User:Charity Shopaholic/Ethical

cleanup- refs need fixing-more to do

--

Ethical considerations
Platonic love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual interest, sometimes very strongly. Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including religious, moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social arguments. They include:

The Wisdom of repugnance, that many people instinctively feel repulsed by the idea, and that this may be a sign the idea is not a good one. Instinctive or knee-jerk reactions may not always be correct, however. The belief that bestiality is unnatural, though this may be subject to the naturalistic fallacy. Cross species sex does sometimes occur in nature. The fear that if bestiality were made legal, the next thing to be made legal would be sex between adults and children.

Similar to arguments against sex with human minors, The Humane Society of the United States has said that as animals don't have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. In his 1993 article, Dr. Frank Ascione stated that 'bestiality may be considered abusive even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur (this is similar to the case of adult sexual activity with a child where consent is presumed to be impossible).' This is because animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse. In a 1997 article, Piers Beirne, Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine, points out that 'for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires.'  Miltski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way." It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to hump on the legs of people of both genders, and to perform coital movements. Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively. Those supporting zoophilia feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention or to initiate it. Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending zoopilia this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail. That an animal might act instinctively rather than with thought does not mean there is not enjoyment, will or the ability to learn via Pavlovian conditioning, but a Pavlovian response may not be full consent. Such relationships may also be taking advantage of animals' innate social structure drives them to please the leader of a pack. Zoophiliacs believe the social roles between species are more flexible than that. Some people believe that zoosexual relations are simply for those unable or unwilling to find human partners. Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans. Some zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; tending to oppose the view that they are simply seeking sexual fulfillment. However farm animals or pets, with which the zoophiliac may have come into contact as a child, are the most common animals chosen.

Other ethical concerns regarding zoophilia are the belief that humans are guardians in charge of their animals, so a sexual relationship is a betrayal of the trust earned by this duty of care. Zoophiliacs say that taking responsibility for their pet's sexual drive is more accepting of the animal than Neutering, which is done more for human convenience than animal welfare.

Those arguing against zoophilia may say that animals mate instinctively to produce offspring, only having sex for reproduction, hence they are deceived when these activities are performed." This reason is somewhat disputed due to research by the Bronx Zoo suggesting that some apes copulate for entertainment.)  The common assertion that animals "only have sex for reproduction" is discussed in depth by the urban myth website snopes.com. In summary, the assertion is true, but only for a very limited and "very specific definition" of "sex for pleasure" based upon "many seemingly artificial distinctions": The myth assumes that sex cannot both be biologically imperative and pleasurable, and considers sex only pleasurable if it takes place at arbitrary times during the year, discounting sex as "unpleasurable" if linked to a reproductive cycle or incapable of reproduction, as well as if any explanation can be suggested which removes the need to assume pleasure is gained. (See Animal sexuality). Male animals can achieve orgasm, and Beetz claims that female animals of some species have too. However, there is no evidence for this in most female animals. Animals give mating signals to others of their species, and zoophiliacs feel they demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language. Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible.

Zoosexuality is profoundly disturbed behaviour, as indicated by the UK Home Office review on sexual offences, 2002) Beetz also states there is significant evidence that violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals, often characterized by "binding, roping, threatening, beating", are linked to "violent behavior" and could be a "rehearsal for human-directed violence", however she says that the degree of violence used has not been asked.  It is possible animals are traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human.  But if the approach is conducted with kindness and care and stopped if the animal shows signs of discomfort, as zoophiles describe ideal sexual interactions with animals, she believes there's no need for trauma to result.

An argument from human dignity is given by Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow and Intelligent Design proponent at the Center for Science and Culture of the conservative Christian Discovery Institute: - "such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe--a concept known as 'human exceptionalism' ... one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth." wesleyjsmith.com and weeklystandard.com Aug 31 2005 or is forbidden by religious law."  People's beliefs about religion and human dignity vary; many individuals do not consider them relevant.  But it can also damage the animals', or their owners', reputations, and have them ostracised or the animals put down.  In Africa at one point bestiality was rumoured to spread AIDS, ad people avoided the meat or milk of such animals, leading to them being destroyed.

Defenders of zoophilia assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). [Also see: speciesism] Critics of this reasoning state that animals can communicate internally (hence consent) within their own species, but cannot communicate cross-species. Others state that animal communication is clear and unambiguous cross-species as well.

In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the "British Journal of Sexual Medicine" commented over 30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced." (Jan/Feb 1974, p.43) People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues. Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive. Ethologists who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans; their research is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, many individuals may be more accepting in private than they make clear to the public. Regardless, there is a general societal view which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition.