Editing Zoophilia (section)

== Debate over zoophilia or zoophilic relations ==
[[File:Leda - after Michelangelo Buonarroti.jpg|thumb|[[Leda and the Swan (Michelangelo)|''Leda and the Swan'']], copy of a lost Michelangelo.]]

Because of its controversial nature, people have developed arguments both for<ref name="singer01">{{cite web|author=Pablo Stafforini |url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |title=Heavy Petting, by Peter Singer |publisher=Utilitarian.net |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606173906/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |archivedate=6 June 2012 }}</ref> and against<ref>{{cite web|url=http://stopbestiality.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/bestiality-and-lack-of-consent/ |title=Bestiality and Lack of Consent " StopBestiality |publisher=Stopbestiality.wordpress.com |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> zoophilia. Arguments for and against zoosexual activity from a variety of sources, including religious, moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social.

=== Arguments against bestiality ===
Bestiality is seen by the government of the United Kingdom as profoundly disturbed behavior (as indicated by the UK [[Home Office]] review on sexual offences in 2002).<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf |title=Protecting the Public: Strengthening Protection Against Sex Offenders and Reforming the Laws on Sexual Offences |chapter=Other offences |pages=32–3 |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-10-156682-7 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131205100653/http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf |archivedate=5 December 2013 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> [[Andrea Beetz]] states there is evidence that there can be violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals. Beetz argues that animals might be traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human;<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8">Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8.</ref> however, Beetz also says that in some cases, non-abusive bestiality can be reciprocally pleasurable for both the human and non-human animal.<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8"/>

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."<ref>[http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2005/08/bestiality-and-varied-attacks-on-human.html Wesleyjsmith.com] and [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/985pgwjh.asp Weeklystandard.com], 31 August 2005.</ref>

One of the primary critiques of bestiality is that it is harmful to animals and necessarily abusive, because animals are unable to give or withhold consent.<ref name=Regan63>Regan, Tom. ''Animal Rights, Human Wrongs''. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp. 63–4, 89.</ref>

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has said that as animals do not have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. The HSUS takes the position that all sexual activity between humans and animals is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.<ref>[http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ Sex Abuse] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20071214033934/http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |date=14 December 2007 }}, NManimalControl.com</ref> 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." 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.'<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |title=The First Strike Campaign: ANIMAL SEXUAL ABUSE FACT SHEET |website=NManimalControl.com |accessdate=13 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312010653/http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |archive-date=2007-03-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2752/089279393787002105 |title=Children Who are Cruel to Animals: A Review of Research and Implications for Developmental Psychopathology |year=1993 |last1=Ascione |first1=Frank R. |journal=Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=226–47}}</ref>

=== Arguments for bestiality ===
[[File:Persian woman with an animal Wellcome L0033282.jpg|thumb|Book illustration depicting dog with woman, [[Isfahan]], [[Iran]], 15th century.]]
Some defenders of bestiality argue that the issue of [[sexual consent]] is irrelevant because many legal human practices (such as [[semen collection]], [[Artificial insemination of livestock and pets|artificial insemination]], [[hunting]], [[animal testing|laboratory testing]], and slaughtering animals for meat) do not involve the consent of the animal.<ref>{{cite web|author=28 February 2011 by Lucas Wachob |url=http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html |title=Column: In defense of chicken 'lovers' – The Breeze: Columnists |website=Breezejmu.org |date=28 February 2011 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:

<blockquote>"Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination and slaughter]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...] Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."<ref name="interdis">{{cite web |url=http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf |title=Inter-disciplinary.net |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722100122/http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf |archivedate=22 July 2012 |df=dmy-all }}</ref></blockquote>

[[Hani Miletski]] believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent – and even initiation – in their own way."<ref>Miltski, 1999, p. 50.</ref> It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("[[hump]]") the legs of people of both genders.<ref>Cauldwell, 1948 & 1968; Queen, 1997.</ref> 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.<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8"/> Those supporting zoophilic activity feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention<ref>Blake, 1971, and Greenwood, 1963, both cited in Miletski, 1999.</ref> or voluntarily initiate sexual activity with humans.<ref name="Dekkers, 1994">Dekkers, 1994.</ref> Animals such as dogs can be willing participants in sexual activity with humans, and "seem to enjoy the attention provided by the sexual interaction with a human."<ref name="interdis"/> 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 bestiality this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.<ref>(Einsenhaim, 1971, cited in Kathmandu, 2004)"</ref>

[[Preference utilitarianism|Utilitarian]] philosopher and [[Animal rights|animal liberation]] author [[Peter Singer]] argues that bestiality is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal<ref name=SingerNerve>Singer, Peter. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080616055314/http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp Heavy Petting], ''Nerve'', 2001.</ref> (see ''[[Harm principle]]''). In the article "Heavy Petting,"<ref name="Singer01">{{cite web|author=Pablo Stafforini |url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |title=Utilitarian.com |website=Utilitarian.com |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606173906/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |archivedate=6 June 2012 }}</ref> Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer and others have argued that people's dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational [[speciesism]] and [[anthropocentrism]].<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/isle/isq034 |title=Animal Liberation or Human Redemption: Racism and Speciesism in Toni Morrison's Beloved |year=2010 |last1=Ruetenik |first1=T. |journal=Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=317–326}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1353/cul.2010.0020 |first=Colleen Glenney |last=Boggs |date=Fall 2010 |title=American Bestiality: Sex, Animals, and the Construction of Subjectivity |journal=Cultural Critique |volume=76 |issue=76|pages=98–125 |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cultural_critique/summary/v076/76.boggs.html |jstor=40925347|doi-broken-date=2020-01-22 }}</ref> Because interspecies sex occurs in nature,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html |title=Interspecies Sex: Evolution's Hidden Secret? |website=News.nationalgeographic.com |date=28 October 2010 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> and because humans ''are'' animals,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/pwruab/cgi-bin/pwrofthepen/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/kerstin-grune1.pdf|title=Changing Perspectives of Bestiality: Breaking the Human-Animal Distinction to Violating Animal Rights|website=Stanford.edu|accessdate=20 October 2018}}</ref> supporters argue that zoosexual activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong.<ref name="mroberts">{{Cite SSRN|last=Roberts|first=Michael|date=2009-06-01|title=The Unjustified Prohibition against Bestiality: Why the Laws in Opposition Can Find No Support under the Harm Principle|ssrn=1328310|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/01639625.2010.538356 |title=Screwing the Pooch: Legitimizing Accounts in a Zoophilia On-line Community |year=2011 |last1=Maratea |first1=R. J. |journal=Deviant Behavior |volume=32 |issue=10 |pages=918–943}}</ref>

Research has proven that non-human animals can and do have [[Animal co-opted sexual behavior|sex for non-reproductive purposes]] (and [[Animal sexual behaviour#Sex for pleasure|for pleasure]]).<ref name="Poiani">{{cite book|author1=Aldo Poiani|author2=A. F. Dixson|title=Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective|url=https://books.google.com/?id=EftT_1bsPOAC&lpg=PR7&dq=animals%20homosexuality&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q=animals%20homosexuality&f=false;|date=19 August 2010 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-1-139-49038-2|page=7}}</ref> In 2006, a Danish Animal Ethics Council report concluded that ethically performed zoosexual activity is capable of providing a positive experience for all participants, and that some non-human animals are [[Sexual imprinting|sexually attracted to humans]]<ref>[http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Dyrevaernsraad/Seksuel%20omgang%20med%20dyr.pdf Danish Animal Ethics Council report] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111009031312/http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Dyrevaernsraad/Seksuel%20omgang%20med%20dyr.pdf |date=9 October 2011 }} ''Udtalelse om menneskers seksuelle omgang med dyr'' published November 2006. Council members included two academics, two farmers/smallholders, and two veterinary surgeons, as well as a third veterinary surgeon acting as secretary.</ref> (for example, [[dolphins]]).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-04/world/uk.dolphin_1_ric-o-barry-dolphin-swimmers?_s=PM:WORLD |work=CNN |title=Bid to save over-friendly dolphin |date=28 May 2002 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321162034/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-04/world/uk.dolphin_1_ric-o-barry-dolphin-swimmers?_s=PM%3AWORLD |archivedate=21 March 2012 }}</ref>

Some zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animals:<ref name="ScientificAmerican" />

<blockquote>"In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."<ref name="ScientificAmerican" /></blockquote>