Editing Social Aspects & Zoophilia (section)

== But what about others, for example psychological damage? ==

In contrast to humans, &quot;damage&quot; in animals is unlikely to be proven. Most likely in behavior. But I would bet that the animals do far better than some pets in our society when they are zoophiles. Zoophiles who keep their own animals could be accused of having a similar relationship of dependency as an abused child to its abuser. But children are also dependent on their parents and pets are also dependent on the pet owner in a non-zoophilic relationship. What all cases have in common is that the child or animal will retain damage if they are directly exposed to violence. Zoophiles as well as caring parents will therefore avoid any kind of violence, which, in contrast to this, cannot be said of an abuser and also of some &quot;normal&quot; animal owners. Furthermore, it should be clear to everyone that an animal, unlike humans, does not drag any moral ballast with it. It would also not occur to the idea that cross-species sex can lead to societal discrimination. Sex is a natural act for an animal.

And whether &quot;licking the genitals&quot; is so much worse behavior, like hopping on your hind legs at the table, is an ethical question. Either our society has to solve this for us, or each individual for himself.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">
http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra
[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=28 edit] ]

</div>