Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don’t benefit from having sex with animals (they don’t enjoy having sex with animals).
A number of US states agree with op here, some it’s legal to have sex with animals within limits, anything over 20 pounds rings a bell for one, alabama maybe. They might have changed those laws because they were getting made fun of idk.
This is exactly why many indigenous cultures put an emphasis on thanking the animal for their meat.
Everybody’s gotta eat, but not everyone’s gotta fuck a dog
The animal isn’t aware of being dead.
Artificial semination is key to commercial animal agriculture, and that too would be unambiguously rape in human standards. Not to mention the horrific living conditions of most animals farmed for meat.
It’s really just because one has always been normal, and the other hasn’t, aka it’s cultural. It’s not rational. Though there’s also arguably far more benefit in killing for meat vs. having sex with dubious consent, so that can be a consideration that isn’t purely cultural.
So that means it’s ethical to kill you?
Me personally? Yes
While klling an animal for food is sure destructive for the animal, it is constructive for the humanity. It allows us to get all those proteins “for free” instead of producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do and invest the saved energy in our intelligence to create beautiful and complex things. Whereas copulating with an animal is pure destruction. It harms the living being and leads to no babies and no emotional bond strengthening (contrary to human sex).
Eating animal is still a contradiction, because destruction is there. So I think this problem does need to be somehow overcome. But at least it’s outweighed by its positive effects, unlike zoophilia.
Eh…
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
HIV exists because someone had intercourse with a chimpanzee so that might be a part of it.
I’m not aware of that being a prominent theory honestly. I thought the most popular theory was actually that HIV exists because of the hunting and butchering of simians with SIV
People raping and killing for their own enjoyment is sick. Someone else doing the dirty work for our enjoyment (i.e. eating meat), well that’s different. If somehow zoophilia were proven to enhance meat flavor, we’d probably be OK with it
Thanks for taking this question in purely analytical manner and questioning the conflicting social values. There are many comments here which tries to answer the question but get engaged into sense of social shame and prejudice rather than focusing into the logical consistency with given premise.
False premise. Zoophilia isn’t condemned because animal rights etc. It’s condemned because ‘ew WTF we don’t want people doing that, to the extent that we will make laws against it.’
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I’m not saying it should be allowed because we (some of us) grew up and realised that laws against homosexuality were stupid. Just that, that is the reason. Collective societal disgust. It’s only justified by using animal rights (and rightly so, because EW) the same way we justified antihomo laws because it goes against some obscure biblical / Koranic rule.
Why do so many vegans seek conflict instead of educating others? It’s pretty clear that this post seeks solely to declare non-vegans hypocrites.
Good idea using your shit-stirring alt for this one though.
Carnists: Murder, rape, torture, slavery
Vegans: Once in a blue moon literally just saying something about it in public
One of these is immoral. You’ll be shocked at which this boomer reference username thinks it is!
no one is murdering, torturing, rapping, or enslaving animals
Using the word carnist is like screaming “I am a huge asshole and I think I’m superior”. I won’t be seeing your replies.
Ps. Hilarious you think anything from the 90s is for boomers. You’re just telling me you’re an awkward gen z
Dick Tracy, famous pulp comic from the 1990s
I won’t be seeing your replies.
I’M NOT CIS I’M NORMAL REEEEEEEEEEE
(They’re afraid of talking to someone with above a 5th grade vocabulary)
I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let’s AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.
Your question is clearly dismissive itself. I have no reason to think it’s in good faith, especially considering you seem to only post from this account rarely and to stir up shit
Their responses are clear and methodical, giving the impression that OP is genuinely trying to discuss a potentially-tricky subject in a calm, rational manner. If they were here to “stir up shit,” surely they’d be responding in a way that encourages more drama. From the evidence, I don’t believe that’s their intent at all.
Sometimes people want to discuss difficult topics, even if there’s a risk of people taking it the wrong way. I’d say OP’s doing a decent job encouraging civility, and that’s something I wish we could see more of online.
I am sorry for making you feel this way.
It’s about squick.
Think about how they call sex with animals “bestiality”. It’s not “oh it’s because it hurts the animals!”, it’s because “ew, gross, you’re stooping to the level of an ANIMAL!”.
I don’t think it’s about consent, either. If you were somehow able to communicate well enough to actually get consent (which, to be clear, is pretty iffy what with the whole language barrier and such), people would still be squicked.
(also I’m pretty sure “zoophilia” is more about being into animals rather than actual sex with them, which is the whole “bestiality” thing. You can be into someone/a group of people without wanting to rape them.)
It’s probably because most of society fundamentally doesn’t see other animals as people, and therefore killing them is totally fine (“what? they’re not people!”), but having sex with them is Evil and Bad (“why would you want to have sex with them? they’re not even a person!”).
Yeah it makes no sense.
I’m pretty sure “zoophilia” is more about being into animals rather than actual sex with them
I wasn’t sure about this, due to the common link with sexuality - but it looks like - at a semantic level - you’re right.
From the original Greek via Aristotle;
philia is commonly translated as friendship or affection. Its conceptual opposite is phobia
Continued today with Bibliophilia, Dendrophilia, Thalassophilia etc (Books, trees, the sea) - all non-sexual, and there are hundreds of other examples “used in everyday language to describe completely normal, passionate hobbies and aesthetic appreciation”
Is there any historical evidence that relates zoophilia to decreasing the domesticated animals’ population thus causing food scarcity? Is there a material basis for the condemnation? [Some religious scriptures suggest to kill the animal after performing copulation.] I never thought that way.
From what I’ve been told by rape victims, I’d much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
- Human murdering other animal without their consent?
- Human raping other animal without their consent?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It’s acceptable to kill for survival.
It’s not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn’t eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
- Zoophilia is Rape (sex without consent)
- Killing animal is Murder .
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.
none of it is about consent anyway. it doesn’t even make sense. do you get consent from doors before you jam a key in them, open them, and put your whole body through them?
You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects. “Animals can’t consent” is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that “Animals can’t consent”. Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses’ inability to consent.]
You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects.
in regards to whether discussing consent makes any sense, yes I can.
as everyone else has explained, the objection isn’t about consent but aesthetics. you’ve made a strawman.
I disagree. As I understood it, their point was that an animal is a living thing capable of having feelings about a situation and a door is an inanimate object with no feelings or thoughts at all. Dogs can suffer PTSD from being mistreated but a door has no such capacity.
That would make the first comment a false equivalence and their rebuttal valid. In turn we must either present a better equivalent or justify the validity of the original statement.
the capacity to have feelings has nothing to do with he capacity to consent.
Different taboos in different places, I guess.
