Why isn’t zoosexuality accepted? So many double standards...?

[..]

The media reports stories of bestialists who harm animals or force them to have sex with them, but the majority of zoosexuals love animals, would never harm them, and treat animals as sentient beings with their own rights.

many reports of zoosexual crimes involve a human injuring or killing an animal while having sex with it. These incidents are definitely crimes, just as human-human rape is definitely a crime. However, if a non-rape, non-injury human-animal relationship is comparable to a non-rape, non-injury human-human relationship, can it still be condemned? In other words, where does one draw the line between zoosadism (harm to animals) and genuine zoosexuality, in which someone respects for and/or cares for the animal in question? Because only zoosadism events are reported by the media, is that why the social perception of zoosexuality is so negative?

“The use of the word “inhuman” [to describe zoosexuality] is inaccurate because humans were never “above” other animals to begin with. Also, when a lion has sex with a tiger, does that make a lion “in-lion”? And if a dog has sex with a cat, does that make the dog “in-dog”? Why is it that ONLY when it comes to humans, something is suddenly called “inhuman” if that person has sex with an animal? It’s all such bull****. Bestiality is not “inhuman”, it is not “barbaric” and it is not “repugnant”. Also, bestiality is not “unnatural” because interspecies sex happens in the wild.

"People need to change their moral compasses. When a human has sex with a non-human animal it is not “immoral” because humans ARE animals, and all animals (including humans) are sexual beings, many of whom are capable of having sex for pleasure. Zoophiles need to fight against bigotry.

Also, remember this fact: according to dictionary.com, the definition of “inhuman” is: “lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal”. But most zoosexual people ARE compassionate and DO have warmth/sympathy for animals. In fact, it would appear that zoosexuals tend to be MORE compassionate towards animals than the average person. Thus, one cannot called zoosexuality “inhuman”, because it directly contradicts the dictionary definition.” - a quote from beastforum.com.

A lot of people put sex with animals in the same category as abuse...but the majority of zoophiles have a genuine love for animals. There have been legitimate studies done, and zoosexuality is a separate sexual orientation. There are zoosadists, who hurt animals or abuse them or force them to have sex, but they are quite the minority. True zoophiles treat their animals with respect and love, not fear and punishment.

“Lack of consent” cannot be used as a genuine argument against zoophilia. Why are people criticized for having sex with animals, but not criticized for eating them? Having sex with an animal can involve consent, whereas slaughtering an animal and eating its meat does not involve the animal’s consent. The same can be said for hunting.

A horse, for example, can certainly consent. Since most zoophiles are genuinely kind, caring people, the horse isn’t restrained and can walk away, kick, or defend itself in any way possible. If the horse stays, without showing aggression, it seems to be a no-brainer that the animal is actually enjoying itself. Good zoosexual people understand that an animal has a right to consent or not consent (by using signals and body language).

How is having sex with animals harmful? Is it more harmful that forcefully inseminating a female horse to act as a live breeding machine, which as a practice is ultra common? We’re basically raping them already.

Another claim is that bestiality is like pedophilia...this is completely false!!! Most people who are sexually attracted to animals are attracted to mature animals (the word “animal” includes both humans and non-humans). In other words, the vast majority of zoosexuals are attracted to mature animals who have reached adulthood. In this sense, zoosexuals have the same aversion to pedo-oriented sexuality that most people have. When people bring up the (non-existent) pedo “link”, it is highly offensive to most zoosexuals.

I don’t see why people are SO close-minded when it comes to this! Saying it’s “disgusting” or “immoral” is close-minded and not a genuine answer...humans are animals, too, and not “above” horses or dogs or any other animal.

If someone is attracted to animals and doesn’t abuse or hurt them, why should it be so wrong for them to enjoy each other in that way?
How is my logic “fucked up”?
Animals can’t communicate distress? You’ve never been around horses, obviously. If a horse doesn’t want something, they will kick, bite, strike, and get VIOLENT. They certainly know how to communicate.
I love animals too! I would never treat them wrong, why is it so wrong if the animal is NOT tied and is freely allowed to walk away and isn’t mistreated?!

[Guy Weston]

I prefer interspecies erotica

[Coloris]

Your logic is fucked up, man.

[faintplayground827]

I'm not ashamed to say that I am revolted by people who take advantage of animals that cannot communicate distress and therefore cannot consent.

And if you are attracted to animals, it's because you have a gross, creepy and weird fetish for them. Being sexually attracted to something that isn't human is not a sexual orientation.

I love animals and that is why I cannot accept zoosexuality as being okay.

[Locomotive]

Animals can't consent, no matter how much you think they can, they are incapable of speech. Please, people who are gay or bi have to fight for their rights because of people like you...the extreme religious right thinks that by legalizing gay marriage that bestiality

[Someone Online]

it isn't accepted because animals are incapable of giving consent



similar to how a child isn't mature enough to give consent

[Tundra]

I don't understand exactly what you are asking because you made this point very well (:->) There IS nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to and romantically involved with an animal. PERIOD. In spite of all that you have said, there are STILL those who believe vehemently that a dog cannot consent to sex because he or she cannot speak.....all the while they often begin a sexual encounter with their HUMAN partner without uttering a word simply by using BODY LANGUAGE. And yet THAT is consent.....but when a dog lifts her tail and swings her rear around to be mounted, THAT is what....NOT CONSENT!?!

The two main reasons that bestiality....let alone zoophilia....will not be accepted by most people is because: (1) Animals are looked at as being akin to a small child with childlike innocence and no ability to decide if he/she wants to engage in sex with a human (WRONG); and (2) A desire on the part of humans to REGULATE what they PERCEIVE as an immoral sexual act by perverted and evil people (and as you pointed out, zoophiles LOVE their animal partners often to the degree that they would lay down their very life to protect them.....often a stronger and purer love than any felt between two human partners.

**EDIT (to clarify my stance on consent as it pertains to this subject in (1) above)--

The truly great thing about sexual acts with (or BETWEEN) animals is that unlike a human, if an animal "changes their mind" in the middle of the act, which is exceedingly rare, the partner (whether a human or other animal) knows this RIGHT AWAY and with no "coyness" common in humans. When an animal's partner is another animal, they usually (but not always) just keep going and hold on a bit tighter (and in the case of dogs, the male's penis swells to the point where withdrawal is not possible until after ejaculation). When the animal's partner is a HUMAN, it is incumbent upon the human (the one who is able to reason and who CARES about their partner) to stop......and zoophiles who love their animal partners DO EXACTLY THAT. THAT type of an animal's body language is also IMPOSSIBLE to misunderstand.....this is VERY unlike the case of two humans who know each other and one of them is "more powerful" and so can actually in effect RAPE the other human because due to that power differential there is no protestation.

In zoophilic (or any instance of an act of bestiality for that matter....even male animal on human female) there is DEFINITELY a power differential where the human ALWAYS has psychological power over the animal (but often NOT physical power as related in the example of the kicking horse above). Now I understand that THIS is where even those who have a liberal stance on this subject have difficulties. But my counter to this "difficulty" in understanding is two fold: (1)I can point to MANY MANY examples of human/human relationships where this power differential (or inequality) is ALSO the case. An example would be a "bread winner" husband who has the old fashioned view of the "barefoot and pregnant" wife who takes care of the kids and bakes the pies. And although I just stated it rather crudely, this type of relationship even TODAY is more common than most enlightened people would want to believe. There are households where the man works and when he comes home he EXPECTS dinner to be on the table and later EXPECTS his wife to perform in bed....whether she really wants to or not. For her part, she may be as happy as can be....and wouldn't want to change things a bit because she and her kids are provided for and she LOVES her husband even if he does "rule the roost"; and (2)Animals DO NOT look at sex the way humans do! This is the MOST IMPORTANT fact of all! They do not get hung up on the "Oh gee, I want to have sex so bad....but is it RIGHT? Are there repercussions to me later in life? Should I do this, or will I feel guilty/sad/angry later?" Animals NEVER EVER EVER think those complicated and self defeating thoughts. Their thought process is, "Does it feel good? OK then lets do it!!!"

The problem even level headed humans have when approaching this taboo subject is that when faced with the subject of consent, we tend to see animals as innocent children who cannot consent because they cannot speak.....and then to compound distrust that interspecies sexuality CAN BE a mutually pleasurable and consensual act.....we assume that an animal sees sex the same way we do, which is VERY wrong headed.

[Jessie]

The only double standard I see here is yours. You try and dance your way past the fact that you're raping creatures which cannot consent to sexual activity with human beings.

And you keep spamming this nonsense no matter how many times we shoot it down.

[Matthew R]

So, consent is a tricky issue, and I'm going to address everything that's problematic about your logic. But first, I'm going to list which points I agree with, because the way mainstream society deals with animal welfare is also problematic.

1. The fact that it's legal to kill animals, but not legal to have sex with animals, is indeed a harmful double standard. I happen to be a vegetarian myself, and I think no sentient life deserves to suffer/be killed.

2. Zoophilia is indeed as "natural" as any other fetish/sexual attraction, And you're right, many zoophiles actually love and care for animals.

3. Linking bestiality to pedophilia is indeed a bad analogy, though not for the reasons you've listed.

That being said, I'm going to list everything that's wrong with your argument, by taking a look at human-on-human rapes.

In the United States, 90% of all sexual assaults occur between people who already know each other. What does this mean? It means the cliched image of the "rapist jumping out of the bushes" with a gun is a dangerous myth. Most rapes occur between friends, spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, acquaintances etc. How is this done? By coercion, by intimidation, by manipulation, by surprise, by drugging, by wearing down someone's defenses gradually until even they think they consented to the sex.

I have a huge problem that your model of consent is: "if they fight back, then it's not consensual." Our legal system often uses the same model. This perpetuates something called rape culture--it shifts the responsibility for stopping rape on the victim rather than the perpetrator. This manifests itself in many forms: if the victim was too drunk to know what was happening, it's assumed the sex was consensual. If the victim was asleep, and they don't say no when they wake up because they're
too startled, it's assumed to be consensual. If the victim said yes to a bl0w job, it's assumed to be consensual if the rapist engages in vaginal sex, anal sex, or any other sex act the rapist wants. If the victim says no, but didn't physically fight back, it's assumed to be consensual. And so on and so forth.

I don't believe in this model of consent, because it perpetuates sexual victimization. I don't even endorse the "no means no" model. I think it should be the responsibility of the person who initiates sex to make absolutely certain the person receiving sex wants to be having this sex. In other words, "Yes means yes." Someone should never have sex with someone who is incapacitated or in a vulnerable state, and if you only agreed to certain sex acts, you should make damn sure to renegotiate those boundaries before doing anything else.

A horse can definitely physically "kick" someone away. This does not mean that if the horse did not kicky you away, the sex was consensual. Like with people, it should not be the horse's responsibility to physically stop its rapist, it should be the responsibility of the person who is having sex with the horse to make absolutely sure the horse wants sex. And I have no idea how it's possible to get clear-cut, 100% unambiguous "yes" if the horse has no means of verbally communicate.

Even if the horse initiated the sex, which might be an argument for consent, it does not mean the horse consents to every other future sexual encounter. And if the horse decides it doesn't want sex anymore halfway through the encounter, and it doesn't physically stop it, that does not mean the entire encounter was consensual.

In short, I don't think there should be laws against bestiality, because the criminal justice system is notoriously bad at dealing with rape cases, and because animals can't make use of the legal system. However, I believe humans have the moral obligation never to have sex with animals. Unless you're having sex with a gorilla who can communicate fully in sign language, it's impossible to know 100% whether the animal wants to be having sex.

Hope that answers your question.

[len]

TL;DR

Anyway, there isn't anything wrong with zoosexuals.