing a reason why the animal was emotionally harmed.
I think in most cases arguments against bestiality are reactionary, a repeat of something that supports their side of the fence. And even in some of the most thought out cases there is no definitive wrong, because it is all subjective morality.
Uh oh, another Zoophilia Article and the usual pro and contra rage flamewars. I dont wanna read all of those but to whoever wrote this article, good work. As a Zoophile myself i can only say you put the main arguments in a nutshell, though there is surely more to say.
My dog sometimes enthusiasticaly humps my leg. If I then present my naked rear end to him and help his “organ” find its wat inside me does this mean I am raping him? I just dont get that.
Argument: All things that people do ever, including murder, all sex acts, all forms of mutilation, all forms of theft and harassment and playing God are acceptable and beautiful and anyone who disagrees or is offended is a judgmental and probably religious moron.
Why this argument fails: Being open-minded doesn’t mean having to agree with everything people do ever. It is perfectly natural to be offended, disgusted, harmed or threatened by something without it meaning you are judgmental or irrational.
Argument: Any will to perform any sexual act is natural, rational and beautiful, while any idea that your sexuality is something that has meaning to the quality of your life is simply irrational and judgmental.
Why this argument fails: Human beings are perfectly capable of making decisions about what sexual acts to perform and what not to perform, based on their own rational thoughts about their own sexual integrity and quality of life, completely independent on religions and cultural bias.
Argument: Sexual relations between humans and animals is beautiful and natural and anyone who disagrees is close-minded and has an irrational view of sexuality.
Why this argument fails: If humans have to be open and accepting to the idea that sex between a human and an animal is natural, then just the same they have to be open to the idea that sexuality is natural when exclusively between humans who value their sexuality as something meaningful because they are excluding unnatural, harmful, demeaning or humiliating acts from their life.
Argument: A human having sex with an animal isn’t harming or offending anyone and anyone who is harmed or offended by any kind of sexuality doesn’t understand nature.
Why this argument fails: Having sex with an animal hurts the human in the same way that cutting out a part of your brain or murdering your family does; It effectively destroys and warps all the natural and healthy parts of your body and your mind; You are here to be a human, to be natural, to be alive and to be healthy – Abusing your own sexuality with a creature of another species is in all ways against all that is human, all that is positive life force. It does harm the animal, it can physically harm their health and it does harm them mentally and emotionally. Having sex with an animal is similar to having sex with an infant, someone gravely mentally disabled or someone who can’t see, hear, feel or understand anything. Animals aren’t below humans, but their minds and bodies work in completely different ways, although abled to communicate emotionally with humans, they are not the same as humans. Just like mutilating a dog’s body, feeding it dog meat, giving it plastic surgery and giving it steroids warps the natural anatomy and instincts of an animal, so does sexual intercourse with an animal warp its natural instincts and view of the world from the primitive point of view of their own species. Having sex with an animal also harms those uninvolved – If you have sex with a horse, you offend everyone who will meet you or who will meet that horse, not just from the point of view that their view of sexuality is “superior” to yours, but rather due to appropriate sexual integrity; No one should have to unknowingly eat the meat of a horse that has been raped by a human or have surgery performed by someone who has raped a horse. This is not because sex with animals is ultimately “wrong”, but because sexual integrity and purity is important from a point of view of personal safety and the right to be in control of anything sexual in your own life, rather from the point of view of religion or moral.
Ultimately, no one can effectively keep anyone from their choices or their thoughts; Although with the belief that nothing ever is “wrong” or “unacceptable”, then neither is it wrong to murder someone or simply stop someone from commiting a negative action.
Before doing something unnatural to an animal, please, please ask yourself these questions:
*Will this act somehow harm myself? Will it destroy my view of my own self-worth? Will it make my life unbearable for myself in the future?
*Will this act somehow harm the animal? Will it confuse the animal or warp the animal’s natural instincts?
*Will this somehow harm people who will interact with the animal in the future? Is this someone else’s pet? Will someone eat the meat of this animal?
*Will this somehow harm people who will interact with me? Is it possible people can be harmed simply from learning what I have done?
Hopefully, the answers will change your mind and help you from doing something harmful.
Love, the Angel of Sexual Integrity and Personal Space
@Integrity
You enter the discussion neutrally and without direct hatred, and i appreciate that. That´s why I´m a little bit disappointed of the content of what you wrote.
You speak of “arguments”, and why they fail, but these are no arguments ever made by any Zoophile. These are your words, and no one ever claimed these things, sorry.
You also speak about being open minded, but we never said that everyone that is open minded needs to accept our “deformity”. We say that Zoophilia can ethically be justified. Everyone is free to make his own decision. We justify what we believe and you are free to disagree – we never said it is obligatory to do anything because of being open minded.
Then you claim that you are not religiously influenced, yet you talk about spirituality and energy and the possibility that the “dishonoured” horse will offend people just because of its presence. That doesnt sound very atheistical. And I dont have any problems with christians at all, but you apparently feel like needing to distanciate yourself from them.
You say that everyone that wants to have sexual intercourse with an animals should ask himself those questions there. And I am pretty sure that most Zoophiles already did, even if not in the form of ” Will someone eat the meat of this animal?”. But believe it or not, surprise surprise, I have questioned it and here I stand having found my answers a long time ago.
I would like to ask you a question, if you don´t mind. The person that commented before you, PlainJane, asked a short question. I think it is pretty easy to understand. Maybe you could tell me where “this argument fails”. Because that, my friend, is what a Zoophile says and what someone in contra can “debunk” and tell the world why it is wrong.
Happy easter.
PlainJain: If (assuming you are an adult) young person, under the age of consent, wants to have sex with you, is that not morally wrong? You are taking advantage of that young person, even if they are willing, because they are not yet old enough or mature enough to understand what exactly it is that they are doing. It is similar with animals. They do not have the mental capacity (for the most part, though some are becoming the exception to this, IE dolphins) to understand sex in the way that you understand sex. That animal is trying to procreate, you are using it for pleasure
@Corey
Are you fucking tying to be kidding me or just retarded? The argument of consent is weak, or to put it right: Bullshit. It has been explained before and I just recently explained in detail why it´s comlpetely wrong to a commentator – whose comments apparently have been deleted? What the fuck then, browse the comments.
You’re making a critical flaw, OP.
When you say that people must make a choice, you’re forcing the answers to the problem as a false dichotomy, knowing very well that people will still pick a problematic answer that suits your belief that bestiality isn’t wrong, or unethical. On the other hand, you’re also walking right into another logical fallacy with the least expectation that someone would know where they were being led (begging the question, which is another): and that particular fallacy is the argument to nirvana; the belief that either, in this case, bestiality can only be right, or meat eating can only be wrong.
What’s incredible is that right now, people like yourself have the momentary advantage of dealing with people who won’t ever study sexuality outside of a typical Psyche 100 course at their local community college. Barring that, you’re stepping into some rather cold territory, none of which favors the belief that a false dichomoty is appropriate reasoning to suggest by way of begging the question that bestiality is “right” (nice expressivism), and that meat eating (the sum of your argument to animal exploitation) is “wrong”.
As someone whose studied human sexuality late into my own years, yikes, the argument you’ve made doesn’t even work, let alone take off with someone who knows these things like the back of their hand. You’d think people would be more informed about their own position before first, making it. So, here’s a clue-in:
http://parrcenter.unc.edu/
Go to school, OP. Enrich your mind before it’s polluted with the fake personality that you’ve projected for yourself, as well as for your own answers. As for the argument of whether or not bestiality is wrong, we must look at the liars paradox as influenced by the writings of Alfred Tarski and Arthur Prior; both of who openly write that one thing can exist as a right, while another, closely related to the first detail, can also be wrong. So, society can make the judgment, based upon the fact that animals have no moral agency, that zoophilia and bestiality are both unethical, therefore as per their own will, illegal as by their own renders; while also determining that the slaughter of animals for consumption of meat is ethical, due to the slaughter being constrained to immediate need without discrimination to price, availability, and product over all.
Umm, after all those insults about my supposed lack of education, your actual attempt at an argument is found only in the last sentence (“So, society can make…”).
Do you expect people who don’t agree with you to take it seriously? You fail to explain the relevant difference between fucking an animal and killing it. Unless you care to expound on what it means that slaughter is “slaughter being constrained to immediate need without discrimination to price, availability, and product over all” and why that wouldn’t apply to bestiality, your whole comment would just prove my original post.
@michael don´t feed the trolls. This guy is obviously trying to provoke here, commenting without any knowledge on the topic whatsoever but oh-so-proudly putting links to universities doing a super scientific discussion….while at the same time attacking you personally, very scientific that is.
I call it the “Hitler phaenomena”: Try to make a statement in telling people how much wrong the others are, but not putting in any own input or argument at all. The advantage: You cannot be proved wrong since you didnt say anything relevant in the first place.
What makes you think the comment is actually a case of trolling?
Well. Either he is a boring troll, or one of the following applies to him: a) he seeks a flamewar because his life frustrates him. b) he actually believes he is of a superior race and will convince you with his opinion by the simple action of telling you what university he claims to have visited and what academically degree he claims to have (awesome arguments btw).
All three options have one thing in common: he will not listen to and maybe not even understand any counterargument given and therefore never change his opinion even if Jesus himself proves him wrong. He is not here to argue, he is here to tell you about his rage. There is no point in arguing with him.
I feel that there is no winner in this moral debate, its just feel likes the whole concept debate about the abrotion.
If I’m to be fair I think the whole consent argument is problemetic from both sides. Since no one can actually know what the animal thinks about this all, that there if the animal’s thought prosess is smilar to ours. We cannot even read the mind of the fellow human being. As none has yet solved the mind body problem.
The human motivation is probably best explained with physiology and qualifying it as parapilas seems fair. Given that there seems to be no research to support biological base. I did like to see zoophile compaired to more paraphilas than just pedophiles as that can I think evulute the whole thing better, and give fairer comparison on the basic behavor those that activitly seek out sex with animals. Some have this as an ultimate fantasy but never act up on it. I could probably talk much about paraphila but I don’t think thats the nature of this board as it more on ethics side of things.
As for pedophile cases I have more faith in a 3-5 year old kid to tell me if it was abused but not a dog in zoophile case. But for me abusing a child still fair out weght the crime of “abusing” none-human animal.
As for the meat eating if everyone go vegaterian we would end up destroying more ecosystem and rainforrest than the current rate is. Whats causing the problem in the society is the lack of proper distributon of wealth.
Animal Welfere =/= rights, animal welfere should only apply when human cannot be harmed around the animal, human that is under anattack should always have right to selfe defense. Survial of the fittest.
animal pysology might and might not evantually manage to read the mind of the animal, but until then the topic of beastiality will continue be a hot topic.
“As for the meat eating if everyone go vegaterian we would end up destroying more ecosystem and rainforrest than the current rate is.”
Yes, also war is peace and up is down?
“Animal Welfere =/= rights, animal welfere should only apply when human cannot be harmed around the animal, human that is under anattack should always have right to selfe defense. Survial of the fittest.”
Huh?
I think this has all been said but let me summarise my view.
For any transaction between people (or beings) the need for consent depends on the risk of harm.
In human sexual relationships the risks are many and complex… consider disease, unwanted pregnancy, destabilisation of relationships, triggering of compulsive behaviour etc.
So, we rightly make a big deal about consent in human sexual relationships, and the capacity to grant that consent.
There are some forms of bestiality, lets say a dog humping a woman, that are incredibly low risk in terms of harm being caused to either party and where is no reason to suspect that any of the risks affecting human sexual activity really apply to the dog. Furthermore, the dog is actively and instinctively participating providing a pretty clear non verbal affirmation to the human participant that the dog is willing (or “consenting”) and they are not engaged in a coercive sexual transaction.
Conclusion 1: Sexual activity where the dog is active and the human is passive present a very low risk of harm to the dog. The lower the risk the lower the bar needs to be set in terms of consent. The active participation of the dog is enough to satisfy the consent requirement. The human participant is behaving responsibly towards the dog and can be expected to behave responsibly towards others in general.
Further considerations: Therefore sex in which a dog penetrates or licks human genitalia, is fellated or otherwise externally stimulated, should be considered ethically legitimate on grounds that it cannot be significantly harmful to the animal, or the human (if the human consents), and the capacity of the dog to indicate consent is adequate in proportion to the risks.
There is room for debate on whether there may be any adverse consequences for the training and socialising of the animal but these are relatively trivial risks. i.e. the sex will not directly make the dog unhappy and any behavioral risks are more of an issue for the owners than the animals, provided the human participants are well intentioned. Sexual interaction with animals is certainly less harmful than the many and greater indignities that well intentioned people inflict on their pets (leaving them alone for long periods, making them do dangerous work, dressing them in ribbons and bows etc).
………………….
Conclusion 2: It is possible for certain sexual behaviour towards animals by humans to cause harm. However the risks of harm by well intentioned participants are low, particularly as the animal has some (limited) capacity to indicate consent. The risks of harm caused by an ill-intentioned human can and should be addressed through existing animal welfare legislation but there may be a case for adding the offense of “aggravated bestiality” where neglect or injury of the animal is accompanied by sexual contact.
Discussion:
As has been said before, penetration of an animal by a human carries some risks that are hard to predict in terms of the impact on the animal. If a man penetrates a dog it may be hard to determine whether it experiences the sexual contact as harmful. Then again the magnitude of harm is still small compared to the other things we do to animals, and the types of severe psychological sexual harm which apply to humans do not generally apply to animals so the risk of harm is also small compared to the risks of sex between humans.
Most men who penetrate animals sexually show great concern for the welfare of animals and the risks of harm are probably out weighed by the greater benefits to the animal which arise from the near certainty that as a sexual partner it is unlikely to suffer neglect of its basic needs. For most domesticated animals neglect is by far the greatest risk and could even be regarded as a fact of life.
We rightly hold that humans who have sex with animals believing it may be harmful to the animal or without proper regard to any risk of harm to the animal may become desensitised to the potential for sexual harm in general and may be dangerous or generally sociopathic in their sexual values and urges. There is a case for creating and offense of “aggravated bestiality” so that sexual contact between a man and animal carries a substantial penalty where it is accompanied by injury or neglect of the animal.
I do fully agree to that. Unfortunately though, for those of you that are german, they just now passed a law against zoophilia which is what we call “morally biased”. Ah well. I would be very surprised if those asshole that abuse animals would even care or notice.