Thoughts on Zoophilia?

[Scorchingwilde]

Like every other interest, it's valid. I wouldn't know how to conceptualize consent without human language but if animals can have sex with one another there's the chance it's possible, of course as long as there's not a possible injury involved in the action. I do find the way we treat animals hypocritical when it comes to sex vs consumption, of course for some people animal products are necessary for their health, but plenty of other things that are legal aren't, and can be horrible, such as inbreeding dogs to the point they suffer chronic pain and health problems. Personally I'm a bit disgusted by the thought of contact just from a public health and disease spreading perspective, but like every other sexual practice, prohibition isn't going to stop it. I think greater awareness and normalization will lead to safer practices and a greater degree of communication with doctors and veterinarians such that as a species we come to include zoophilia and cross-species contact in our models of pathogen spread and contact tracing, ultimately making it a good thing in the long run.

[oolhlh2]

Personally, i find it gross, but from my encounter with zoophiles, they have all been supportive of MAPs. While i don't see this alliance as ideal at all, we don't really have the luxury to be able to pick and choose, i guess

I don't think it should be normalized. At the end of the day, the animal doesn't understand sex (it probably doesn't understand itself let alone sex) and shouldn't be able to consent to it.

[BLueRibbon]

Personally, i find it gross, but from my encounter with zoophiles, they have all been supportive of MAPs. While i don't see this alliance as ideal at all, we don't really have the luxury to be able to pick and choose, i guess

I don't think it should be normalized. At the end of the day, the animal doesn't understand sex (it probably doesn't understand itself let alone sex) and shouldn't be able to consent to it.

What about sex does an animal need to "understand"?

[Not Forever]

Personally, i find it gross, but from my encounter with zoophiles, they have all been supportive of MAPs. While i don't see this alliance as ideal at all, we don't really have the luxury to be able to pick and choose, i guess

I don't think it should be normalized. At the end of the day, the animal doesn't understand sex (it probably doesn't understand itself let alone sex) and shouldn't be able to consent to it.

Following this line of reasoning, only human beings can do things simply because only human beings have labeled everything that can be labeled, and then built arguments on top of those labels.

And it’s only something we’ve been able to do recently, because in the past we didn’t have all the knowledge we have today, so it’s questionable how much we can truly “understand” about sex and, as a logical consequence, we shouldn’t have sex with people from cultures that haven’t understood sex as well as we have.

I’m not sure if I’m managing to convey the underlying problem in this argument about understanding.

[oolhlh2]

What about sex does an animal need to "understand"?

That sex is an act that involves the gross exchange of body fluids and potential risks of diseases.

[oolhlh2]

I’m not sure if I’m managing to convey the underlying problem in this argument about understanding.

Let's say you are a 2 month old child and I decide to commit anal intercourse, then 20 years later, I tell you what I did. Would you not be upset by that? You were 2 months old, you barely even know that you exist, yet I decided to commit anal intercourse without your consent.

[Learning to undeny]

Let's say you are a 2 month old child and I decide to commit anal intercourse, then 20 years later, I tell you what I did. Would you not be upset by that? You were 2 months old, you barely even know that you exist, yet I decided to commit anal intercourse without your consent.

No one is defending that act, which is physically harmful. On the other hand, would you be upset with your mother for touching your genitals if you lived among the following Guinean people?

Gillison (1993:p176) describes the process of masturbating infants among the Gimi:

The mother insists upon continued contact, interrupting her toddler's play repeatedly to offer the breast. Masturbation [...] with a baby girl [occurs when] the mother or amau holds her hand over the vulva and shakes it vigorously. She may kiss the vagina [sic], working her way up the middle of the body to the lips and then inserting her nipple (often when the child has given no sign of discontent). With a boy, she kisses the penis, pulls at it with her fingers and takes it into her mouth to induce an erection. Several women may pass a baby boy back and forth, each one holding him over her head as she takes a turn sucking or holding the penis in her mouth. When the child then pulls at his own organ, the women, greatly amused, offer squeezes and pulls of their own."

This is the type of contact, which may be enjoyed at the moment and from which no harm is reasonably expected (at least there is no evidence that this kind of activity was harmful), that I find defensible in theory for beings that cannot express their consent (but needless to say, I do not advocate for this or any other act that may break the law).

Now, if I happened to be the only person who went through that, I would probably feel they took advantage of me, but if this were a common practice, I don't think it would cross my head to be upset over this, nor do I think there is any evidence that the practice caused the children any problems in their development. I'm not saying the practice had 0 impact on their development, but we don't know how, and there is no reason to expect that it affected them negatively, unless research showed otherwise.

An infant is also not a good analogy for an animal. For an animal I wouldn't advocate for any act that harms them. I believe many pro-c zoophiles are in favour of penetration, which I find too risky (although I have 0 idea about what precautions they must take and if harm is to be reasonably expected when measures are taken to reduce the harm). Zoonosis and physical damage are things to consider. On the other hand, I have heard of items such as an imitation of a horse vagina, whose use does not seem problematic as far as I'm aware.

[Not Forever]

Let's say you are a 2 month old child and I decide to commit anal intercourse, then 20 years later, I tell you what I did. Would you not be upset by that? You were 2 months old, you barely even know that you exist, yet I decided to commit anal intercourse without your consent.

No, I wouldn’t get angry, but I have no problem recognizing myself as an atypical person. However, if I did get angry, I would know that my anger was simply a cultural matter. It would be different if I had an injury and discovered twenty years later what had caused it. But even in that case, I wouldn’t get particularly angry — what’s done is done. At most, I would file a lawsuit, but only if I were in a position to gain something from it, and only for the purpose of gaining something from it.

That said, based on your example, should I therefore deduce that after a certain number of years an animal (if it’s still alive) would somehow feel offended by that sexual act it experienced years earlier?

[DANAT4T]

Let's say you are a 2 month old child and I decide to commit anal intercourse, then 20 years later, I tell you what I did. Would you not be upset by that? You were 2 months old, you barely even know that you exist, yet I decided to commit anal intercourse without your consent.

No, I wouldn’t get angry, but I have no problem recognizing myself as an atypical person. However, if I did get angry, I would know that my anger was simply a cultural matter. It would be different if I had an injury and discovered twenty years later what had caused it. But even in that case, I wouldn’t get particularly angry — what’s done is done. At most, I would file a lawsuit, but only if I were in a position to gain something from it, and only for the purpose of gaining something from it.

That said, based on your example, should I therefore deduce that after a certain number of years an animal (if it’s still alive) would somehow feel offended by that sexual act it experienced years earlier?

Can I be the accused's attorney?