Arguments about 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. They include:[
citation needed]
- "Let bestiality be legal and sexual activity between adults and children will be legal"
- "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the "Yuck Factor". (For contrasting view see: Wisdom of repugnance)
- "Sexual contact with animals exposes people to elevated risk for infection with zoonotic diseases"
- "Animals are not sapient, and therefore unable to consent." (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)[51]
- "Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships with humans."
- "Zoosexual relations are simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners."
- "Sexual acts with animals by humans are always physical abuse."[52]
- "Animals mate instinctively to produce offspring (or: only have sex for reproduction), hence they are deceived when these activities are performed." (this reason is somewhat disputed due to research by the Bronx Zoo suggesting that some apes copulate for entertainment.)[53]
- "It takes advantage of animals' innate social structure which forces them to please a leader."
- "Humans are guardians in charge of animals, so a sexual relationship is a betrayal of the trust earned by this duty of care."
- "Zoosexuality is 'profoundly disturbed behaviour.'" (cf. the UK Home Office review on sexual offences, 2002)[54]
- "It offends human dignity[55] or is forbidden by religious law."
- "It can actually damage the animals', or their owners', reputations, and have them ostracised or put down." [56]
Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality state that:
- "'Natural' is debatable; it's also not necessarily relevant." (ie, naturalistic fallacy)
- Cross species sex does sometimes occur in nature (e.g. Mating Toads Leap the Species Barrier)
- "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."[57][58][59]
- "Animals do form mutual relationships with humans."
- "Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships;[37] many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans."
- "Many zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; tending to oppose the view that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'."
- "It is a misperception that zoosexual relations need necessarily be inherently harmful/abusive. Usually it needs only sensitivity, mutuality, and understanding of everyday animal behavior."[60][61]
- "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning."
- "Animal and human social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and can easily encompass dynamically changing roles and leads."
- "People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to also take responsibility for its sexual drive. Neutering and ignoring are a failure to accept animals as they are, often used to avoid facing an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or 'best care'."[62]
- "Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can unambiguously solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language. Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible."[63][58]
- "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and are personal; many individuals do not consider them relevant."
They also 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. Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). [Also see:
speciesism]
[64]
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)
People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to
alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of
animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.
[65] Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.
[65] 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; their research is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues.
[66] 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.
