Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Criticisms of zoophilia or zoosexual relations
Platonic love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual interest, sometimes very strongly. Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including religious, moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social arguments.
The criticisms may include the wisdom of repugnance; that many people instinctively feel repulsed by the idea, and that this may be a sign the idea is not a good one. The belief that bestiality is unnatural may be subject to the naturalistic fallacy.
Zoosexuality is seen by authorities as profoundly disturbed behaviour, as indicated by the UK Home Office review on sexual offences, 2002)[81] Beetz also states there is significant evidence that violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals, often characterized by "binding, roping, threatening, beating", are linked to "violent behavior" and could be a "rehearsal for human-directed violence", however she says that the degree of violence used has not been asked. It is possible animals are traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human. But if the approach is conducted with kindness and care and stopped if the animal shows signs of discomfort, as zoophiles describe ideal sexual interactions with animals, Beetz believes there is no need for trauma to result.[82]
Some people believe that zoophilia degrades people, or is forbidden by God. An argument from human dignity is given by Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow and Intelligent Design proponent at the Center for Science and Culture of the conservative Christian Discovery Institute: - "such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe--a concept known as 'human exceptionalism' ... one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth."[83] People's beliefs about religion and human dignity vary; many individuals do not consider them relevant. But zoophilia can also damage the animals', or their owners', reputations, and have them ostracised or the animals put down. In Africa at one point bestiality was rumoured to spread AIDS, and people avoided the meat or milk of such animals, leading to their being destroyed.[84]
Defenders of zoophilia assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter.[85] Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). [Also see: speciesism][86] Critics of this reasoning state that animals can communicate internally (hence consent) within their own species, but cannot communicate cross-species. Others state that animal communication is clear and unambiguous cross-species as well.[citation needed]
In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the "British Journal of Sexual Medicine" commented over 30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced." (Jan/Feb 1974, p. 43) Zoophiles believe people's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. However people may feel there is a limit to what should be accepted—e.g., zoophiles who practice "fence-hopping" (sex with animals which are other people's pets) should be and are prosecuted. Ethologists, who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, many individuals may be more accepting in private than they make clear to the public. Regardless, there is a general societal view which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition.
Animal advocacy concerns
One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is that zoosexual activity is harmful to animals and necessarily abusive, because animals are unable to give or withhold consent.[87] Critics also point to examples in which animals were clearly harmed, having been tied up, assaulted, or injured. Defenders of zoophilia argue that physically injuring animals is neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia, and that just as sexual activity with humans can be both harmful and not, so can sexual activity with animals.
Similar to arguments against sex with human minors, The Humane Society of the United States has said that as animals don't have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. In his 1993 article, Dr. Frank Ascione stated that "bestiality may be considered abusive even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur (this is similar to the case of adult sexual activity with a child where consent is presumed to be impossible)." This is because animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse. In a 1997 article, Piers Beirne, Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine, points out that 'for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires.'[88][89] Miltski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."[90] It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders.[91] Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively.[82] Those supporting zoophilia feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention[92] or to initiate it.[93] Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending zoopilia this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.[94] That an animal might act instinctively rather than with thought does not mean there is not enjoyment, will or the ability to learn via Pavlovian conditioning, but a Pavlovian response may not be full consent.[citation needed]
Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal,[95] a position countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[87] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[96]
Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting,"[97] in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.[98]
Such relationships may also be taking advantage of animals' innate social structure which drives them to please the leader of a pack.[citation needed] Zoophiles believe the social roles between species are more flexible than that. Some people believe that zoosexual relations are simply for those unable or unwilling to find human partners. Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships;[48] many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans. Some zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; tending to oppose the view that they are simply seeking sexual fulfillment. However farm animals or pets - with which the zoophile may have come into contact as a child - are the most common animals chosen.[99]
Jacob M. Appel has also advocated for the decriminalization of bestialty, arguing that lack of consent is not a meaningful concept when discussing human-animal sex. He has written that society does "not describe owning a pet dog as kidnapping, even when the canine is restricted to the inside of a home, although confining a human being in the same manner would clearly be unethical." According to Appel, such relations "may well be neutral or even pleasurable for the animals concerned," and they are primarily prohibited because of social taboos, not for any defensible philosophical or moral reason.[100]
Other ethical concerns regarding zoophilia are the belief that humans are guardians in charge of their animals, so a sexual relationship is a betrayal of the trust earned by this duty of care.[citation needed] Zoophiles say that taking responsibility for their pet's sexual drive is more accepting of the animal than neutering, which is done more for human convenience than animal welfare.[101]
Those arguing against zoophilia may say that animals mate instinctively to produce offspring, only having sex for reproduction, hence they are deceived when these activities are performed. This may be disputed because of research by the Bronx Zoo which suggests that some apes copulate for entertainment. The claim assumes that sex cannot both be biologically imperative and pleasurable. Some animals such as bonobo apes and dolphins do sometimes appear to have sex solely for pleasure.[102] Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible. Male animals can achieve orgasm, and Beetz claims that female animals of some species can too. However, there is no evidence for this in most female animals. Animals give mating signals to others of their species, and zoophiles feel they demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language, or initiate it.[93] Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Beetz believes that as long as there is no sexuality involved, people most probably would agree that they know when a pet does or does not like how it is being stroked, and to Beetz this is an indication that an animal can also give consent to sex without being forced.[82]
|
