Philosophy Now Forum

As an animal rights activist I don't know how to deal with this controversial issue.

Most humans eat meat, meaning they can justify the murder of animals for food. They must also be able to justify the agricultural process: the masturbation of animals so their sperm can be collected for artificial insemination, the forced mating of animals etc. If these activities can be justified by society it is surprising that bestiality is prohibited. The argument may be that animals are required for food, however any vegetarian knows this is not true.

The usual argument against bestiality is that animals cannot give consent, however they cannot consent to the things listed above yet society doesn't prevent them happening. They cannot consent to being taken for a walk any more than they can consent to being eaten.

Morality is occasionally used as an argument against bestiality, however morality is subjective and has been used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality or sex before marriage.

Finally bestiality is used synonymously with animal abuse or rape. This is inaccurate as not all bestiality is forceful. A dog may mount a human of its own free will, animals can reject human advances by moving away, a human zoophile may make a concerted effort to avoid harming his animal partner etc.

Should people concerned with animal rights be pro or anti bestiality?

MisterMaggot wrote:As an animal rights activist I don't know how to deal with this controversial issue.

Most humans eat meat, meaning they can justify the murder of animals for food. They must also be able to justify the agricultural process: the masturbation of animals so their sperm can be collected for artificial insemination, the forced mating of animals etc. If these activities can be justified by society it is surprising that bestiality is prohibited. The argument may be that animals are required for food, however any vegetarian knows this is not true.

The usual argument against bestiality is that animals cannot give consent, however they cannot consent to the things listed above yet society doesn't prevent them happening. They cannot consent to being taken for a walk any more than they can consent to being eaten.

Morality is occasionally used as an argument against bestiality, however morality is subjective and has been used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality or sex before marriage.

Finally bestiality is used synonymously with animal abuse or rape. This is inaccurate as not all bestiality is forceful. A dog may mount a human of its own free will, animals can reject human advances by moving away, a human zoophile may make a concerted effort to avoid harming his animal partner etc.

Should people concerned with animal rights be pro or anti bestiality?

The victim isn't the animal, but the people who are offended by the act.

I would like to say that it's because there would be no way to verify whether the animal consented or not, but I suspect the reason has more to do with religion and deep-seated taboo than any actual concern for the animal. Mares are raped by stallions in the thoroughbred horse industry and no one seems to think there is anything wrong with that.

It's an interesting topic. I was just reading about another illegal taboo, incest between consenting adults. It was a case of genetic sexual attraction between a father and his daughter. He hadn't had anything to do with her and they met for the first time as adults. The age gap wasn't huge either. I've seen other cases of family members who have met for the first time as adults and the attraction has been very strong. These are genuine people who have fallen hopelessly in love. These people are branded as criminals yet it's a victimless crime. This law seems to have no purpose except to appease public disgust over something that's considered taboo. A more constructive law could be to ensure these couples have a thorough knowledge of the risks of having children, and be made to do extensive testing to ensure they have normal offspring.

That is interesting. I saw a documentary, British, a brother and sister separated at birth. Both married had children and then met again for the first time after thirty odd years. There was instant sympatico between them and a sexual relationship ensued. I remember the man saying, "he fought with his son outside his house, as the son was trying to stop him from leaving the house to go to his sister". The father said he was ashamed of beating up his son, in defence of his desire. Ultimately, he overcame this with pyschoanalysis and left the sister and returned to his wife and son. The sister was "abandoned", what damage was caused. The mind is a powerful tool.

the usual off the top of ones head explanation for the incest between consenting adults prohibition is that it can result in retarded babies

so i point out that if two brothers have sex there is no chance of retarded babies

and everyone is like yuck brothers together

strangely enough no one is nearly as disgusted by the thought of two sisters together and in many cases the disgust is clearly feigned - many guys would love to watch

but even girls are a lot less wigged out by the idea of two sisters together

what is with this

Kayla wrote:the usual off the top of ones head explanation for the incest between consenting adults prohibition is that it can result in retarded babies

so i point out that if two brothers have sex there is no chance of retarded babies

and everyone is like yuck brothers together

strangely enough no one is nearly as disgusted by the thought of two sisters together and in many cases the disgust is clearly feigned - many guys would love to watch

but even girls are a lot less wigged out by the idea of two sisters together

what is with this

I guess people are grossed out by it for a good reason. Other mammals do their best to avoid in-breeding. Personally I find the thought of sisters together as repulsive as brothers together, but that's an instinctual thing. Genetic sexual attraction seems to be an anomaly and is quite rare. It's just very unfortunate for those affected.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Personally I find the thought of sisters together as repulsive as brothers together, but that's an instinctual thing.

how do you know it is not social rather than instinctual

Kayla wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Personally I find the thought of sisters together as repulsive as brothers together, but that's an instinctual thing.

how do you know it is not social rather than instinctual

I don't know, but it seems to be an 'instinct' that a lot of people don't have. There are a lot of depraved men out there raping their daughters.

vegetarian we are talking about consensual sex here

a lot of people get wigged out by consensual incest between consenting adults especially but not exclusively if it is gay male incest

is there any good reason for this

that is an interesting question