How long until the taboo on Bestiality is broken?

An Editorial on Bestiality.

--By Daniel Grant Wilks--

About as long as speciesism and denial of humans being in the animal kingdom or being animals and therefor zoosexual by nature because of your attraction to a human animal.

Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation in which humans are sexually attracted to animals. Although people have been having sex with animals for centuries, it has largely been condemned, ignored, and marginalized by society. The reason for this negative attitude towards sexuality is due to ignorance and bigotry, which has led to zoosexuality being stigmatized by society and made a taboo subject. But what exactly does it mean for something to be “taboo”?

Taboo is a word which means “[being] proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable”; it is also defined as “exclusion from use or practice, to ignore or ridicule”. Compare this with the definition of “controversial”, which is “subject to controversy; debatable”. Taboo subjects and controversial subjects often overlap.

Because of this, some subjects in society are publicly debatable, controversial, and easy to bring up (such as abortion or health care reform) – nobody is ashamed of bring up their point-of-view. However, taboo subjects (such as bestiality, nudity, and subjects which have to do with sex and death) are considered unacceptable by society, stigmatized, and ignored as thoroughly as possible. They are irrationally censored. I refer to this as “social erasure”; the collective artificial amnesia created by a society to attempt to eradicate a way of thinking. This has been common throughout history; for example, blacks prior to key moments (such as the Civil Rights movement) were often ignored.

Another group of people that have suffered from “social erasure” are gays. In the 1950s, for example, being gay wasn’t even debated; it was “brushed under the table”, ignored, stigmatized and considered taboo. However, through the 1960s and onwards, gay rights eventually became more mainstream and began to become OK to talk about; in the year 2000, there were zero U.S. states that allowed gay marriage; there are now 7 (and DC) — and that number is growing. The social attitude towards the taboo of homosexuality has changed over the years; in a sense, it has gone from being “taboo” to not being a big deal.

However the same cannot be said for zoosexuality; it is a group which have not made the progress that gay rights has made; it has remained in the darkness, locked up by society; this is largely due to the fact that our culture is based on certain moral values derived from Christianity and other religious sources.

Whenever the “hidden” subject of zoosexuality is brought up by someone, no matter how articulate and rational the argument may be, the chances are high that the resulting reaction will involve social stigma, disgust, or a non-rational knee-jerk response. Why are certain things considered taboo? And why is zoosexuality so taboo? Surely, one could not pick a more taboo subject. It is so taboo that it could almost be considered analogous to homosexuality in the 1950s. In my 15 years (and counting) of education, I have only heard the subject mentioned once or twice, and in those cases, it was only mentioned briefly and negatively. I have never seen a television show about it. It is apparently even too taboo for National Geographic’s “Taboo” series to show.

SECTION 2: ADDRESSING ZOOSEXUALITY

According to the Internet, zoosexuality (also known as zoophilia) is defined as a human sexual attraction to a non-human animal; this has been viewed as being its own unique sexual orientation known as “zoosexuality”.

Meanwhile, the term “bestiality” refers only to actual sex acts with animals, whereas “zoophilia” and “zoosexuality” refer to the broader sexual attraction to animals. Because the term “bestiality” has negative connotations and is associated with antizoosexual bigotry, the politically correct term for bestiality is “zoosexual act”.

A zoosexual act is an act in which a human has inter-species sex with a being who happens to be non-human (including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse, oral sex, etc.) Here is a quote by a zoophile describing it further:

“Zoophilia is best described as a love of animals so intimate that the person (and the animal) involved have no objections to expressing their affection for each other in the sexual fashion. This is not to be confused with bestiality, where a person forcefully mates an animal, without their consent, and with no mutual feelings whatsoever. This is something that I would never do to [an animal], since I love them dearly, and treat them with the same respect that an honest husband would have for his wife and children.” — Anonymous, http://www.zoophile.net/dolphins...

The group of people who have sex with animals can be divided into two categories:

--> Category #1: The majority (people who love animals romantically and would never harm them — they are known as “zoosexuals”)

--> Category #2: The minority (people who only use animals as objects in order to have sex with them — they are known as “bestialists” — people who are “bestialists” [aka "zoosadists"] don’t care about the animal’s welfare). Most people who have sex with animals are not in category #2. Most people who have sex with animals are called zoosexuals (they are the people who love animals, would never harm animals, and treat animals as sentient beings with their own rights). Sometimes zoosexual people are called “zoos” (an abbreviation).

Unfortunately, the media tends to disproportionally report cases involving “bestialists”, and this harms the reputation of innocent zoosexuals, as well as the public’s perception of zoosexuality. When people see these media reports, they come to the erroneous conclusion that all people who have sex with animals are “bestialists”, which isn’t true.

The Internet seems to be the only source providing information about zoosexuality; due to its taboo and stigmatized nature and its “social erasure”, you would never learn this type of information in school or on TV (I didn’t, and you probably didn’t either).

If something is stigmatized and ignored, it leads to a mass ignorance. For example, normal sex between humans is generally considered taboo in most cultures (it is censored on TV and only done in private); because of these restrictions, people end up becoming more reckless because they have less knowledge. This has led to the widespread transfer of the HIV virus from one person to another. Why was the virus spread? Because people weren’t informed; they weren’t educated properly. Why weren’t they educated properly? Because the issue was ignored. The result is a massive pandemic. The general sexual stigma brought on by centuries of religious dogma has inadvertently resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.

It is mass ignorance which has caused zoophilia to become taboo. Because it is loathed, feared and poorly understood by people, it is not included in school curriculum. It is also excluded from religion, excluded from popular culture (except for humorous remarks), and often condemned by the law. This is based on long held irrational traditions and beliefs that date back many, many years. Fear seems to be a driving force behind the condemnation of zoosexuality. As Bertran Russel said, “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd”. If a person stands out for any reason, there is apparently something wrong with you. If you face the wrong way on the elevator, for example, there is apparently something wrong with you. And it is this conformity, which is responsible for the persecution of smaller, minority groups such as zoosexuals; because their ways are not similar to the majority, they are condemned. This was (and to a degree, still is) true of homosexuals, bisexuals and people of other orientation, but hasn’t caught on with zoosexuals. An article on Science News, Articles, and Information(see link at bottom of Blog) says the following:

“This individual, who shall go unnamed unless he wishes to identify himself in the comments section, was a self-professed “zoophile” (Greek for “animal lover”) with a particular romantic affinity for horses, and he was hoping that I might devote one of my column pieces to this neglected, much-maligned topic of forbidden interspecies love. “The politics of acknowledging zoophilia as a ‘legitimate’ sexual orientation,” wrote this reader, “often mean that zoophiles are either ignored as a class or subject to what can only be described as the most vicious, sustained, and hateful attacks by mainstream society.” I have my own viscerally based, unreasoned biases and—I confess—on first reading this email I promptly mentally filed it away in the untouchable “Eww…” category. But [a story], combined with my sympathy for human underdogs, inspired me to go back and reread it, and I saw a rather intriguing scientific question lurking there. Is it really possible for an otherwise normal, healthy person to develop a genuine sexual preference for a nonhuman species?”–http://www.scientificamerican.co...)

This is an example of how even “normal” people are beginning to question at a basic level what it means to be zoosexual.

SECTION 3: PEOPLE’S IRRATIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS ZOOSEXUALITY

Although there may be social reasons for ignoring and/or condemning zoosexuality, one reason for the taboo of zoophilia may be evolutionary; from a biological point of view, having sex with animals makes no sense because it doesn’t result in any offspring; consequently, the only humans that survived were humans that had sex with other humans, and because of this it became hard-wired into the DNA of their descendants (ultimately, most humans). This might explain why when someone is approached with the idea of zoosexuality, their initial reaction might be “eww, that’s gross” or “that’s perverted”.

It’s because they’re not used to such “abnormal” ideas because society has told them it’s wrong and they are biologically programmed to do so. However, keep in mind that saying “that’s gross” is not a philosophical argument; it does not rely on any rational reasoning system to determine whether or not zoosexuality is moral. There are rational arguments that could be made for or against zoosexuality; for example, a utilitarian argument for zoosexuality is that it increases happiness so long as both parties are satisfied.

Most people do not react rationally when confronted with the idea of zoosexuality; most react with an irrational, visceral, knee-jerk reaction. This reaction is caused by ignorance and societal conditioning. Luckily, as the following quotes demonstrate, not everyone reacts this way: “According to [articles], the ‘yuck’ or purity factor is a part of all moral systems, being hardwired into us. The logical justifications of morality tend to be rationalizations of what people already believe[...] sex with animals (unless it involves cruelty or abuse) should not be illegal.” — Amos

“Disgust doesn’t determine morality. It troubles me that people would even consider throwing logic out the window, simply because it doesn’t jive with their feelings[...] Most people don’t take it to the level I have in the [zoosexual] thought experiment obviously, but I find it unclear exactly where the moral line was suddenly crossed… if there is a line at all. Many farm animals are artificially inseminated, so that requires masturbation of male animals, and artificial insemination of a female, which sometimes require some manual stimulation to make them ovulate. Is that wrong? [...] Again, I’m stunned at the willing dismissal of reason. Essentially in saying that logic is only used to reinforce existing beliefs, you’re saying that it doesn’t matter what my arguments are, you’re simply not going to change your mind, and you essentially don’t even need to consider my arguments, because your mind isn’t going to be changed by reason. How can we be philosophers with such a mindset?” — Wayne Yuen “Now, as for [an enlightened person], who no doubt belongs to PETA and doesn’t eat meat but loves to curl up with his dog on dark and rainy nights [sexually] … this person would be hard to condemn.” — Jean Kazez

“OK, in my mind [the 'yuck' factor] seem blown out of proportion. The yuck factor should not play a role in [examining zoosexuality]; look at it logically, ethically, etc. If there is nothing wrong, no one gets hurt, what is wrong with it? There were a lot of things that made us think yuck in the past, but we’ve moved on, and maybe we can move on with as well. People actually find attraction to these animals, don’t ask me how, but they do, and sometimes it escalates to the most intimate thing possible for living beings.” — John Wu Above quotes: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.co...

“‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are purely subjective human constructs based on the cultural morals with which we are raised. People consider [sex with animals] wrong because that is what they were taught growing up. If they hadn’t been taught [that way], they wouldn’t have that belief of ‘wrongness’, even if they had no desire to engage in such behavior[...] Ethics and morality are simply attempts to define guidelines that will allow us to make the best possible choices.” — Kuve, http://answers.yahoo.com/questio...

SECTION 4: ZOOSEXUALITY IN NATURE

Above: Interspecies sex occurs in nature; humans are just like any other species (in terms of sex) and should not be excluded from the Animal Kingdom Scientific research has explored homosexuality in other animals and found that homosexuality in non-human animals is a trait that “eases up” the gene pool, and has lead scientists to the conclusion that homosexuality in humans is evolutionarily good because it eases up the gene pool. If this is the case, then zoosexuality might also be seen as “easing up” the gene pool because it, like homosexuality, does not result in offspring. Additionally, animals from different species have been observed mating with each other. A National Geographic article said the following: “The act of mating with a species other than your own may not be as ill-advised or peculiar as it seems.[...] A growing number of studies have been presented as evidence that two species can combine to produce a third, sexually viable species in a process known as hybrid speciation[...] Scientists now believe that the behavior [inter-species sex] that has been called animals’ sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution. [...]

‘In the past, people have often viewed hybridization as a mistake’ Mallet said. ‘But this is probably not an unnatural phenomenon. And, he said, ‘Sex with another species may occasionally be a very good idea. [...] It might be worth throwing the dice every now and then to trying for something really weird and see if it works out.’ Occasionally, [inter-species sex] produces sexually fertile offspring that may have the opportunity to evolve into a separate species.” — http://news.nationalgeographic.c...

If a human and a dolphin have sex, chances are high that there will be no fertile offspring. However, there is a slight chance that a new species (human-dolphin hybrid) could be produced. The above quote comes from the National Geographic article “Interspecies Sex: Evolution’s Hidden Secret?” It suggests that there is nothing wrong with inter-species sex because it is a normal part of nature. The only reason humans do not usually engage in inter-species sex is because irrational ways of thinking (such as religious dogmas) are acting as a strait jacket, preventing people from doing what nature intended. Remember, because humans are animals, they can have inter-species sex just like any other species. Because inter-species sex is a normal part of nature (and a beneficial part of nature), why should humans avoid it? By not having interspecies sex, the human race is actually weakening itself in the long run.

If inter-species sex and zoosexuality do in fact have evolutionary benefits, then it would seem that the only reason zoosexuality is a taboo, stigmatized subject is not necessarily because of biology, but because of social constructs. Just remember, animals in the wild can and do have sex for non-reproductive purposes. For example, they have homosexual sex (i.e. anal sex) and they also masturbate. Because of this (and because of the fact that animals in the wild have interspecies sex), it is illogical to say that bestiality is “unnatural”, and it is illogical to say that an animal’s “instincts” are being violated; on the contrary, when a human has sex with another animal, they are not doing anything “unnatural”; in addition, the instincts of the animal are not being “violated”. One could easily argue that many of the thing’s humans do (like neutering animals and using artificial insemination on animals) are more unnatural than having sex with an animal. Regarding this issue, this is what I said in another post:

“Many socially accepted practices which humans engage in all time are more unnatural than having sex with an animal (zoosexuality). For example, acts such as neutering, artificial insemination, experimentation, zoos/aquariums and factory slaughter are all unnatural activities, yet their “unnatural-ness” is never questioned. Even though zoosexual acts are more natural than neutering/slaughter etc., they are called “unnatural” by antizoosexual people as a “mask” to hide their underlying irrational prejudice and bigotry against zoosexuality.”

alt text

Above: interspecies sex occurring between a lion and a tiger — this scene may have been in captivity, but there are instances of inter-species mating in the wild. Click the following link to see a short video showing interspecies sex between a variety of animals: [link to interspecies sex video (Huffington Post); it proves that interspecies sex is not uncommon, and that it is part of nature (thus destroying the argument that it is “unnatural” for humans to have sex with other animals). I was unable to embed it into the post