Is Zoophilia a Legitimate & Tolerable Sexual Orientation

Post Reply New Topic

This is intended as a societal question and not as titillating perversity.

As western society develops along humanist lines and deviates from its Judeo-Christian-Scriptural roots and mergers into more humanist trends, we have seen all manner of barriers fall in sexual matters. Hence this question.

For the purposes of this question. I wish to make the distinction made by most if not all who call themselves "Zoophiles" (you can argue their sincerity elsewhere please). The specific definitions make a distinction between Zoophilia and other forms of sex with animals. To them Zoophilia is a loving caring committed, human/animal relationship that includes sex but excludes coercion force or physical harm. At this point please allow me to specify that for purposes of this discussion, I will be using the terms "Animal" and "Human" to distinguish between two different classes. I regard the use of the term "Non-human Animal" and "Human-Animal" as an attempt to distort the language to blur and reduce the very large difference that exists between humans and animals, and thereby bias the discussion. (Of course I could be charged with attempting to do the opposite, but i do believe that there are very substantive and relevant differences.)

Based on their self definition, Zoophiles reject the applicability to themselves the term "Bestiality" with the claim that bestiality is properly defined as implying exploitive and/or injurious sex with animals. They reject that and abhor that!

Frankly I find that within the definition of "zoophilia" as promoted by the zoophiles themselves, the arguments claiming it is:
-- "abuse" in the sense of cruelty or
-- that it is sex without consent
to be crude fallacies.

-- About "abuse"
Breaking this word down, to the sense of "Abnormal Use" an argument can be made that having sex with an animal is abuse in some sense, because it is a "use" that is"away" from the "norm". However, the primary connotation of "abuse" is that it is something harmful, especially in the physical sense, and maybe in the emotional sense. That is exactly what the Zoophiles vehemently reject.

-- About "consent"
How anyone who has ever seen or experienced:
---- a dog spontaneously humping their own or someone else's leg,
---- or an animal rearing up and attempting to copulate with a human,
to say that an animal cannot give consent to sex, is ludicrous. Animals are not only capable of giving consent to sex, they are capable of asking for sex! Further it matters not one whit to argue that animals do this to express or to assert dominance, it is still sex! And at least for some species if not all it is an attempt to establish at least some degree of bond between the two. It is at least an instinctual expression of their world view, however mentally primitive that may be.

Now since I am a Christian, I have a very sound basis within my own ethical structure to reject Zoophilia completely. And of course I would likewise reject Homosexuality and I would accept as the proper full expression of sexuality only in a marriage of a Man and a Woman. However, in a nation and society that does not place religion in a dominant position over governments to dictate right and wrong for everyone else, I can observe that there is an ongoing rise of 'Humanism" or "Libertarian" outlooks that are now accepting of Homosexuality, and I cannot see how if they apply the same principles without bias that they can justify outlawing Zoosexuality! Frankly it seems very hypocritical to blanket outlaw the latter while accepting the former. Especially when try to base their arguments on cruelty, abuse, and consent, (or maybe just some personal "Yecch Factor").

(Just for the record, I did do a search of this site for the term zoophilia and while I found a few hits, I did not see any that address the matter in this way.)

My expectation is that just as the Homosexuals had a long fight to win what degree of acceptance they now have and future gains that may come, I expect to see zoophiles (who appear to be using the same "play book") to achieve acceptance unless some unforeseen events occur.

So the former is my presentation of the situation as I see it, I would like to hear what others have to say. Is zoophilia s an acceptable/tolerable/legitimate/etc. sexual orientation ??? Also any other relevant comments would be appreciated.

P.S. I did read the PPS forum special posting instructions as well as the site posting instructions and I do not believe I have violated them, but would calling a zoophile a pervert mentally deranged, etc. be beyond the pale or not? Such harsh condemnation or degradation might chill their willingness to post in response.

While i understand that its hypocritical in some select cases, as you describe, to decry zoophilia as 'abuse' since animals cannot 'give consent' to being eaten any more than they can to having sex with people, I am immediately suspicious of these threads, especially from someone who identifies as having a prejudice towards homosexuality since more often than not, these arguments are intended to bait the reader into entertaining the insane idea that homosexuality is some kind of 'slippery slope' into things like zoophilia, and ultimately, paedophilia.

Wait, what? You're comparing bestiality to being gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, etc?

I'm starting to facepalm really hard here. One, who cares what sexual orientation a person is? Two, if you're sexually attracted to animals AND act on it, you have a serious issue. The two aren't even in the same category.

This just reads like one of those batshit insane conservative news articles. Why is it always about the sexual act with those who are LGBT+QA as opposed to, oh I don't know, that they're normal people like you and I who have a different sexual preference? As long as it's between two consenting individuals and they are both of legal age, who cares what they do? Raping an animal is not even in the same league as this.

Edit: I'm a Catholic, I believe in Jesus, and I believe in equal rights for those who are LGBT+QA, so your "Christian" defense falls quite easily.

Thread closed for not being in accordance with the forum rules.