FSE

Furry search engine

formerly SoFurry search engine

A fter a lot of horrifying revelations to the wider world and the larger furry community about zoosadism, I thought I'd write down my thoughts on where the boundaries lie between the ethical and the depraved in sex with animals. N ow, many place those boundaries far from where I would place them, stating as a fact that any sexual act with a nonhuman animal is immoral and sickening. Y ou are entitled to that opinion, if you hold it, but in my view, it is probably based on mistaken assumptions about animals and their relationships to people.

I n order to discuss ethics at all coherently, some definition of terms is needed, even if those definitions are vague and not agreed upon by all. N ormally, in practice, ethical behavior is behavior that best fits the preferences of everyone involved in a situation, and the question becomes one of balancing those different preferences. N o such balance is perfect for every situation, and philosophers have disagreed for millennia on whether they should consider only themselves, those close to them, or everyone around them equally. O bviously, however, a decision that benefits everyone involved is better than one which causes all of its stakeholders harm. C onsidering sex with animals, then, the question is whether there exist circumstances in which both the human and the animal benefit, and no one else is harmed. E veryone, including zoophiles, understands that there are too many cases in which no care is given to how the animal feels, or worse, their suffering is enjoyed by the person abusing them. N o one who wants less potential serial killers roaming free would say that such people shouldn't be exposed, arrested, and dealt with harshly by the people around them. T hat being said, if sex with animals can be mutually pleasurable in some cases, and if those involved in it leave others out of it, then it is hard to justify treating them at all similarly to these brutal monsters.

L ook at any public forum on zoophilia, and you will find written statements of how domesticated animals sometimes enthusiastically show either pleasure during sex or excitement when someone they trust signals that they are about to have sex. O ne example involved a dog who, when asked, "Wanna fuck?", would rush over to the bed and point their human to it, then mount them when they got into position. V erifying such statements is usually difficult, but there are also videos of animals behaving similarly towards people, with multiple species and both of the normal biological sexes represented in them. E xtraordinary though it might seem, there is overwhelming evidence that mutually pleasurable interspecies sex is not only theoretically possible but occurs regularly. I f these exemplary relationships are to be condemned universally, it cannot be done through a simple consequentialist framework, which tends to be abandoned early in the conversation about this topic in favor of a discussion of more abstract reasons why these acts are morally wrong. S o, at this point, the main objections to sex with animals revolve around the necessity of informed consent, the uneven power dynamics of such a relationship, and finally, subjective opinions of disgust.

P erhaps some of the issue here is the ambiguity of the terms "consent" and "informed consent"; even among adult humans of sound mind, there are a lot of gray areas and differing perceptions of the same situations and events. A ffirmative consent is a good starting point, used on many college campuses in the U.S., and is defined as "positive, unambiguous, and voluntary agreement to engage in specific sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter." R ealistically, this is difficult to prove after the fact, but it is helpful in making decisions in the moment about whether sex is likely to be enjoyable to everyone involved. T he videos I alluded to earlier, in my opinion, demonstrate that sex with animals can meet this standard as written. I n one such video, a young man and his male dog are out on their stone patio, and the man slowly removes his jeans, as if to tease the dog. C lumsily pawing at his jeans, the dog pants with excitement. U ndressed at last, the man gets on his hands and knees and wiggles his hips, and the dog climbs on top of him. L unging forward repeatedly, the dog copulates with the man, and ties with him. A fter a brief time when they are stuck together, they separate, and the dog returns to lick and nuzzle at the man. R elating this to the standard of affirmative consent, each party showed what they wanted unambiguously through their actions with no apparent coercion, and so by that standard this encounter should be permitted. L egitimate questions can be asked about whether the differences between the species preclude the possibility of their relationship being seen as comparable to purely human ones. Y et in this case at least, affirmative consent apparently exists between them.

O bjections to this argument are plentiful, but mainly cluster around the dog's relative lack of intelligence and social power; can the dog meaningfully consent when his partner has these advantages over him? R omance, however, has never required complete equality between parties; depending on the society, men and women historically have had different social roles and different standards to each other in relationships, as have members of different social classes. G iven that these differences affect behavior in and out of relationships, people who are very different can nonetheless be happy together, if they are attracted to each other and are open and considerate about their wants and needs. A nimals are no different, in this regard; communication may be more difficult, but in domesticated species especially, it is possible to determine what they want and to show them what the humans around them want, and each can then decide what they want to do with the information. " N o" is still a possible response from an animal when they are asked to do something, and the addition of sex does not change that basic reality. I f an animal growls, or stands still and looks away and shakes, it is clear that they do not like whatever is happening, and at that point, unless there is some benefit they do not understand such as medical care, the only ethical response is to stop and do something else. C onsent is not simple and clear in all cases, but it leads to the best, most fulfilling relationships, and this is no different with animals.

O f course, there is no arguing with someone's disgust toward sex with animals. P rescribing someone else's behavior because of you disgust toward it and nothing else, however, is self-centered and bigoted. E xtrapolating from the worst cases -- those which anyone who genuine cares about the well-being of animals would say deserve severe consequences - to generalize about others engaged in nonabusive acts only makes abusers harder to root out and punishes good people and the animals they love, which are generally placed into the shelter system or even euthanized. N uanced approaches, giving zoophilia itself mild penalties while treating cases of abuse more stringently, ultimately serve the goal of animal welfare better even if they are more difficult to market to others.

Z oophiles are usually somewhat reclusive, both because of the consequences they might face upon exposure, and because they often prefer the company of animals to humans. O stracizing them for the acts of the twisted abusers and aspiring cynosures that are shown in news stories makes it more difficult for them to take proper care of their animals, by seeking medical attention or help in difficult situations. O n the other hand, moving toward social acceptance of zoophiles would be difficult without substantial scientific study on the questions of whether animals can be happy in such relationships, since they cannot tell humans directly. P roving this central point, whether animals can be attracted to or even seek out relationships with humans, would remove much of the stigma around sex with animals. H ope springs eternal, but in the meantime, zoophiles are mostly on their own in uncovering clear cases of abuse. I f they wish to be seen as different from zoosadists, they will have to work to expose and expel them, as Zoodonym recently attempted to do. L eaks like this do make zoophiles look worse in the short term, but they are necessary to create lasting change, in much the same way that the gay community made it clear that NAMBLA disgusted them and could in no way stand shoulder to shoulder with them. I n conclusion, those who hurt animals to please themselves need to be stopped, but those who want nothing more than their happiness should be left to live their lives in piece. A ny innocent love is healthy, particularly organic, open zoophilia.