Zoosexuality and zoophilia: size does matter   17 comments

It is suggested that you read this post first: http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/zoosexuality-should-it-be-considered-acceptable-or-not

Many have claimed that zoosexuality is wrong on the grounds that it is physically abusive. Although sex with animals can be abusive depending on the size of the animal, it can also not involve any abuse. In other words, it all depends on the size of the animal, and whether or not it is compatible with a human.

When humans have sex with other humans, they never have to think about size, because all members of the human species are anatomically similar. But when considering other species, it is important to realize that some species are too small for humans to engage in sex with. As philosopher Peter Singer states:

“Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)” – Peter Singer, Heavy Petting

As Peter Singer states, some animals, such as hens, are not physically compatible with humans. Because sex with them would probably mean killing them, having sex with hens is automatically abusive. (Also, keep in mind that Singer was referring to zoosadists, a small minority of zoophiles who get pleasure out of harming animals — this is not the way most zoophiles are).

But what about other species? Singer goes on to say the following:

“But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would
presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.”
– Peter Singer, Heavy Petting

Peter Singer suggests that animals such as dogs are in fact capable of having cruelty-free sex with a human. In other words, Singer suggests that if a person and a dog have sex with each other, no one is being harmed. (This is in contrast to the hen example, in which the hen is clearly being harmed). One could extrapolate Singer’s argument to other animals such as horses and goats, and say that since they are physically compatible with humans, it would be possible for humans to have cruelty-free sex with them.

As such, based on Singer’s findings and on the findings of others, I have come up with a general list of which animals it would be cruel to have intercourse with, and which animals it would probably not be cruel to have intercourse with below.

NOT cruel:

Anything generally considered to be “large”, including:

Large dogs (i.e. Great Dane, etc.)
Horses/ponies
Donkeys
Llamas
Goats
Pigs
Cows
Sheep
Deer
Dolphins
Elephants
Ostriches
Alligators and crocodiles
Large reptiles (i.e. Nile monitors)
Large cats (i.e. tigers)

Cruel:

Anything generally considered to be “small”, including:

Small dogs (i.e. terriers, etc.)
Hens/chickens
Rabbits
Cats (domesticated)
Fish
All birds (except ostriches)
Small snakes, small reptiles
Juveniles of any species

Note that non-intercourse activities with some of the above animals would probably not be considered cruel. Also, remember that the above list is not exhaustive and does not cover every possible animal, and also note that it is a generalized list an may not account for abnormalities (i.e. a really small goat).

Also note that non-cruel (non-abusive) sex could conceivably be possible with ostriches since ostriches are considerably larger than any other bird species (It is unethical to have sex with 99% of the world’s bird species because the vast majority of bird species are small. In the bird category, ostriches are the exception).

With some animals (such as crocodiles, lions and bears), it is ethical to have sex with them but also dangerous. If those kinds of dangerous creatures don’t want to have sex, they definitely have to power to make that clear (like biting off a limb). However, not all exotic animals pose a danger; some exotics (such as some kinds of monitor lizards) can be sexual partners so long as they are large and willing to have sex.

Note also that in the case of animals like snakes, certain acts with them can be considered abusive; for example, inserting a fish or snake into a human orifice is animal abuse and is unethical. In addition, the penetration of an animal who is clearly not physically compatible with the human (in terms of size) is animal abuse. However, there are some acts which could involve “small” animals and still be ethical (for example, oral sex can be ethical).

Because zoosexuality has never been accepted anywhere, all of the laws pertaining to zoosexuality put all of zoosexuality one category. In other words, its either legal to have sex with an animal, or it isn’t. Note the term “an animal” — it is vague and lacks specifics. As far as I know, no governing body has accepted zoosexuality and then separated zoosexuality into “cruel” and “non-cruel” categories. In other words, there is no law which says “You can have sex with a large dog but not a small dog”. This is because zoosexuality itself has been shunned by society.

The important thing to remember is that if the animal is not harmed, then it is not cruel. In other words, if a person and a dog have sex and the dog was not injured in the process, then cruelty did not occur.

17 responses to “Zoosexuality and zoophilia: size does matter

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “Singer suggests that if a person and a dog have sex with each other, no one is being harmed. ”

    - I don’t think that’s what Peter Singer suggests. One simply cannot discount the possibility of abuse this way.

    • The basis of Singer suggesting that zoosexuality does not produce harm is when he uses the term “mutually satisfying activities”. By definition, abuse is not satisfying to anyone, so if there is mutual satisfaction occurring, then that would mean no one is being harmed because neither animal (human or dog) is being abused by the sexuality.

    • Humans who are meddlers using the name bestiality zoosexuality, and using it as a weapon against whoever. laws are made based on a human making a weapon of whatever word against whoever, and whatever sexuality. It is the waring nature of fallen man that does this.

      Please teach; WE are supposed to have Jesus in us. when we do we will consider what we do. What you are doing is essentially wanting to throw a stone. All of us have to face Gods light ether when God comes back or when we die. To not be like Jesus is in this life means whoever will not like Gods light when it shines on them. That means judge yourself. The zoo has is right about what non human animals to have sex with, and which ones you can. The cruel thing that is missed by the ones against the zoo is altering. That may to you seem innocuous seeing those parts like a human sees a tumor. but they are part of the endocrine system,. Not having them on them has devastating effects on them.

  2. Pingback: Zoosexual links « Vivid Random Existence

  3. Pingback: Cynosexuality (or cynophilia): the sexual attraction to dogs « Vivid Random Existence

  4. in my opinionzoosexuality may leads to infections

    • If a human has a life-long partner (i.e. a dog or a horse), and if that animal has been checked by a veterinarian, the chances of an infection or STD being transmitted to a human are very small. Actually, it turns out that human-to-human interactions are riskier than human-to-animal interactions, because many STDs can only live in ONE species.

    • The worry that you have is given by fear ,and fear has one source,and that one source is not God for perfect love casts out all fear. That means the source of the fear is a lie. I would not trust a vet in regards to so called illnesses needing a shot. A vaccination.Thi9se things have bad things in them to say the least. Humans use antibiotics,and anti biotic will cause Candida,and yeast infections upsetting the balance in the intestinal tract of human or non human animal. Anti venom however should be used in case of a venomous bit.

      The misinformation is enormous.STDs are only meant to give fear, and fear comes from the devil who is death in this world, lies,and all bad things.God is life , truth, and all good things.
      A good form of Chiropractic learned on http://www.upcspine.com is the answer to the symptoms associated with the illness names, STDs and many other names. Being checked by a U,C,S, only is essential because not doing that, and waiting for symptoms to make themselves known means damage has already occurred to the spinal disks that is permanent. That is not good for the living body. In extreme cases bad posture combined with bad health of mind ,and body will be obvious even to the untrained eye. Only a upper cervical specific,and I emphasis specific,and do not have a diversified .They twist the neck when they try to adjust,and that just pops the joints.

    • I’d think you could get much more diseases from humans!!! So f.e. I think theres no known disease you could get by having sex with a dolphin except for maybe a cold :)…I think humans and non-human animals are in many ways different and tht makes them “unable” to transmit STD’s

    • Do not trust the vet about STDs or a medical doctor tor ether. There is a complex web of lies regarding the names. The vet will say anything to make the zoosexual bad,and give fear. The vets loves altering as that makes sicker dogs so they get business to give them things that cause more problems. Flea ,and tick stuff is a poison they freely give saying it is good.

    • Ge this care for you, and your pet, and be better for it.www.upcspine.com. upper cervical specific care practitioners. A- P open mouth x ray can’t be used on a pet. They will not keep their mouth open, and stay still long enough for that x ray.

  5. All should know that before the fall of man that we did not have shame or guilt about sex of any kind or nudity, and to terrify the devil is to be innocent like the dog when it comes to sex,and nudity, but also being loving,and caring like Jesus is,and when we are absolutely, positively all of the arguments that have circulated will be as if they never were,and the soul will be secure in the arms of Jesus for eternal joy. Satan does not want us to be one in love. Satan wants humans is conflict constantly so Jesus can’t come back to take us to our real home because humans would not be ready,and what Satan wants is division right up until the sun explodes.

  6. Pingback: Lizard zoosexuality (or zoophilia): the sexual attraction to lizards « Vivid Random Existence

  7. MY friend The lie about us not being animals is connected to the fear giving word disease too.www.upcspine.com, and upper cervical heath centers. All ages now is best. Zoos are logical in their thinking, but the hatred against them is not logical. The hater does not realize that they are a murderer in Gods eyes. .1 John 3 >>15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
    King James Version. .Hate will not survive being exposed to the light that shines from the face of God..

  8. zoosexuality is one activity. Humanity has been at war with one activity. Even heterosexuals have felt the battle being arrested if a young person happens to see them having that one activity. Art is hidden from the young having that one activity whatever name it is called. By now you should know that that one activity is sex. Only a three letter word. People have been at peoples throats about a three letter word. How stupid is that? People come up with all kinds of excuses why people should not have a choice about what species to have sex with. The warring needs to end.

    Religion is against zoosexuality. Religious people were against Jesus. Religious people wanted to get rid of Jesus anyway they could think of. The enemy of the zoo is wanting to do the same thing. See parallel forming? Religion perverts the words in the KJV that is inspired by the word made flesh who is Jesus. People that pervert Gods word end up warring. War is being waged against the zoo. Peace needs to be sought not coming up with another presumed reason to war. People knowing that there is one Judgment will not war.

  9. Pingback: Equinosexuality (or equinophilia): the sexual attraction to horses | Vivid Random Existence

  10. Pingback: Zoosexuality: should it be considered acceptable? | Vivid Random Existence

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers

%d bloggers like this: