Morality of Zoophilia.

[Tostig]

I was reading some of Peter Singer's scribblings as background for the vivisection debate and, together with his views on infanticide, I found his questioning of beastiality equally wrong. Howeverhaving read his arguement, and feeling the need for a good old post in the Ethos after the evils of trying to have a mature conversation with SPEAK members, I decided to try and argue the Devil's advocate.

Wiki's synopsis seemed both neutral and accurate:

Sexual acts with animals are often condemned as animal abuse and/or outlawed as "crimes against nature". However some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case. Although research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims, common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal–human sexuality.
Defenders ... argue that a human–animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, that research supports their perspective, and that animals are capable of forming what is claimed to be a genuine loving relationship that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love–sex relationship.

And the page also included religious reasons against it. I would dismiss these out of hand however I feel that it might lend to a historical perspective:

Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. Some theologians (especially Christian[22]) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for an animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas described it along with homosexuality as the worst sexual sins "because use of the right sex is not observed."

Why is zoophilia so widely reviled, and is it right that it is?

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[KingOfTheIsles]

It is moderately interesting that the Bible actually mentions the practice; perhaps that is some indication that it is fairly widespread. Now, I won't really take a viewpoint on this issue because I don't feel too strongly either way, but a few random thoughts:

It seems hypocritical that many are absolutely fine with subjecting animals to every form of cruelty and hardship, at the least, most treat them as slaves or puppets, completely subject to human will. The argument about the "consent" of the animal seems somewhat contrived to me; after all nobody asks a horse if it wants to be ridden, or a chicken if it wants to be slaughtered for food.

It does appear that in nature, there are some instances of trans-species intercourse so it wouldn't be too far a reach to note that, seeing as it is natural (just like homosexuality or heterosexuality, or any number of fetishes) it is a type of sexual orientation, which we are often told is not the choice of the person.

Naturally, there are issues of hygiene, as well as the possibility of diseases more easily crossing the species barrier. There is also the issue of innate feelings of racial superiority. An analogy is available in many human societies, from the caste system to slavery. Sex with a slave was frowned upon, as breeding with an inferior race, and prejudices to that tune exist to this day.

As I said, I would find the practice very distasteful and awkward were I to openly encounter it, whatever anyone says, I will always be repelled by it and find it deviant and wrong, but the hypocrisy when compared to certain other sexual practices is noticeable. Furthermore, I'm not a fan of government's telling people what they can and can't do sexually in the privacy of their own homes. Compared to the treatment of some animals (which I don't fundamentally disagree with, it is natural for humans to prey on other animals), zoophilia seems almost benign in comparison.

[Gwendylyn]

Why is zoophilia so widely reviled, and is it right that it is?

Two reasons:
1. Inability to consent.
2. It is a relationship between unequals.

[MaximiIian]

1. Inability to consent.

I'd suppose that when the animal does not bite the guy's wang off, that it's consenting.

2. It is a relationship between unequals.

That's racist.

Now for my opinion:
Meh. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't care if someone were doing it.

[Keresztes]

Dzoavits pretty much took the words out of my mouth. That kind of relationship can't be healthy for the person's mind. Allowing a person to have a complient sex-beast would be like allowing a person to raise a child as a "sex toy". Just because they don't protest doesn't make it right.

Also, I could post a link to a hilarious vid with some relevance, but I won't. The mods probably wouldn't appreciate the content...

[Gwendylyn]

I'd suppose that when the animal does not bite the guy's wang off, that it's consenting.

Let's rephrase that:
I'd suppose that when a woman does not bite the guy's wang off, that it's consenting.
Notice the flaw in logic. (and yes, I'm assuming you were a bit sarcastic with that statement)

That's racist.

No, in this case its specieist Especially since we dont give the same rights to animals as we do to humans.

[MaximiIian]

Let's rephrase that:
I'd suppose that when a woman does not bite the guy's wang off, that it's consenting.
Notice the flaw in logic. (and yes, I'm assuming you were a bit sarcastic with that statement)

Women can talk, a goat can't, so the goat would have to use some other method to assure that it is consenting. Not biting the guy's wang off or not kicking him would be such methods.

No, in this case its specieist

Race and species mean the same thing biologically.

[Gwendylyn]

Women can talk, a goat can't, so the goat would have to use some other method to assure that it is consenting. Not biting the guy's wang off or not kicking him would be such methods.

Yes, but what about a woman who speaks another language? In any case, you seem to think not fighting means consent, and there are so many problems with that estimation that I don't even know where to start.

Race and species mean the same thing biologically.

Race is a social construct based on skin color, a genetically variable trait we can see with our eyes. The different "races" we have are of the same exact species, and genertic variations between different races are less important than genetic variations between individuals.

To say they are the same would be saying the different between a white and black person is the same difference between a penguin and a chimpanzee.

Tell me you know rudimentary biology and just had a brain lapse when you said that statement...

[MaximiIian]

Race is a social construct based on skin color,

Which is why "race" in that term doesn't really exist. But, that's not what I mean when I said "race". There's not just one definition, you know.

To say they are the same would be saying the different between a white and black person is the same difference between a penguin and a chimpanzee.

What I meant by "race" was "Species". I thought that could've been ****ing obvious, but apparently not to you...

[Gwendylyn]

What I meant by "race" was "Species". I thought that could've been ****ing obvious, but apparently not to you...

to yourself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race
Fifth definition.

#5 Biology.

1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

Not the same as species. Different races are of the same species.

Still want to argue with me on this point? Next time use the correct word, and you won't have to hear people correcting you, and then be polite when you realize you meant something different and correct yourself.

[Garbarsardar]

Race and species mean the same thing biologically.

What I meant by "race" was "Species". I thought that could've been ****ing obvious, but apparently not to you...

Suipwned. And I meant suicide.


It is a strage thing how a sexual behaviour condemned probably from an atavistic fear of cross breeding between species, lately took the form and hue of concern about animal rights.

Ever wondered which other unclean animals should be avoided especially when the give birth to females?

Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is unclean for 14 days.

"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..."

It would appear that the act of having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy.

[wilpuri]

"Race is a social construct" my ass. Variation and 'population clusters' (i.e. races) exist within the human species just as they do within other animals, although humans are quite uniform compared to other species.

Race is not a social construct, how could it be? How can something biological be a social construct? It isn't. The way race is perceived in society is a social construct.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Tostig]

Especially since we dont give the same rights to animals as we do to humans.

Hmm, so would it be morally fine for an anti-vivisection activist, or a philosopher along the lines of Peter Singer, to run about copulating with the animals, like a rather horny Dr. Doolittle?

[mongoose]

You can't really get consent from an animal, but what if it, um, approaches you? Like the guy who died of a preforated colon?

[Gwendylyn]

Hmm, so would it be morally fine for an anti-vivisection activist, or a philosopher along the lines of Peter Singer, to run about copulating with the animals, like a rather horny Dr. Doolittle?

If you give an animal all the rights and privileges as a citizen of this country, and maybe you have a point.

"Race is a social construct" my ass. Variation and 'population clusters' (i.e. races) exist within the human species just as they do within other animals, although humans are quite uniform compared to other species.

Race is not a social construct, how could it be? How can something biological be a social construct? It isn't. The way race is perceived in society is a social construct.

Which lack of the use of the word "percieved as" caused a few people to misundertand me, as well as Hapsburg wrong use of a the word to imply that different races as the same as different species. I don't see how you could, though, misunderstand that I fully well know what race is biologically, since I outlined it in the same exact post.

[Tom Paine]

Hmm, so would it be morally fine for an anti-vivisection activist, or a philosopher along the lines of Peter Singer, to run about copulating with the animals, like a rather horny Dr. Doolittle?

Not really. Just because you want them to have the rights doesn't mean they have them. On the other hand if they do attain those rights...

[MaximiIian]

As far I am concerned, we're all humans here, and should be treated the same. The concept of the "races" is something racists use to further thier motives, which is, to me, is not a good mindset.

wrong use of a the word to imply that different races as the same as different species.

Well, see, I got the gist of "race" meaning "species from, when in various MMORPGs, you pick your "race", not "species", even though the different "races" are actually different "species".

[Tostig]

Not really, how else do you explain all those "Half orc, quarter elf, quarter ogre"s running around in DnD campaigns?