PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

by Jeph Johnson 

I don't condone sex with animals...but I sure as hell am not going to condemn it either!

The debate about whether or not zoophilia is a justified practice and legitimate fetish seems to boil down to whether or not consent can be given by the animal.

I am not one to make a judgment on whether or not animals can consent, just as I am not one to decide just when a fetus becomes a baby. It is a debate no one can answer - ever.

Let's assess what we do know. We do know they surely can't consent to the same standard a human can. Their reasoning skills are sadly not as advanced as ours. But the question remains, whether or not consent should be necessary in order to utilize an animal for sexual pleasure. This is what I am more concerned with.

Whether or not you find sexual interplay between humans and animals disgusting or titillating is irrelevant. The question I am concerned with answering is:

"Do people who find this sort of behavior a legitimate way to express oneself have the right to do so?"

Let us look at some other things humans do to animals solely for the betterment or pleasure of humans:

-We breed them (without their consent)
-We eat them (without their consent)
-We use their fur and skin as clothing (without their consent)
-We use them for transportation (without their consent)
-We use them for testing (without their consent)
-We use them for laborious tasks (without their consent)
-We use them for sport (without their consent)

In none of these activities is consent given, and in most of these generally accepted practices, the animal is suffering more than it would in a sexual liaison with a human zoophile.

If consent is not given in the "kill them for food" example (yet we do it), why does consent need to be given in the "use them for their sexual pleasure" example?

For the record, most zoosexuals believe consent is implied when they practice zoophilia, but that isn't a debate I want to get into. I just wanted it stated so people understand why I defend the rights of others to practice this unpopular sexual fetish.

Obviously people can believe anything they want, but I have much more respect for people who are consistent with their judgments.

As a carnivore who believes it is perfectly justified to eat other animals, I don't feel I can stand in judgment of someone whose kink it is to interact sexually with an animal.

Some have said that a human interacting sexually with an animal is tantamount to rape. If this is indeed the case, then it surely waters down the horrendous atrocity of human on human rape.

Yes, rape is a crime of power, but isn't the power dynamic already implied and demonstrated in almost all aspects of human-animal interaction?

-Does our use of animals as food make us cannibalistic?

-Does our use of their fur as clothing make us Hannibal Lechters?

-Does our use of them as test subjects make us into mad scientists?

-Does our use of horses and mules as transportation make us slave drivers?

-Does our use of dogs and cats for companionship make them into escorts?

No, this is all ridiculous.

So why are we painting those who choose to interact with animals in a sexual way as rapists? And why are we equating an animal who has engaged in sexual play with a human, to a human rape victim?

Sure, it might be disgusting to most of us. But so is scat play and emetophilia.  Heck, so is homosexuality to a good portion of the redneck and Christian/Muslim world.

Only the most puritanical and bigoted among us would tell others they couldn't practice these sexual practices in the privacy of their own homes.

The degree of how unpopular something is gives even more reason to defend its practice (as long as no one else is getting hurt).

Now, one may argue that the animal is hurt by sexual interaction from a human. That is outlandish. From my understanding, zoophiles actually form loving interactions towards their animal partner. They wouldn't dream of physically hurting them. They want to pleasure them!

As to emotional damage to the animal. That is outlandish too. The animal would need to have human feelings, emotions and reasoning skills to feel emotionally damaged. You can't have it both ways. If indeed an animal has no capability to consent (and never will) then it has no ability to feel emotional scarring from a simple pleasurable feeling.

And let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that an animal was hurt. At worst, we are back to the start. Are not animals killed for food being hurt? Or used as slave labor? Or tested upon? etc. etc.

Breeders of livestock are already forcing sexuality on cattle. There is the practice of using teaser cows to entice bulls for breeding, only to have the bull's penis moved into an artificial vagina for semen collection. To me, this is a much crueler form of bestiality, done without any loving intent, instead simply to breed cows with more tender meat.

But I guess it is okay because we want our meat really tender and juicy.  Well, perhaps someone wants their sexual pleasure sated by sexual interactions with an animal?

That should be okay too.

Who am I to judge?