Who hates it when we furries and bronies are called zoophiles?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Egon1982, May 18, 2017.

  1. Activoid

    Activoid Ace Artist

    In response to @Lcs 's recent comment:
    There's 5 different sources of ethical standards: utilitarian, rights, fairness/justice, common good, and virtue. So on the subject of comparing "bestiality = rape" when "killing =/= murder", it's worth mentioning that you're trying to compare the ethical conclusions for two different ethical justifications. Apples and oranges, basically. But let's clear things up. So for each of those five ethical standards considered, determining right from wrong, ethical vs unethical, depends on the answers to these 5 questions:

    1) Which option will result in the most good, and do the least amount of harm? (Utilitarian)
    2) Which option ensures that everyone's rights are considered and respected? (Rights)
    3) Which option best serves the community, or as many as possible, as opposed to just one entity, or only a handful of people? (Common Good)
    4) Which option will treat everyone with equality, equity, respect, and fairness? (Justice)
    5) Which option will ensure I act as the ideal person I wish to be, or that my community/culture/religion wishes me to be? (Virtue)

    Killing animals for food and resources comes from a solely Utilitarian standpoint. Animals kill other animals, and we don't refer to a puma killing a deer as murder. However, we refer to chimpanzees killing other chimpanzees as murder; in this instance, murder is an act of aggression against one's own kind. It's an act of being traitor to the survival of one's own species. Additionally, most human cultures and laws also do not classify killing other humans in self-defense as murder, or classify chimpanzees murdering chimpanzees as a punishable criminal offense under human law, because it would not be useful to do so and the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits.

    If approached from the Rights standpoint, it is argued by many that while animals do not have the same legal rights as humans, they should still be respected as living creatures; but then the definition of "respect" becomes grey, as some people interpret that to mean "no killing sentient creatures whatsoever", and others will say that a swift and painless death preceded by a well-fed and well-groomed life on an open farm is respectful. Your mileage may vary. But murder of another human is taking away their right to live; animals are not granted with the inherent "right to life", which is an entirely human social construct (nature does not grant a "right to life" for anything), and that right is administered and withdrawn by human society as it sees fit. And so you can't take away rights that they don't already have.

    From the Common Good standpoint, many people love to eat animals, and people who own carnivorous pets such as cats and dogs that require a diet of meat to survive. So killing chickens, cows, pigs, and other domesticated livestock benefits millions of people, despite the loss of life. But if someone is hunting just for fun, that is for their own selfish benefit and enjoyment, at the cost of a suffering animal. When humans of an impoverished country want a selfish dictator overthrown, and they plot for his death, the common good and potential benefits outweighs the cost of killing the dictator, and as such is not classified as murder.

    From the Justice standpoint, some animal rights activists would argue that animals should be treated equally to humans, while others such as PETA believe that they should live independently of humans with no interaction whatsoever. Again, your mileage may vary depending on your definitions of "justice" and "equality", which are super subjective and vague terms when it comes to actually providing concrete results.

    And lastly is Virtue. It may be against your community rules, culture, or religion to kill anything whatsoever, or perhaps only a few animals such as cows, dogs, or cats are off-limits. This is just based entirely on upbringing and tradition. Or perhaps your culture requires you to go out and kill a lion to become a man. Virtue is probably the most subjective form of ethical decision making of them all. Most major cultures and religions tend to have this common agreement that killing your fellow humans is punishable, but killing animals is acceptable.

    So now that we covered killing vs. murder, go back and notice how in every instance there is a different result as to whether something is considered ethical or not, whether or not something is considered killing or murder, and why. Now apply the same logic to bestiality and why it might not be the exact same crime as rape, but might be classified as such under the Rights standpoints and Virtue standpoints, and still falls under the "unethical" categories on the other three potential justifications. And also look at the topic of human castration vs. animal neutering/spaying under that lens to see how they compare.
     
  2. Activoid

    Activoid Ace Artist

    Also as for the OP's original question: "Who hates it when we furries and bronies are called zoophiles?"

    That depends entirely on whether or not the person in question is indeed a zoophile. While I think generalization is unfair, there's more than enough people in the fandom and plenty of art on the internet to give the public plenty of fodder to work with when they come up with that idea. For most people, there's a very thin line between wanting to screw a pony, and wanting to screw a cartoon pony. So I can understand their perspective.

    Society seems to have broadened the term "zoophile" to mean "someone who wants to bone animals or fantasizes about boning animals". And to be fair, that was the definition I was always familiar with. I just googled "define zoophilia" after typing that and it says that it's about an erotic fixation with sexual contact with animals, whether real or imaginary. It doesn't specify solely real animals. It doesn't specify that you absolutely have to act on your urges. It doesn't say you have to have intercourse with a real life animal. So I mean, by the textbook definition it's still zoophilia, but I think there's a vague grey area that comes in because furries are generally anthropomorphic and are more like humans than animals.

    Can't say the same about cartoon ponies, though. They have four legs, sorry fam. LOL.

    Maybe the world would be a better place if people just admitted they had really kinky fetishes, instead of trying to do mental gymnastics over not being zoophiles. Just admit you're a zoophile, keep it to yourself, and move on. You'll feel better.
     
    Pipistrele likes this.
  3. Lcs

    Lcs Woof

    That actually helped a lot, so thanks. It just seemed like boundaries were being set arbitrarily, but I suppose that wasn't very thought out now that I look back at it.

    That said, it still seems to me as if zoophilia isn't inherently bad since it doesn't always involve sex, and even when it does, the animal won't be hurt if the human follows certain rules. This is where @WolfNightV4X1's argument comes in of it being easy for people to take advantage of the animal, so I suppose it would probably have to be determined whether the abusive ones are the exception or the rule.

    Anyways, there are studies that suggest that animals can enjoy intimate relationships and have sex for fun, not just for reproduction. This in mind, it's not an entirely one-sided exchange.
     
    Arcturus Maple likes this.
  4. Troj

    Troj Well-Known Member

    On the topic of zoophilia and bestiality, my elevator speech is typically that animals cannot offer unambigious and uncoerced informed consent, and so the ethical choice is to err on the side of not fucking them. The burden is on zoophiles to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they haven't just misinterpreted the animal's signals, and that the animal isn't just acting out of love, obedience, conditioning, or fear--and generally, they just can't meet that basic moral standard.

    We also need to remember not to project our human hang-ups, values, and assumptions about sex onto animals. They don't understand and experience sex the way we do. As far as we know, the concept of modesty isn't on their radar, and they don't experience embarrassment or shame--but, they still experience fear, sadness, confusion, loneliness, and physical and emotional pain. Even if an animal can't grok the abstract idea of "sexual violation," we should still avoid causing them needless emotional or physical pain.
     
    WolfNightV4X1 and Activoid like this.
  5. Mr. Fox

    Mr. Fox This is what the fandom did to me!

    Well, they're not entirely wrong.
     
  6. Andromedahl

    Andromedahl Unlicensed UFO Pilot

    :^l

    :^U

    ,`:^l

    I have a concern.
     
    Pipistrele and Activoid like this.
  7. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru No "Awooo'ing" allowed

    It's not. It's hatred towards someone fucking an animal that can't actually give consent, and goes under animal abuse: The sexual exploitation department.

    For there to be prejudice there have to be a lack of understanding. A lack of knowledge. In the case of zoophilia, that is not the case, as the vast majority is against it.

    I could answer that one bluntly, but I'd probably get banned for it, so fuck that.
     
  8. quoting_mungo

    quoting_mungo Administrator Staff Member

    I would say the bigger issue in this thread is the use of "zoophile" to mean "person who engages in recreational sexual acts with animals" (let's not forget that there are people who sexually stimulate animals as part of their job duties - where did you think the semen used for animal insemination came from?). Without placing value judgments on it either way, all the word means is "someone who is sexually attracted to animals" - there's no prerequisite for acting on the attraction there. Can we agree that sexual attraction outside of one's species is an accident of wiring, and not itself an act of sexual violence?

    Note that I am in no way against getting animals not specifically intended for breeding fixed - all my cats have been altered (save for one that died from complications associated with a condition that was discovered when she was brought in to be spayed - if she'd lived, she'd have been), and my ferret was put on a chemical castration implant (surgically castrating male ferrets in early life has been linked to later development of cancer). BUT having recently been sterilized myself, I will say that I highly doubt that spaying/neutering is painless. The pain is relatively brief, sure, and arguably the benefits outweigh that period of discomfort for the animal, but to claim there's no pain is doing your position more harm than good.

    Is the ethical concern with sexual contact with animals the fact that they have four legs, then? Does this mean that sexual contact with e.g. birds, primates, and/or the whale family is fine? :V

    Most people seem to agree that the ethical concern is with the inability of animals, particularly in dependency situations such as with domestic or captive animals, to give unambiguous consent. Sapient cartoon ponies capable of speaking human languages would logically speaking be just as capable of informed consent as humans of a comparable age, so the ethical concern at that point would be largely void, leaving only any "squick" factor. So while sexing up a cartoon pony might, hypothetically, scratch a zoophile's itches, condemning the fantasy because it superficially resembles sex with a non-sapient horse seems to be more moralizing for the sake of moralizing than actually problematic.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  9. Activoid

    Activoid Ace Artist

    "Why do arabs sentence gays to death?"

    They don't, lol. I think the correct term you are looking for is "Arabic countries". Or alternatively, "Some Muslim majority countries with Sharia law", depending on which statement you actually want to convey. Also I want to clarify that I am specifically referring to government, and not individuals. In case there is any ambiguity there.

    Also if you think racism is solely about hate, then you might want to do some more studies on evolution. Granted, no amount of knowledge makes racism ethical or justified, but you might benefit from expanding your understanding on why it exists in both humans and some animals.
     
  10. Arcturus Maple

    Arcturus Maple Tiny Miniskirt Enthusiast

    I may have to disagree with you to some extent. I abhor rape and consider it a grave offense which should be punishable by law if anything is. On the other hand, I think that consent can be conveyed quite well without the need for words. Two humans can consent through body language alone. If they are opposed to being involved they would fight back against an advance or express fear. A lack of interest would provoke no response or a negative one. If they are interested, they would actively signal as such. If the animal in question is capable of such communication, I don't see how it could be a matter of consent.

    On the matter of prejudice I partially agree in so far as prejudice does require a lack of understanding. I disagree with the argument that a vast majority opposition to something makes it wrong. I don't think most people have put much if any thought into their opinion on zoophilia beyond "I'm not sexually attracted to animals, so there must be something wrong with people who are." Such an opinion is formed without using logic and is a textbook example of prejudice.
     
    Lcs and Zipline_Orange like this.
  11. You don't understand animals and their sexual behavior. You're biased. You're human supremacist. You think the popular opinion is right. Trying to convince you otherwise is pointless. You will never understand zoophilia for what it is.
    You might have a politically incorrect opinion, be careful. Everyone is the same and the social-economic status differences is caused solely by racism. Period
     
  12. Activoid

    Activoid Ace Artist

    I literally cannot tell if you are trolling me right now or not.
     
  13. Arcturus Maple

    Arcturus Maple Tiny Miniskirt Enthusiast

    I'm not sure I agree with you. It is my experience that while everyone has similarities, no two people are alike, and the differences in their lives are the result of valuing things differently, being at a different phase in their life, and making decisions which have consequences later in life. Racism isn't a non-factor, but it may well be overplayed nowadays. Yes, Racism may mean someone won't let you join their No Homers club, but I doubt racism is responsible for how the fishermen on one end of the boat caught more than the fishermen on the other end of the boat.
     
    Activoid likes this.
  14. I was sarcastic, how else will you dodge censorship
     
  15. Arcturus Maple

    Arcturus Maple Tiny Miniskirt Enthusiast

    With air quotes.
     
    Activoid likes this.
  16. Lcs

    Lcs Woof

    If the animal were to be the one to initiate (animal dick in human hole), wouldn't they be consenting? In such a circumstance, the only one I could see as being injured is the human. I suppose it's still not really an informed decision, so perhaps this is still unfair, but regardless, they would be giving their consent.
     
  17. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru No "Awooo'ing" allowed

    Interspecies mating/sex is extremely rare in the animal kingdom. In humans, the act and/or attraction to animals is much higher. Why do you think that is?

    Any sentient being should be fully capable of communicating on a level befitting their intelligence. In our case, words, gestures and clear signs. Animals are not able to convey consent on a standard that is undeniable proof of it to us humans, which is words. This isn't a matter of whether the animal gives genuine consent or not. This is a matter of whether the animal is treated properly, whether the animal have rights and fully understand what entails to such a relationship. It's the humans who start these kind of relationships in the majority of cases.

    The vast majority being against something is in most cases, justified, although there are always exceptions. Animals don't truly understand what is going on. We do. And it's our responsibility to make sure our animal companions aren't mistreated/exploited/abused. Hey, if you wanna be attracted to and/or have a "consensual" sexual relationships with an animal, go right ahead. However, if or when you do, expect the baggage that comes with it.

    Once we start acknowledging and accepting behaviour that can basically be considered degeneracy by a lot of people, we're going to have to start going further down the road/rabbit hole in terms of what is acceptable behaviour of someone of our intelligence. After zoophilia, what comes next? Child porn? Rape? Where does it end? Where do you stop? At some point our species will simply be a pile of degeneracy.
    I will never understand wanting to fuck an animal that can't really give consent in the first place, let alone can express themselves in words.
     
    Activoid likes this.
  18. Actually animals with which people have sex are extremely similar to humans. You could not find a single thing humans have but animals don't. Human species just have relatively bigger brains, I don't see how that makes us so much different. We all like similar things including good sex.

    Neither do you. What you see is a perspective, not the truth.
     
    Arcturus Maple likes this.
  19. Pipistrele

    Pipistrele Stupid batto

    Is there an official, scientifically accurate list of "animals with which people have sex"? I would like to take a look at it, sounds like an interesting read.

    ..though joking aside, your arguments are becoming increasingly more bizarre with each post, to the point where you're starting to look like some kind of not very subtle troll .ะท.
     
    Activoid and Yakamaru like this.
  20. Mr. Fox

    Mr. Fox This is what the fandom did to me!

    Oh for the love of god, can people stop trying to justify that zoophilic type behaviour is a morally correct thing to do already? You people are the reason this fandom continually looks like it consists of animal abusers. We all know that blaket statements aren't true, but it doesn't help the broader community every time it is brought up in regards to the furry fandom. Will say it's entertaining though, good drama.
     

Share This Page