Bestiality/Zoophilia: Ethics of

[Rye]

Well, the title says it all, really.

Before anyone casts aspersions or jumps to conclusions, I should note I vehemently dislike it on a visceral level, but as we all know, that's a pretty bad standard to go by. So here comes the difficult conversation...

As I understand it, the obvious unethical behaviour involved in fucking non-human animals is the fact they can't consent to sex like a mature human can. You can make comparisons to paedophilia; after all, children can't consent, the relationship will always be predatory and one-sided and it's wrong to put a child or animal through that.

But then it occurs to me, it's difficult to argue the immorality of, for instance, stroking a dog if it wants to be stroked. If a dog is humping your leg, would it be wrong to, well, wank it off and enjoy it? Sounds awful and hilarious, but I can't work out how it would be "wrong" in an ethical sense. Nobody's hurt by it, the dog enjoys it and to an extent initiated it and consented to it like it does any other affection from humans.

Then comes the other problem. We farm and kill animals all the time without their consent. Surely that sort of processing is far worse for them to any individual animal than fucking them? On what basis can we say "it's wrong to fuck a cow, but it's okay to kill it for food"? Or fucking a horse, why is that worse than "breaking them in" or whipping them for extra speed, or endangering their legs by show jumping? I must say I find it difficult to answer.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

[Serafina]

Ok, first question: Is there any harm done?

Obviously, there is no harm done to any human being. Of course, thats too easy - animals can suffer, too.

Now, the question is: What harm is done to the animal? Does it suffer?
As the Duchess pointed out, there is some sort of betrayal to the animal (it expects something, but does not receive it).
But can the animal recognize it? Does a *insert animal here* KNOW that it has been betrayed? Does it suffer because it was not able to successfully reproduce?
If it does, then there is harm done - which makes it morally wrong.
But if it does not, no harm has been done - so there is nothing wrong with it.

Oh, and animals (at least mammals) DO enjoy sex and receive pleasure from it. It may be instinct-driven, but that does not mean that they do not feel something during it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

With the caveat that I find bestiality disgusting, I would argue otherwise. We have no reason to think that, (at least when dealing with mammals) they do not have the same proximate motivations we do. IE. they feel pleasure when engaged in sexual activity. I would also argue that we also desire Reproductive activity by instinct, and that the feeling of pleasure is a rather nice side effect. Therefore your logic is moot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

With the caveat that I find bestiality disgusting, I would argue otherwise. We have no reason to think that, (at least when dealing with mammals) they do not have the same proximate motivations we do. IE. they feel pleasure when engaged in sexual activity. I would also argue that we also desire Reproductive activity by instinct, and that the feeling of pleasure is a rather nice side effect. Therefore your logic is moot.

Humans are clearly capable of consciously choosing to engage in sexual activity which is not reproductive, because they consciously choose to employ birth control and then proceed to have sex anyway. Animals have never to my knowledge been shown to use contraceptives, not even the tool using animals which should be theoretically capable of attempting it. Therefore your point is moot.

[SecondStorm]

In some countries (my own included) Zoophilia is legal as long as the animal in question is not hurt.

[Rye]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

I don't buy that. Pigs, for instance, have ten minute long orgasms, and our desire for orgasms are undoubtedly from the same primal stock as them, and I doubt puppies or piglets are on their mind when they do it. Dogs will fuck anything they can mount. Watch a chihuahua fuck a chair leg or a sleeping bull mastiff for optimum hilarity. Bonobos pleasure one another sexually all the time as a currency and substitute for violence. We want sex because it's fun. Animals want it for the same reason, it's the way nature motivates us to produce babies, and teenage pregnancy rates show it works.

And again, I don't see why that's actually immoral. You might as well say playing fetch is immoral because it's a playful deception of their hunting instinct. The fact they enjoy it should be a big sign that no actual harm is being done. Do you have evidence that anything is being hurt if a guy blows a chihuahua?

[Broomstick]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

I think you have that completely backward.

I don't think animals go beyond "Urge to do X" and "X feels good". I don't see any evidence that any animal other than humans beings makes any connection between sex and reproduction.

Oh, and animals (at least mammals) DO enjoy sex and receive pleasure from it.

So do birds. I have had pet birds for almost 20 years now. They little beasties will cheerfully masturbate using perches, toys, and on several occassions the back of the family couch in the living room.

[Surlethe]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

You make no sense. The crux of your argument relies upon the unstated assumption that the only moral behavior is that which coincides with the "intent" of thoughtless instinctual drive, and I see no justification for that. Besides, it's not like animals other than humans know that sexual activity leads to reproduction; they're almost certainly pursuing it for pleasure. So taking advantage of it for pleasure is not even deceitful; who are you deceiving, the animal's instincts?

[Plekhanov]

Compared to many of the things commonly done to animals by people such as:

factory farming them
killing and eating them
testing consumer products & medicines upon them
making them pull and carry heavy loads
making them carry people
making them perform in circuses, rodeos, marine parks...

People having sex with animals (assuming of course they aren't harmed or made to suffer) hardly seems that bad. It's certainly distasteful and icky but I can't see a rational argument for criminalising bestiality when all the above are legal.

Do you have to 'break' an animal to have sex with it? If not it's hard to see how it's supposed to be worse than making a horse do dressage or show jumping.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Humans are clearly capable of consciously choosing to engage in sexual activity which is not reproductive, because they consciously choose to employ birth control and then proceed to have sex anyway.

Many organisms have sex when not actually capable of bearing offspring. Bonobo chimps, dolphins, among others and they do so for a variety of reasons (pure pleasure, pleasure+currency etc). The only reason we NEED birth control at all is because there are no external signs that a female is ovulatory.

Animals have never to my knowledge been shown to use contraceptives, not even the tool using animals which should be theoretically capable of attempting it. Therefore your point is moot.

Because unlike us, they dont actually need to.

To get straight to the point, your deontological argument, like all deontological argument is full of shit. Much like nearly all deontological arguments are full of shit. The first reason for this is that an organism (most of them anyway) is not consciously aware of the intent of its instincts. They process their sexual desires as nothing more than "She smells good, I want to fuck her. Oooooh this feels good" in much the same way we do (depending on a few other factors there may or may not be pair bonding in either case). Therefore the animal is not harmed by the intent of their instincts not reaching fruition anymore than our use of birth control does the same.

Then there is the "intent" of the instincts. Bluntly, evolution does not "intend" anything. As a result instincts do not have an "intent" which is in any way morally relevant, as there is no being which has its interests violated.

Hell, if I grant that the animal has an interest in its own reproduction, then bestiality still is not wrong. Why? Because they have sex even when doing it for reproductive purposes, and do not conceive. It takes a lion on average 3000 copulations to successfully fertilize a female. This is why a male lion mates with one female thousands of times over the course of a few days during the mating season. Even if they do consciously desire reproduction and on a one-time sexual encounter this will not happen for them, the same can be said of their own same-species mating.

Lastly, you have not established that deception is inherently immoral.

[TheLostVikings]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

With the caveat that I find bestiality disgusting, I would argue otherwise. We have no reason to think that, (at least when dealing with mammals) they do not have the same proximate motivations we do. IE. they feel pleasure when engaged in sexual activity. I would also argue that we also desire Reproductive activity by instinct, and that the feeling of pleasure is a rather nice side effect. Therefore your logic is moot.

Humans are clearly capable of consciously choosing to engage in sexual activity which is not reproductive, because they consciously choose to employ birth control and then proceed to have sex anyway. Animals have never to my knowledge been shown to use contraceptives, not even the tool using animals which should be theoretically capable of attempting it. Therefore your point is moot.

I don't know about other species, but at least Monkies (and certain great apes too afaik) both masturbate, as well as engage in homosexual sex (which can't possibly lead to reproduction for obvious reasons). Your point is the one which is moot I'm afraid.

[Akhlut]

I don't know about other species, but at least Monkies (and certain great apes too afaik) both masturbate, as well as engage in homosexual sex (which can't possibly lead to reproduction for obvious reasons). Your point is the one which is moot I'm afraid.

Actually, probably all mammals masturbate if they can manage too (why do you think dogs lick their balls?). Most animals that utilize sex probably have a few homosexual members, as there are species of invertebrates that have homosexual behavior.

[Tolya]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

Going by this standard it would be ok to have sex with a dolphin.

[loomer]

I don't know about other species, but at least Monkies (and certain great apes too afaik) both masturbate, as well as engage in homosexual sex (which can't possibly lead to reproduction for obvious reasons). Your point is the one which is moot I'm afraid.

Actually, probably all mammals masturbate if they can manage too (why do you think dogs lick their balls?). Most animals that utilize sex probably have a few homosexual members, as there are species of invertebrates that have homosexual behavior.

There are plenty of very, very clearly gay cats to give a specific, mammalian, non-Simian example of sex without reproductive drive.

There is something terribly funny about naming one of these very, very gay cats Freddy Mercury before you know he is gay. This happened with my mother.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The animal desires reproductive activity by instinct, not pleasure as such. Ergo, it is immoral to deceitfully have sex with an animal for pleasure, when no possibility of reproduction exists, when the animal is under the invariable and absolute instinctual impression that the act will lead to reproduction. Because the sex drive in animals is a hard-wired instinct to breed without any thought involved, taking advantage of that instinct for pleasure without the possibility of reproduction is inherently deceitful, and thus beastiality immoral.

To follow your line of thinking to its logical conclusion: It's immoral to let a kitten bat around a piece of string. Kittens and cats chase small objects because of a hardwired instinct to hunt. They're under the 'invariable and absolute instinctual impression' that the act will lead to a meal. Taking advantage of that instinct for mutual pleasure without the possibility of the cat catching and killing its own meal is inherently deceitful, and thus playing with kittens is immoral.

[SAMAS]

Maybe not a kitten per se, given that kittens play all the time as a way of practicing said hunting skills.

On the other hand, what about Catnip?

[Bluewolf]

Maybe not a kitten per se, given that kittens play all the time as a way of practicing said hunting skills.

The idea can work with cats as well due to the fact that cats can still play when they are adult.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The proposed mechanism of ethical condemnation is withdrawn.

[Pick]

I think that if the animal does not experience physical harm during the process, and seems to enjoy it (such as by instigating the act), then the real question is why the hell a human would consent and what it says about him/her. As far as I can see, it is reasonable for a horny dog (for example) to engage in sex with whatever is around ("I want to be pleasured, and this act with this other organism pleasures me"), but from the human's side? Man, I don't even know.

Then again, interspecies sex is sometimes evident in the wild, so.... Actually, I have no idea what that would clarify. It's a toughie all around.

[Molyneux]

What I'm curious about is, could this serve as a vector for disease? Similarly to with polygamy, I'm trying very hard to find a reason why this is unethical (aside from situations where the sex is dangerous for either party...such as, for example, dolphin sex), but I haven't yet encountered or formulated one that stands up to scrutiny.

I just think it's icky. I can't for the life of me figure out a logical reason why.

On a side note, if and when sex with an human-level intelligent nonhuman species becomes an option, I don't think that bestiality should be the term used. I'm fond of rishathra, myself.

[loomer]

What I'm curious about is, could this serve as a vector for disease? Similarly to with polygamy, I'm trying very hard to find a reason why this is unethical (aside from situations where the sex is dangerous for either party...such as, for example, dolphin sex), but I haven't yet encountered or formulated one that stands up to scrutiny.

I just think it's icky. I can't for the life of me figure out a logical reason why.

On a side note, if and when sex with an human-level intelligent nonhuman species becomes an option, I don't think that bestiality should be the term used. I'm fond of rishathra, myself.

It can, yes, but it's not too common (then again, fucking animals isn't too common in the first place, so who knows?). It's generally stuff like UTIs or allergic reactions to the animal's dander or fluids.

It'd be horrible to discover you have an allergy to, say, dogs that way. You're going it and then all of a sudden it burns.

[Broomstick]

It is possible there is a genetic component to the "icky" factor, just as there seems to be a universal incest taboo of some sort and some genetic factor in homosexuality. After all, people who spend their time fucking sheep are not passing on their human genes to the next human generation, and thus anything genetic that influences people to NOT fuck non-humans will be slightly more likely to be perpetuated than the alternative. If such a factor did exist it is obviously not an absolute, as we clearly have zoophillics in our species just as we have homosexuals and people who commit incest.

Which is NOT to say I consider homosexuality immoral. Clearly, many societies do view it that way. I will also point out that in some societies among royalty not only has incest been condoned but in some cases mandated so while there is an incest taboo in humans there are some notable exceptions to that rule. Touchy, touchy subjects.

I'd say one big ethical issue with bestiality is the asymmetrical power dynamics. Just as parent-child incest is arguably more problematic than sibling incest because the child is in no position to either refuse or give meaningful consent, a domestic animal is not really in a position to refuse sex, or give meaningful consent when trained to obey human commands without question. If you take that position then bestiality between humans and wild animals might be ethically neutral (assuming no coercion) but not between humans and their chattel.

[loomer]

It's interesting to note the mythological and ritual aspects of bestiality as well, now that I think on it. Even though there's an 'ick' factor there (though, as the existence of bestiality porn and forums shows, it's not universal, like you pointed out Broomstick), you've had it show up in a hell of a lot of major myths and cultures in some form or another.

The forms that immediately spring to mind are how Zeus used to decide to screw human women as all manner of animals, the Indian 'mock mating' between a priestess and a dead stallion, and the old Irish rite where the King'd fuck a mare, cook the mare, then eat the mare in the same pot he cooked her in - and of course, the Egyptian fucking goats for religion and health.

It definitely seems to be a general fascination for humanity over history. In terms of ethics, I roll with Broomstick on this, by far and large, with the possible exception of some domestic animals being a neutral-ethic act - if a dog decides to start snuffling away and the person being snuffled enjoys it but doesn't actively seek out, or similar situations, then that's probably not exploitative.

[Rye]

Just as parent-child incest is arguably more problematic than sibling incest because the child is in no position to either refuse or give meaningful consent, a domestic animal is not really in a position to refuse sex, or give meaningful consent when trained to obey human commands without question. If you take that position then bestiality between humans and wild animals might be ethically neutral (assuming no coercion) but not between humans and their chattel.

What about the points I raised against this, though? If you smear peanut butter on your genitals and have a dog lick it off, the dog's going to enjoy it, so are you, and its consent in non-sexual affection is never considered an important thing. Is there something intrinsically different about sexual affection when the outcomes are broadly similar?

The last bit, I guess, is you advocating vegetarianism too?