Editing Zoophilia (section)

=== 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>