Editing Zoophilia (section)

=== 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>