Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
Interact
String
Random
Feedback
Links
Debate
Home
Fashionable People
Religious indoctrination is child abuse
23 Sperm Curry
The Future Does Not Suck
How to Win the Lottery without buying a ticket
Meatheads, Slobs and Pencil Necked Geeks
The Great American Blow Job
Give Peace a Chance
Is Equality Possible?
There's Nowt as Queer as Folk
Palace Admits Prince Charles is Gay
Paedophilia is Not a Crime
Free Pornography
Circumcision
Does God Bless America?
Chick Food
Should Adultery be Illegal?
Why is sex with animals considered wrong? Is this something to do with the rights of animals, the moral duties of man or the nature of consent?
I strongly suspect that there are a lot of ideas here that have been thoroughly mixed up for years. People do not want to face up to the issues, partly because showing an interest in the subject makes a person a suspected animal abuser. I think it is right that I declare here the nature of my interest in the subject. I have no interest in having sex with animals myself and I am not a consumer of animal pornography, I have looked out of curiosity but I certainly have never paid to look. I am fascinated by the grubbiness of the subject because of my habit of scouring the logs to see what people have been looking for when they come to my site. A disconcertingly large number of people seem to be attracted by the possibilities of looking at obscure animal sex related issues. Through the simple tactic of reporting those failed searches and allowing them to be indexed by search engines I have started a positive feedback loop which brings in a constant stream of very curious if not downright bizarre visitors. How many of those people who arrive on the site looking for images of dogs, horses, apes, whales, elephants, frogs, small rodents and people in unorthodox juxtapositions subsequently go on to engage me in debate I have no idea. I can only guess. On the basis of the quality of the debate from a few people who drop by I suspect a few have slipped in via that route.
Surveys do suggest that a small number of people do actively seek gratification of sexual urges via contact with animals. But I suspect that the vast majority of searches for animal sex related material comes from simple curiosity. Who could fail to be at least a little bit curious about such a curious subject?
Pornography that features animals and women obviously brings up the issue of degrading women. I don't buy the idea that this is the whole story. If it was then there would be no such images featuring men, but there are. I have not seen any images that look like the primary function is to show women being degraded and humiliated, although the humiliation motif is in evidence in sadomasochist, anal, oral and inter-racial pornography which is pitched as fairly mainstream American market. In fact I would go further to suggest that all the women in such images seem to be wearing the sort of expressions you might expect to see in advertisements for office furniture, there seems no hint of acting degraded, abused, in pain, humiliated or overcome with desire. They look just like professionals doing their job. Which I suppose they are. On the whole they look better company than most actresses in “regular wholesome pornography”, who often seem to be deliberately portrayed as being abused or humiliated by the whole process, an impression often reinforced by the accompanying text which calls them sluts, whores or bitches.
Are the animals raped? This is a rather difficult
point to clarify. In the case of male animals in the active role there
seems very little case to be made that there is coercion. If the actors
involved were human the matter would not arise, they appear to regard
the whole procedure as a form of masturbation, while obviously they would
give preference to members of their own species in the absence of such
opportunities they seem quite content to take part in the activities
and show no more distress than animals involved in other unnatural acts
with Homo sapiens such as dressage, show jumping, being carried around
in a handbag, jumping through a hoop or guiding a blind person to the
shops. If we do not regard all unnatural acts which humans entice animals
to take part in for their own selfish motives as abuse how can we really
draw a hard distinction between one activity and another?
In the case of female or passive animal participants of acts of sodomy there is obviously more potential for regarding the activity as rape. But we don't charge animals with rape, even in cases which are rather clear cut rapes and gang rapes so why does it make such a difference that the perpetrator is human? Does it matter to the animal? I suppose a lot depends upon the relative size.
I would be in favour of prosecuting people who rape animals for the crime of animal cruelty, with the sexual element being recognized only as it applies to the treatment of the offender and the likelihood of them re-offending.
Other forms of animal sex can involve (at least in fantasy and rumour) inserting animals whole into human body cavities. This has to be regarded as likely to be a form of animal cruelty and if it happened would be punishable as such. Medical literature, which covers examples of items retrieved from patients' rectums in extreme detail, has never recorded a case of an animal being removed from a patient, nor of damage inflicted on a patient's insides due to rectal insertion of an animal. - source Wikipedia |
 |
In what way is having sex with an Animal worse than eating it?
We use animals for our own purposes all the time, most obviously by eating them. Would an animal prefer to have its penis sucked or its liver made into pate? Which would you prefer? Tough call? I don't think so.
As long as we regard eating animals as legitimate behaviour I can see no good reason why there should be any automatic rejection of all forms of sex with animals as being beyond the pale, certainly on grounds of animal cruelty alone. Buggering a small animal like a cat or sticking a gerbil up your bottom is obviously cruel to the animal and should be punished as such, but there should be no automatic assumption that any juxtaposition of animal and human genitalia is always cruel. If it is cruel it is, and laws exist to punish such cruelty, if it isn't cruel then what is the problem?
Obtaining a semen sample for artificial insemination is not regarded as animal cruelty so what difference should it make if human pleasure (direct or vicariously via pornography) was obtained during what is fundamentally the same process? For many the answer is that it is wrong not because it causes the animal pain or distress but because it gives the human pleasure and that is a sin. Puritans don't care about pain, but pleasure is sinful. It must surely be time to rid our penal codes of this nasty small-minded Puritanism. It is not the law's concern whether something the private citizen does is fun or not. What matters is whether or not any harm is caused to other individuals, society, the nation, animals or the environment. With no harm done the law should not get involved. Enjoying an activity does not make it bad if it isn't bad in and of itself.
Does sex with animals degrade those who take part? I should say yes it probably does, but if it is a free choice made by an adult then who has got an obligation to interfere? I say nobody. By all means express your revulsion and condemn the activity but it is fundamentally illiberal to prevent somebody doing something that victimizes nobody else. That does actually seem to be the way the law treats the subject, police forces really don't want to know, they only take an interest when they have no alternative.
Should animal pornography be illegal? My answer to this is that if the activity depicted is itself illegal then such depictions should be illegal, and if not then not.
Do people who look at animal pornography actually carry out their fantasies? Do they even have fantasies? I think not on both scores for most consumers. In large measure this is a victimless crime, volunteers make pornography to make money from people with prurient curiosity. As long as the stuff is not made by being cruel to animals or by exploiting powerless people and the result is not promoted or made available to children then it is just another of many bad taste products that a free market will produce.
 |
A Rottweiller, a greyhound and a poodle are waiting in the vets. Greyhound: What are you here for? I had puppies last month and they said never again, off to the vet. Rottweiler: Funnily enough the labrador across the street had puppies last week and my owner said never again you're off to the vet. Poodle: Last week I caught my mistress bending over the bed so I mounted her and gave her a good rogering. Rottweiler: So you're here to be castrated too? Poodle: No. Just getting my claws trimmed. |
Animal Sex: Comment from a Zoosexual
