I thought we needed another thread following up on the incest thread and the necrophilia thread (YMMV), in which we can chew the fat, as it were, about the subject of zoophilia.
Should it be banned everywhere? Or, alternatively, is cross-species love an unfairly maligned activity that could bring happiness between man and his best friends with benefits?
Now some people will no doubt argue that society doesn't ask us to do much, just not ***** our pets, our dads or dead bodies, and point out that the yuck factor may be there for a good reason which should not be ignored. Of course, there are those who will argue that zoophilia is a "crime against nature", however, having done some cursory research, I noted that zoophilia has often been depicted in certain classical art. In Japanese ukiyo-e, for example, in some ancient Greek sculpture, and in Indian, Persian and European art it is often depicted in a fairly "non-judgmental" way. Could it be that "our" disgust is relatively recent and not universal?
Similarly there is no blanket prohibition of zoophilia across the world. It seems from some map I looked at on Wikipedia, that most countries take no position on it, and a number of other countries legally allow it. It seems only a minority of countries outright ban the practice (in the US, some states allow it and others do not). I also remember hearing, perhaps apocryphal stories, about how many people who grow up on farms have their first sexual experiences with animals (Is this right?) and that in the early days after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet Union legalized zoophilia as a means of getting the peasants onside (Is this true?).
On the other hand, if it is not disgust that should be the deciding factor, others argue that consent is a more important matter. As animals cannot speak they cannot reasonably be said to be able to consent to sex with a human. However, this argument also is problematic on a number of grounds, not least the fact that humans tend to use animals for all kinds of purposes that they cannot consent to and to which we would not usually think they would if they could understand (farm animals don't consent to be eaten, or to suffer the types of treatment that battery animals are put through; animals used in medical experiments and cosmetic testing probably don't consent to their treatment; and pets don't exactly consent to being the property of humans or to having to do certain work without adequate remuneration; nor do they consent to being used sexually in other ways such as for artificial insemination).
If we can keep pets under the assumption that pets are happy as pets, then what about those that appear to be happy in carnal relations with humans? Obviously there is a problem with abuse or with causing animals pain and cruelty that, however hyprocritical we may be given some of our other uses of animals, this may seem like an unnecessary expansion of that. But, I think that this can fall under the same protections that pets receive. We have to accept that it is difficult to prevent cruelty to pets in many cases and have to allow a certain trust in people to look after cats and dogs.
Alternatively there could be some highly regulated industry, like prostitution, which keeps the animals safe and well looked after.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts I am throwing out there. FWIW I have never even thought to commit such acts; I do consider it gross; and I don't find animals attractive. (Just thought I would add that as a disclaimer).
Should it be banned everywhere? Or, alternatively, is cross-species love an unfairly maligned activity that could bring happiness between man and his best friends with benefits?
Now some people will no doubt argue that society doesn't ask us to do much, just not ***** our pets, our dads or dead bodies, and point out that the yuck factor may be there for a good reason which should not be ignored. Of course, there are those who will argue that zoophilia is a "crime against nature", however, having done some cursory research, I noted that zoophilia has often been depicted in certain classical art. In Japanese ukiyo-e, for example, in some ancient Greek sculpture, and in Indian, Persian and European art it is often depicted in a fairly "non-judgmental" way. Could it be that "our" disgust is relatively recent and not universal?
Similarly there is no blanket prohibition of zoophilia across the world. It seems from some map I looked at on Wikipedia, that most countries take no position on it, and a number of other countries legally allow it. It seems only a minority of countries outright ban the practice (in the US, some states allow it and others do not). I also remember hearing, perhaps apocryphal stories, about how many people who grow up on farms have their first sexual experiences with animals (Is this right?) and that in the early days after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet Union legalized zoophilia as a means of getting the peasants onside (Is this true?).
On the other hand, if it is not disgust that should be the deciding factor, others argue that consent is a more important matter. As animals cannot speak they cannot reasonably be said to be able to consent to sex with a human. However, this argument also is problematic on a number of grounds, not least the fact that humans tend to use animals for all kinds of purposes that they cannot consent to and to which we would not usually think they would if they could understand (farm animals don't consent to be eaten, or to suffer the types of treatment that battery animals are put through; animals used in medical experiments and cosmetic testing probably don't consent to their treatment; and pets don't exactly consent to being the property of humans or to having to do certain work without adequate remuneration; nor do they consent to being used sexually in other ways such as for artificial insemination).
If we can keep pets under the assumption that pets are happy as pets, then what about those that appear to be happy in carnal relations with humans? Obviously there is a problem with abuse or with causing animals pain and cruelty that, however hyprocritical we may be given some of our other uses of animals, this may seem like an unnecessary expansion of that. But, I think that this can fall under the same protections that pets receive. We have to accept that it is difficult to prevent cruelty to pets in many cases and have to allow a certain trust in people to look after cats and dogs.
Alternatively there could be some highly regulated industry, like prostitution, which keeps the animals safe and well looked after.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts I am throwing out there. FWIW I have never even thought to commit such acts; I do consider it gross; and I don't find animals attractive. (Just thought I would add that as a disclaimer).
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1yz9Z1t
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire