An article in wikipedia really thrashes the taboo with a vengeance!

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]

Opinions... discuss!

Ewwwss! Lol! Never thought this topic would pop up.

It's wrong. The end. lol..

For the record I'm against it, I'm just interested in hearing people's reasons.

To see if I can't use something from that up there against their reasoning.

I think it's wrong as well >_> Taking the article's already stated idea, there is the issue of human dignity. Also ( I don't know if the article stated this or not since it's long and i skimmed it) there is no biological reason for humans to have sex with animals. Animals don't even breed between species. One may argue that a liger, or even a mule disprove that, but the argument holds up when one considers that ligers and mules are not found wild in nature. Those "hybrid" species were created by human curiosity and selective breeding with animals in captivity. Wild animals will most likely never breed between species, so why should humans? If it's purely for the pleasure, it's probably for the human's pleasure. After all, there are only a few species of animals who have sex for pleasure, these including humans, some species of apes, elephants, and dolphins, though there are a few more out there. So if someone loves Lassie or Fido so much that they feel they have to have sex with them.... chances are Lassie or Fido are either wonder WTF, or expecting pups as a result.

@Amaitai: Using the reasoning you gave, unfortunately is faulty. Unless you can explain how animals can be homosexual, sexually active, and somehow have a purpose other than pleasure for doing so.

And also cross species sex is a very commonly occurring phenomenon in nature. Which eradicates the issue of "no need = wrong". The existence of the grizzly-polar bear is one testament to this, but also other seemingly unnatural occurrences such as wild moose attempting sex with horse and even an Orangutan attempts to obtain sex with humans have been observed.

My reply to this will be short, but I figured I should post it nevertheless.

Most of the usual points were covered in the quoted portion of the OP, so I have nothing to say about them. I think the issue is consent, and not because animals can't consent, but because they can't consent to us. There is absolutely no way to know whether or not an animal is fully consenting to what we're doing. Domesticated dogs, for instance, tend to view their owners as the leaders of the pack, so to speak, and so them not eating your face for initiating sex with them is not indicating that they're okay with it. There is also no reason to think that they share the attraction, as most species (though certainly not all, as was mentioned in the quoted section) have sex strictly for reproductive purposes and not pleasure, and thus would have no reason to mate with a human.

Inertia: Your latest post somewhat answers itself. That "pizzlies" exist proves that grizzlies and polar bears can reproduce. Moose (particularly young males) seem to have a habit of attempting to mate with anything mooselike in appearance which, while unproductive, does seem to suggest that species is a determining factor in their choice of mates. Orangutans are apes and, while not as close as chimps or bonobos, are genetically (and, compared to non-apes, appearance-wise) similar to humans. You will note that they do not attempt to mate with canines, felines, marsupials, or any other kind of mammal, nevermind non-mammals. And even if this did prove that they were open to the idea of having sex with animals outside their species, it says nothing about animals that aren't bears, moose, or orangutans, and I dare you to try and get frisky with any of those.

Hey you ruined the fun, I wanted to see other people's reasoning before someone just comes in and destroys it like that.

Nevertheless, you're not off the hook, I'm going to see if I can combat your post somehow after sleeping a well deserved sleep.

BRB

Consent as Philomel said and the mechanics invovled- one lady did the nasty with a horse and ended up dying of internal injuries.

For the people who are saying that animals can have sex with other animals of different species, that's not what the article is about. Its about humans having sex with animals.

Personally, I think it's wrong because, although you would not be brutalizing an animal if it somehow consents, it is still wrong to have sex outside of species for injuries to both parties.

This whole thread reminds me of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer show that had a praying mantis assume the form of a human woman and have sex with virgin guys. The only drawback was that female praying mantis bite the head off their mates in the middle of having sex and she did the same with the virgin human males she mated with. It was quite weird, but oddly erotic :P

Una: Lol, wasn't that Catherine the Great of Russia? I heard from a history teacher she died that way.
I agree with Philomel. Animals in the same general species MAY mate (though it's may be uncommon) but it does not occur between 2 very different species.

Though what I'm interested in is this: Our debate keeps bringing up the issue of consent. Are we implying animals have the right to give consent? How about that issue?

I think they have the right to give consent, but they don't have the ability. After all, consent not given is consent denied -- having sex with someone who's, say, unconscious is still rape, even though they did not actively deny consent. As they do not have the ability to give consent (at least not to humans), it really doesn't even get into rights.

As for your question about Catherine the Great:

Originally Posted by Snopes.com

Catherine the Great actually expired alone and of natural causes. On the morning of 5 November 1796, Catherine arose, drank coffee, and sat down to write. About three hours later her chamberlain, curious that he had not been summoned as usual, found her barely conscious on the floor of a closet adjacent to her bedroom. As her servant summoned help, Catherine lapsed into unconsciousness from which she never awakened and died at 9:45 PM the next day. An autopsy conducted the next day determined the cause of death to be a cerebral hemorrhage.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/risque/animals/catherine.asp

There have, however, been a fair few documented cases of injuries caused by sexual intercourse with horses.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I think they have the right to give consent, but they don't have the ability. After all, consent not given is consent denied -- having sex with someone who's, say, unconscious is still rape, even though they did not actively deny consent. As they do not have the ability to give consent (at least not to humans), it really doesn't even get into rights.

As for your question about Catherine the Great:

Source: snopes.com: Unbridled Lust

There have, however, been a fair few documented cases of injuries caused by sexual intercourse with horses.

Ahh I just LOVE the sometimes useless stuff from Snopes.com! And exactly, they can't give consent or deny it... but I think it's still morally wrong.

This supposedly shows an Elephant and a Rhino....though I am unable to see it right now as my browser does not support java or flash. Also, I have decided to be modest and not post the actual video, just the link to the site. Click at your own discretion ^_^.

Elephoceres

also, a note about canines....humping your leg and getting off on humans would in most cases I would assume, be inferred that they want to have sex. Just because they cannot verbally communicate does not mean they cannot give consent at all. Otherwise deaf and mute people would not be able to have sex with anyone since they would not be able to voice their consent.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

This supposedly shows an Elephant and a Rhino....though I am unable to see it right now as my browser does not support java or flash. Also, I have decided to be modest and not post the actual video, just the link to the site. Click at your own discretion ^_^.

Elephoceres

also, a note about canines....humping your leg and getting off on humans would in most cases I would assume, be inferred that they want to have sex. Just because they cannot verbally communicate does not mean they cannot give consent at all. Otherwise deaf and mute people would not be able to have sex with anyone since they would not be able to voice their consent.

Youtube deleted it xD
But it happens, I guess. And the thing about the dog humping the leg... I totally agree with you. They sometimes just do that to ease the.. errm.. sexual tension that they sometimes get. It doesn't mean they want sex.

I'm going to risk coming off sounding like a complete effin nutter and reply to these.

Again, I have very very conservative views personally. This is just an exercise of reason for me. Try your very best to keep that in mind when reading below, it will be difficult I assure you.

Originally Posted by Philomel

My reply to this will be short, but I figured I should post it nevertheless.

Most of the usual points were covered in the quoted portion of the OP, so I have nothing to say about them. I think the issue is consent, and not because animals can't consent, but because they can't consent to us. There is absolutely no way to know whether or not an animal is fully consenting to what we're doing.

Originally Posted by una

Consent as Philomel said and the mechanics invovled- one lady did the nasty with a horse and ended up dying of internal injuries.

Originally Posted by Amaitae

Are we implying animals have the right to give consent? How about that issue?

Consent... Zoophiles argue that animals can consent, the OP which is an article from wikipedia says that the relationship between a person and their pet is deeper than simple verbal expressions. People communicate with their pets regularly and they are aware of what they like and dislike, using the analogy of petting or stroking an animal a person can tell if the animal enjoys being stroked or not. It is also common that two people having sex do not give any verbal consent at all, but they are aware of each other's agreement through visual signs. We can clearly achieve this with animals when feeding them, playing with them and learning from them as we keep them in captivity, why not sexually?

Another argument against the consent issue is that human beings routinely castrate, mutilate, imprison, kill and experiment on animals without their consent and people have a much less harsh view on that towards animals than they do of sex, Why?

Also in regards to the damage a person or the animal will endure, most of these events do not occur in safe zoophillia practices. Zoophiles argue that there is abusive sex and safe sexual practices in zoophillia just as there is sex among human beings.

Lastly zoophilia can range from a multitude of forms, whilst the images of sodomy are likely our first thought, others can include a woman receiving sexual gratification from simple horse riding and riding that horse simply to attain that satisfaction. Does she need it's consent for that?

Discuss!

Originally Posted by Inertia

Consent... Zoophiles argue that animals can consent, the OP which is an article from wikipedia says that the relationship between a person and their pet is deeper than simple verbal expressions. People communicate with their pets regularly and they are aware of what they like and dislike, using the analogy of petting or stroking an animal a person can tell if the animal enjoys being stroked or not. It is also common that two people having sex do not give any verbal consent at all, but they are aware of each other's agreement through visual signs. We can clearly achieve this with animals when feeding them, playing with them and learning from them as we keep them in captivity, why not sexually?

Because, as Tutela unintentionally demonstrated, people misread signs. Dogs humping your leg seems to be the most obvious example of an animal showing sexual interest in a human, but in fact, when a dog does that, he (or she) is asserting dominance over you (or, if it's an object, ownership over that object). She is testing you, seeing if you, the alpha dog, will allow her to get away with it. Because we usually do so, they continue humping our legs. It is nothing sexual at all. We do like to think we understand our pets, and sometimes, yeah, we get it right, but we will never be able to be 100% certain about what their intentions are. Even animal behaviourists, people whose career is understanding what animals mean when they do certain things, don't understand everything completely.

Another argument against the consent issue is that human beings routinely castrate, mutilate, imprison, kill and experiment on animals without their consent and people have a much less harsh view on that towards animals than they do of sex, Why?

Castration is, unfortunately, a necessity. There are already too many unwanted pets, and unfortunately, as long as animals have the ability to breed, they will do so. Imprisonment, if you're referring to allowing them to run free, is a matter of safety for both the animals and the public. The rest, I am against, so I cannot explain the logic behind it. However, on the two I covered, you cannot compare doing something that is beneficial to the animal and something that is purely for your own pleasure.

Also in regards to the damage a person or the animal will endure, most of these events do not occur in safe zoophillia practices. Zoophiles argue that there is abusive sex and safe sexual practices in zoophillia just as there is sex among human beings.

I am not certain that anyone has suggested that the animal is physically harmed in all acts of zoophilia. It is, quite frankly, a moot point. Rape and child molestation do not always cause physical harm, but that doesn't make them okay.

Lastly zoophilia can range from a multitude of forms, whilst the images of sodomy are likely our first thought, others can include a woman receiving sexual gratification from simple horse riding and riding that horse simply to attain that satisfaction. Does she need it's consent for that?

Absolutely. While it is not sex, it is still, without consent, sexual assault, just as it would be if a guy walked up to you and started rubbing his genitals on your leg.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Because, as Tutela unintentionally demonstrated, people misread signs. Dogs humping your leg seems to be the most obvious example of an animal showing sexual interest in a human, but in fact, when a dog does that, he (or she) is asserting dominance over you (or, if it's an object, ownership over that object). She is testing you, seeing if you, the alpha dog, will allow her to get away with it. Because we usually do so, they continue humping our legs. It is nothing sexual at all. We do like to think we understand our pets, and sometimes, yeah, we get it right, but we will never be able to be 100% certain about what their intentions are. Even animal behaviourists, people whose career is understanding what animals mean when they do certain things, don't understand everything completely.

Ouch! While your logic does make sense I would challenge it on the very basis you asserted. You state that,

Originally Posted by Philomel

but we will never be able to be 100% certain about what their intentions are. Even animal behaviourists, people whose career is understanding what animals mean when they do certain things, don't understand everything completely.

Using this, I would like you to explain how you are 100% certain that you are right in saying

Originally Posted by Philomel

but in fact, when a dog does that, he (or she) is asserting dominance over you (or, if it's an object, ownership over that object). She is testing you, seeing if you, the alpha dog, will allow her to get away with it.

Furthermore, I would like equal proof showing that I am 100% wrong with my assertions about it being completely sexual as well. as I have personally witnessed the humping occur, the red dog penis come out, etc. I do not choose to let the humping continue to the point of ejaculation as that is quite distasteful.

This is dictionary.com's legal definition of consent:

Main Entry: con·sent
Function: noun
1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also AGE OF CONSENT, INFORMED CONSENT, RAPE, STATUTORY RAPE b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)
2 : agreement as to action or opinion consent of the Senate, to make treaties — U.S. Constitution article II> consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance —Louisiana Civil Code>; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to a government —consent intransitive verb —con·sent·er noun

If you see definition 1a, it states that the person must be of age and have the mental capacity of being able to consent. Some may argue that an animal is not of the legal age (i.e.. sex with a dog of the age of 5) or capable of giving consent on a mental level. It's up to the courts to decide if it is legal or not. This issue also comes up with necrophilia (having intercourse with a deceased body); both are said (in US courts) as sexual misconduct. We have to wait for the law to catch up with the age before a legal ruling is made.

----------

Castration is, unfortunately, a necessity. There are already too many unwanted pets, and unfortunately, as long as animals have the ability to breed, they will do so. Imprisonment, if you're referring to allowing them to run free, is a matter of safety for both the animals and the public. The rest, I am against, so I cannot explain the logic behind it. However, on the two I covered, you cannot compare doing something that is beneficial to the animal and something that is purely for your own pleasure

Castration can actually improve an animals' health and well being. I know that, in male dogs, it helps prevent some type of cancer and the unwanted stress of sexual tension. It can also help prevent some unwanted or detrimental behavior.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

This is dictionary.com's legal definition of consent:




If you see definition 1a, it states that the person must be of age and have the mental capacity of being able to consent. Some may argue that an animal is not of the legal age (i.e.. sex with a dog of the age of 5) or capable of giving consent on a mental level. It's up to the courts to decide if it is legal or not. This issue also comes up with necrophilia (having intercourse with a deceased body); both are said (in US courts) as sexual misconduct. We have to wait for the law to catch up with the age before a legal ruling is made.

----------




Castration can actually improve an animals' health and well being. I know that, in male dogs, it helps prevent some type of cancer and the unwanted stress of sexual tension. It can also help prevent some unwanted or detrimental behavior.

Would you be fine with someone sterilising you without your consent and then telling you that it'd prevent you from getting various kinds of cancer and the unwanted stress of sexual tension and that it was in fact a good thing?

Originally Posted by Inertia

Would you be fine with someone sterilising you without your consent and then telling you that it'd prevent you from getting various kinds of cancer and the unwanted stress of sexual tension and that it was in fact a good thing?

I see your point. But, as a pet owner, you can act in your animal's best interests. Its not a perfect system, or world for that matter, but its what happens. My dog got neutered and he's just fine. Its not like we're hurting the animals or abusing them. We're helping them. And not all animals are neutered. There is a large number of the pet population that is not neutered. Vets just recommend it because they know it can be beneficiary. And, yes, we don't know if those animals want to be neutered. However, we don't know that they don't want to be either. Its acting in best intreats.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

I see your point. But, as a pet owner, you can act in your animal's best interests. Its not a perfect system, or world for that matter, but its what happens. My dog got neutered and he's just fine. Its not like we're hurting the animals or abusing them. We're helping them. And not all animals are neutered. There is a large number of the pet population that is not neutered. Vets just recommend it because they know it can be beneficiary. And, yes, we don't know if those animals want to be neutered. However, we don't know that they don't want to be either. Its acting in best intreats.

There's not a huge chance that most animals would, if they could choose, want to be neutered, we've witnessed nothing to lead us to believe that. But to be be fair, let's say that 50% of animals actually wanted to be neutered. That would leave another 50% that we're basically robbing of a primal instinct. Zoosexuals are not asking to rob animals of their primal instinct or hurt or harm animals either. They only ask the hypothetical question; If the animal did want to have sex with a human being, both parties being willing is then sex less of a crime or more of a crime than castration. experimentation, etc. of animal that does not want to be castrated?

Originally Posted by Inertia

There's not a huge chance that most animals would, if they could choose, want to be neutered, we've witnessed nothing to lead us to believe that. But to be be fair, let's say that 50% of animals actually wanted to be neutered. That would leave another 50% that we're basically robbing of a primal instinct. Zoosexuals are not asking to rob animals of their primal instinct or hurt or harm animals either. They only ask the hypothetical question; If the animal did want to have sex with a human being, both parties being willing is then sex less of a crime or more of a crime than castration. experimentation, etc. of animal that does not want to be castrated?

I see, but neither of us (and no one in the world can say that they do) know what an animal wants when it comes to castration and intercourse. And it's an opinion, not a fact saying that rape is less of a crime than castration. Rape is a very serious crime, and it can affect many people, physically and emotionally. No one wants to be raped. And, although legal in some places, animal experimentation is extremely grotesque and detrimental. I detest when people test things on animals. However, that can lead to some important medical findings, which is why it is not illegal in the US and other places. But the truth is that the only way for any of this to come to a factual close is when the courts decide if it is legal or illegal, no mater what someone's opinion is. And, because an animal can not consent, it will remain illegal until stated other wise, no matter the opinion.

So courts decide what's morally right and wrong now....

And when the courts decided that Irene Morgan was wrong for not giving up her seat to a clearly more important white person. It was someone only wrong that time?