Academic Defending Zoophilia - "Prohibiting Bestiality is plagued by irrational inconsistencies ": Difference between revisions
From Zoophilia Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The article examines arguments to support prohibitions against bestiality. Though they are superficially appealing, upon closure inspection, the arguments tend to break down for what I call "Irrational inconsistency" (28) (Page 7) | The article examines arguments to support prohibitions against bestiality. Though they are superficially appealing, upon closure inspection, the arguments tend to break down for what I call "Irrational inconsistency" (28) (Page 7) | ||
<references /> | <references />{{Home}} | ||
[[Category:Research]] | [[Category:Research]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:54, 2 December 2023
Introduction
Written by [1]Antonio'M.'Haynes, a Non-Zoo that takes up all the common arguments against prosecuting bestiality.
Key Points
A key point of relevance is from below...
-Author distinguishes zoophiles from pedophiles on the key point, that the animal in question IS sexually capable hormonally and physically while children are NOT. Zoophiles are NOT equitable with pedophiles.
The article examines arguments to support prohibitions against bestiality. Though they are superficially appealing, upon closure inspection, the arguments tend to break down for what I call "Irrational inconsistency" (28) (Page 7)
- ↑ Haynes, Antonio Mortez, The Bestiality Proscription: In Search of a Rationale (December 5, 2012). 21 Animal L. Rev. 121 (2014), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2185469 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2185469
| Survey | |
|---|---|
| Groups and People | |
| Podcasts | |
