Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=== Fira Bensto (pseudonym) === | === Fira Bensto (pseudonym) === | ||
Submitted: 23 March 2023, accepted: 24 September 2023, published: 31 October 2023 | Submitted: 23 March 2023, accepted: 24 September 2023, published: 31 October 2023[[File:Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible.pdf|thumb|Bensto, F. Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible. Journal of Controversial Ideas (PDF)]] | ||
=== Abstract: === | === Abstract: === | ||
As one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos, zoophilia is widely | As one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos, zoophilia is widely | ||
Line 54: | Line 53: | ||
of whether zoophilia is harmful and whether animals can consent to sex with humans. In | of whether zoophilia is harmful and whether animals can consent to sex with humans. In | ||
Section 5, I tease out some important implications. | Section 5, I tease out some important implications. | ||
{{Home}}<references /> | |||
<references /> | |||
[[Category:Resources]] | [[Category:Resources]] | ||
[[Category:Research]] | [[Category:Research]] |
Latest revision as of 00:49, 2 December 2023
Fira Bensto (pseudonym)
Submitted: 23 March 2023, accepted: 24 September 2023, published: 31 October 2023
Abstract:
As one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos, zoophilia is widely
considered to be wrong, and having sex with animals is illegal in many countries. In
this article, I would like to go against this de facto consensus and argue that zoophilia is
morally permissible. This would have major implications for how we legally and socially
deal with zoophilia.
Bensto, F. Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible. Journal of Controversial Ideas
2023, 3(2), 6; doi:10.35995/jci03020006.[1]
We've listed only the introduction just to give you a small glimpse of the research. A PDF is available below.
Introduction
Sex with animals is a powerful social taboo that exposes its practitioners to utmost
indignation and stigma. Zoophilia is one of the few sexual orientations (along with e.g.
necrophilia or pedophilia) that remain offlimits and have been left aside from the sexual
liberation movement in the past fifty years.1 I would like to argue that this is a mistake.
There is in fact nothing wrong with having sex with animals: it is not an inherently
problematic sexual practice.
Given the sheer outrage that the mere mention of zoophilia triggers in many people,
we might expect the case for its permissibility to be a hard sell and my claims to be modest
and tentative. This is not so: not only do I think that zoophilia is morally permissible, but I
also think that the case in its favor is rather straightforward, so that it should be the default
position within many philosophical quarters. This makes it all the more surprising that no
ambitious and explicit defense of it has been published so far.
I start in Section 1 by clarifying what is meant by zoophilia. In Section 2, I introduce
the debate over the permissibility of zoophilia. In Sections 3 and 4, I address the questions
of whether zoophilia is harmful and whether animals can consent to sex with humans. In
Section 5, I tease out some important implications.
- ↑ Bensto, F. Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible. Journal of Controversial Ideas 2023, 3(2), 6; doi:10.35995/jci03020006. https://doi.org/10.35995/jci03020006