50
AsklemmyBe civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don't benefit from having sex with animals (they don't enjoy having sex with animals).
If you need for survival to hunt and eat an animal you are just part of the ecosystem, a predator.
Do you need to have sex with another species? In the wild it happens and even rape is natural, but the question could be "would you like to live in a human society like that?".
That said, animal farming is unethical and completely unnecessary nowadays. Most people would agree that killing an animal just for pleasure would be ethically wrong, but then we as a society rape to breed, grow in terrible conditions and kill in nightmarish ways farm animals just because "meat is good".
There is no logical consistency except what allows the continued survival and flourishing of life and the human race.
Having sex with animals could get you sick and cause all sorts of problems. Eating animals on the other hand can extend your life beyond a few days and perhaps even into years after you can no longer drink your mother's milk and has very few downsides, especially with the invention of cooking. Sure, we don't need the source of sustenance that is meat today when we have several times more food than is necessary to feed the whole globe and then throw a lot of it away, but this wasn't true for the vast majority of our history. People only a few hundred years ago had to scrape for every protein they could find.
There's no special moral reason because we didn't decide. It's just an instinct, though one that we can examine and ignore if we want.
This is exactly why many indigenous cultures put an emphasis on thanking the animal for their meat.
Can I not also thank a squirrel after sex?
Why a squirrel specifically? š¤£ dear Lord, you're an evil spirit š
A number of US states agree with op here, some it's legal to have sex with animals within limits, anything over 20 pounds rings a bell for one, alabama maybe. They might have changed those laws because they were getting made fun of idk.
The animal isnāt aware of being dead.
So that means it's ethical to kill you?
Me personally? Yes
Artificial semination is key to commercial animal agriculture, and that too would be unambiguously rape in human standards. Not to mention the horrific living conditions of most animals farmed for meat.
It's really just because one has always been normal, and the other hasn't, aka it's cultural. It's not rational. Though there's also arguably far more benefit in killing for meat vs. having sex with dubious consent, so that can be a consideration that isn't purely cultural.
Everybody's gotta eat, but not everyone's gotta fuck a dog
Then who has to fuck a dog? Didn't you mean noone has to fuck a dog?
Paging lemmy.world/u/noone
what do you have to say for yourself?
While klling an animal for food is sure destructive for the animal, it is constructive for the humanity. It allows us to get all those proteins "for free" instead of producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do and invest the saved energy in our intelligence to create beautiful and complex things. Whereas copulating with an animal is pure destruction. It harms the living being and leads to no babies and no emotional bond strengthening (contrary to human sex).
Eating animal is still a contradiction, because destruction is there. So I think this problem does need to be somehow overcome. But at least it's outweighed by its positive effects, unlike zoophilia.
Eh....
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10009492/
producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do
This bit is nonsense. I'll give you a point for meat consumption being an easy source of protein that allowed for some developments during the evolution of humans, that are unlikely to have happened without it. But that is more a question of availability than nutritious properties. In todays surplus society, where we have industrialized agriculture and optimized crops, there is abundant access to plant protein.
And meat is not a unique source of protein either. First of all, you don't even have to eat meat to obtain animal protein. Eggs and dairy have it too. And when it comes to the constitution of protein, eggs were even considered the gold standard for a long time.
Read the following wikipedia article to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_digestibility_corrected_amino_acid_score
The listed examples should be interesting to you.
While meats are indeed easily digestable and contain useful protein for the human body, so do many plant sources. Soy protein is even on par with eggs, while meats don't reach the same score.
And of course we usually don't eat a single source of protein, and combining different sources, their amino acid profiles can complement each other to form a complete source of protein.
This might've been a bit of a ramble on a side-note when it comes to discussing the ethics of fucking animals, but I'm sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
It's simple, actually.
The number of people who like to eat animals is larger than the number people who like to, that.
HIV exists because someone had intercourse with a chimpanzee so that might be a part of it.
I'm not aware of that being a prominent theory honestly. I thought the most popular theory was actually that HIV exists because of the hunting and butchering of simians with SIV
People raping and killing for their own enjoyment is sick. Someone else doing the dirty work for our enjoyment (i.e. eating meat), well that's different. If somehow zoophilia were proven to enhance meat flavor, we'd probably be OK with it
Thanks for taking this question in purely analytical manner and questioning the conflicting social values. There are many comments here which tries to answer the question but get engaged into sense of social shame and prejudice rather than focusing into the logical consistency with given premise.
In a perfect utopian society I would hope we wouldn't be doing either.
Thanks for acknowledging the inconsistencies within social values and showing optimism for the ideal outcome.
False premise. Zoophilia isn't condemned because animal rights etc. It's condemned because 'ew WTF we don't want people doing that, to the extent that we will make laws against it.'
It's the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I'm not saying it should be allowed because we (some of us) grew up and realised that laws against homosexuality were stupid. Just that, that is the reason. Collective societal disgust. It's only justified by using animal rights (and rightly so, because EW) the same way we justified antihomo laws because it goes against some obscure biblical / Koranic rule.
It's the same reason that we have laws against incest.
I'd argue it's also the fact that because of the low genetic diversity of the parents children born from incest have a higher chance of developing genetical diseases.
The chance is lower than most people presume but at the same time: why gamble?
Those laws and customs predates knowledge of genetics significantly.
What about same sex incest, or where one or both partners are sterile, or between adopted siblings who aren't related genetically? That would still be considered wrong, right? Even though there wouldn't be genetic consequences
Personally? IDGF about what two consenting adults do in bed. My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
between adopted siblings who aren't related genetically?
Don't know where you from but AFAIK that's perfectly legal in Germany.
My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
But that's still not a 100% consistent argument and it leans into another morally complex topic: eugenics.
Because, if you argue that way, you'd have to clarify your stance towards people with genetic diseases/disabilities in general.
And if you follow the logic, we would also have to shun/abolish sexual relations between people with genetic disease or who carry the respective alleles, so that their offspring have a higher chance of inheriting a disease (in some cases way higher than with random siblings).
It might be the root cause, why there seem to be marriage rules in most human societies, that exclude intermarrying of siblings (especially considering that the risks increase drastically if you keep procreating that way for generations), but the current taboo is not entirely rational and seems more based on cultural tradition than current understanding.
Yes but that is also a rationalization after the fact. First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
It's been the norm in many countries for centuries, so can't have been seen as EW as you claim
That's a great justification for the EW
But zoophilia is not about consent at all!
Scientists use dummy ostriches to collect sperm. Ostriches approach and... use the dummies, by their own volition.
If there was a human in there, it wouldn't be very different from the perspective of the real ostrich. So it'd be technically possible to consensually bottom an ostrich.
But why the fuck would you do it?
This is what people actually despise about bestiality. It's a gut feeling, before any rationalisation
Edit: you could very much argue that the ostrich dummy method is still non-consensual as it involves some form of trickery. But, regardless, I think it's telling that people would treat it differently depending on whether there was a human in it or not, even though from the animal's perspective there is no difference.
You should see what ranchers do with their cows and horses. More strict bestiality laws are usually defeated at their request, because they artificially inseminate their animals, and jerk off their prized bulls and horses, the semen of which is worth more than gold.
Sick fucks, ranchers are the fucking devil. but that's another story.
"Animals can't consent" is one of the strongest arguments given against zoophilia. Any conditioned trickery by a human would get considered as sexual misconduct.
From what I've been told by rape victims, I'd much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
- Human murdering other animal without their consent?
- Human raping other animal without their consent?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal's perspective. So we can't include disingenuous human arguments like "They died a noble death for our survival".)
It's about squick.
Think about how they call sex with animals "bestiality". It's not "oh it's because it hurts the animals!", it's because "ew, gross, you're stooping to the level of an ANIMAL!".
I don't think it's about consent, either. If you were somehow able to communicate well enough to actually get consent (which, to be clear, is pretty iffy what with the whole language barrier and such), people would still be squicked.
(also I'm pretty sure "zoophilia" is more about being into animals rather than actual sex with them, which is the whole "bestiality" thing. You can be into someone/a group of people without wanting to rape them.)
It's probably because most of society fundamentally doesn't see other animals as people, and therefore killing them is totally fine ("what? they're not people!"), but having sex with them is Evil and Bad ("why would you want to have sex with them? they're not even a person!").
Yeah it makes no sense.
Iām pretty sure āzoophiliaā is more about being into animals rather than actual sex with them
I wasn't sure about this, due to the common link with sexuality - but it looks like - at a semantic level - you're right.
From the original Greek via Aristotle;
philia is commonly translated as friendship or affection. Its conceptual opposite is phobia
Continued today with Bibliophilia, Dendrophilia, Thalassophilia etc (Books, trees, the sea) - all non-sexual, and there are hundreds of other examples "used in everyday language to describe completely normal, passionate hobbies and aesthetic appreciation"
Is there any historical evidence that relates zoophilia to decreasing the domesticated animals' population thus causing food scarcity? Is there a material basis for the condemnation? [Some religious scriptures suggest to kill the animal after performing copulation.] I never thought that way.
I can't imagine that it would ever have enough impact to reduce their population
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It's acceptable to kill for survival.
It's not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
Modern meat consumption is very disconnected from survival for most people though.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that's very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected š
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn't eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
So shouldn't the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
Valid argument - assuming you live in the woods and hunting and gathering is the only way you can get food.
- Zoophilia is Rape (sex without consent)
- Killing animal is Murder .
In both cases we should be considering animal's perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can't just involve human's perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don't think so.
Society condemns one and accepts the other
This is the reason.
I was looking for the logical consistency. They are accepting killing of animals (murder without consent) while condemning the rape (sex without consent) of animals.
People aren't looking at the animal's rights.
They are condemning the humans who act in a disgusting way.
Most people would have the same reaction if you were cohabiting with a lawn mower.
Bonus...
https://youtu.be/B94lP-fZyLk
Gene Wilder makes love to a sheep. SFW
Different taboos in different places, I guess.
none of it is about consent anyway. it doesn't even make sense. do you get consent from doors before you jam a key in them, open them, and put your whole body through them?
You can't compare living animals with inanimate objects. "Animals can't consent" is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that "Animals can't consent". Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses' inability to consent.]
You can't compare living animals with inanimate objects.
in regards to whether discussing consent makes any sense, yes I can.
You can, but it's a weak argument, if any argument at all.
it's a strong argument
Weak arguments don't become strong just because you say so, you troll š
as everyone else has explained, the objection isn't about consent but aesthetics. you've made a strawman.
I disagree. As I understood it, their point was that an animal is a living thing capable of having feelings about a situation and a door is an inanimate object with no feelings or thoughts at all. Dogs can suffer PTSD from being mistreated but a door has no such capacity.
That would make the first comment a false equivalence and their rebuttal valid. In turn we must either present a better equivalent or justify the validity of the original statement.
the capacity to have feelings has nothing to do with he capacity to consent.
Why do so many vegans seek conflict instead of educating others? It's pretty clear that this post seeks solely to declare non-vegans hypocrites.
Good idea using your shit-stirring alt for this one though.
Carnists: Murder, rape, torture, slavery
Vegans: Once in a blue moon literally just saying something about it in public
One of these is immoral. You'll be shocked at which this boomer reference username thinks it is!
no one is murdering, torturing, rapping, or enslaving animals
Using the word carnist is like screaming "I am a huge asshole and I think I'm superior". I won't be seeing your replies.
Ps. Hilarious you think anything from the 90s is for boomers. You're just telling me you're an awkward gen z
Dick Tracy, famous pulp comic from the 1990s
I wonāt be seeing your replies.
I'M NOT CIS I'M NORMAL REEEEEEEEEEE
(They're afraid of talking to someone with above a 5th grade vocabulary)
Technically Dick Tracy is pre-boomer as it started in the 30s. Though it ran till the 70s I think so kinda works both ways. Simply biazzare that the other guy thinks it started in the 90s though either way.
Yeah the 90's was when it petered out as a cultural reference. There was a movie that did well.
I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let's AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.
Your question is clearly dismissive itself. I have no reason to think it's in good faith, especially considering you seem to only post from this account rarely and to stir up shit
Their responses are clear and methodical, giving the impression that OP is genuinely trying to discuss a potentially-tricky subject in a calm, rational manner. If they were here to āstir up shit,ā surely theyād be responding in a way that encourages more drama. From the evidence, I donāt believe thatās their intent at all.
Sometimes people want to discuss difficult topics, even if thereās a risk of people taking it the wrong way. Iād say OPās doing a decent job encouraging civility, and thatās something I wish we could see more of online.
I am sorry for making you feel this way.
Perhaps zoophilia affects the human doing it negatively; eg the human may start to hurt other people some time?
You're not worried about killing and eating animals having the same effect?
No, most people who eat meat wouldn't wanna kill an animal themselves
Edit: i guess the question is more directly about killing animals than eating meat though
Iāve spent a lot of time around German butchers, who specialize in two of three areas during their training: 1-slaughtering, 2-meat production, and 3-sales. In my experience (so take this with a big grain of salt), people who specialized in 1 are significantly more callous towards human life than those who didnāt.
My husbandās hopefully passing his licensing exam today and though he specialized in 2&3 (hence the big grain of salt), he still had to work at a slaughterhouse for a few weeks during his training. Heās not a squeamish person at all (he once knowingly selected The Lullabyās Smile [trigger warning: this is very effective body horror that so paralyzed me with anxiety to listen to that I couldnāt make myself get up to turn it off] to fall asleep to and is a big fan of schlocky horror movies), but he could not stand it. He hasnāt paid for meat since (though he does save things from the trash, both for himself and for a network of people we know who are happy to accept free meat past its sell-by date and capable of determining whether itās safe to eat) and will work at a vegan butcher shop after his licensing as a direct result of his experiences at the slaughterhouse.
vegan butcher shop
Uh, what?
They sell vegan meat imitation products made by actual trained butchers. Some of their stuff is wild. I used to eat meat, but Iāve never been able to digest pork and itās never appealed to me, and I find their pork-style products way too realistic to eat (confirmed to be accurate and not just unappealing by my husband, lol).
Wow, that's... Interesting. TIL
There was an article many years ago about people working in the meat industry, and how they are under extreme stress. So yes, the meat processing industry has detrimental effects on people. Is there evidence that these people commit more violent crimes? It is well documented that psychopaths / serial killers usually have a history of torturing / raping animals in their youth. Taken together, this may be an additional reason beyond laws against sex with animals. (Before you pop a vessel: I am vegetarian and most of my meals are vegan).
