Presentation: Sexual Ethics. Zoophilia, Necrophilia, Pedophilia 2
Articles Blog

Presentation: Sexual Ethics. Zoophilia, Necrophilia, Pedophilia 2

October 18, 2019


And once again, bear in mind: force sexual austerity is no little thing Not at all. Psychological results in this case range from depression, drug addiction, various neuroses, maladjustements, inferiority complexes and tics to suicide Depending on how instable the psyche was to begin with, depending on how weak that person’s self-control was, results can be catastrophic. Again, so much about the importance of this question Good. With these rather extensive preparations out of the way, let’s move on to our first field: zoophilia. I will be addressing further general questions especially concerning the reception of paraphilias later on, during the pedophilia segment For now, just the important core data and evaluation On to the facts then. In 1948, the godfather of sexual ethics (sexology), Alfred Kinsey, conducted a study that yielded a rate of 5 to 15% of Americans being zoophiles at that time. Bang. Now here’s the issue. What he did was the following. He went and asked people: “Did you have sexual contact with an animal at some point?” 5 to 15% said yes. So he did exactly what you’re not supposed to do, he asked people for their experiences, not their preferences That way, primary zoophiles who had simply not had any experiences yet where excluded, secondary or not at all zoophiles that had done so were included Going by newer studies we can assume that about 2 to 5 percent of humanity are primary zoophiles In addition, zoophilic interest is often restricted primarily or exclusively to a particular kind of animal There are, for instance (oops, sorry) many equine or canine zoophiles, but there will be very few that would say that they prefer only a specific race of dog That’s notable – usually the attraction is that far-spread Here as well we have three times as many men as women Acts of secondary zoophilia are extremely common all the same Kinsey found that although the general average was 5 to 15, country and farmer population yielded a rate of 50% concerning sexual experiences So 50% of all people working at farms had at that point already had at least one sexual experience with an animal. On half. Kinsey deduced – not without reason – that the otherwise moderately low rate of experiences is not the result of a lack of interest but opportunity So if more people had access to animals there’d be yet much more occurences of zoophile acts as there already are Zoophilia, to be fair, is not an unnatural behaviour It is observable in various animal species and is definitely given outside of human culture as well There are pieces of art depicting zoophilic acts that hail from the Stone Age, 25.000 years old By the way, this also applies to pedophilia, to some degree also to necrophilia. So yeah, there’s stuff happening in the animal kingdom that you wouldn’t believe Especially in this context it is remarkable that- hang on, sorry, skipped a point, nevermind At the same time there is a curious statistical connection between zoophilia and violent crime, especially sexually violent crime, to be found Andrea Beetz conducted a study that yielded (I think it was) three to four times as many zoophilic experiences to be found among sexual delinquents than among the general population I will say right away, for reasons I will be illustrating later on I see an issue with this study Because, again: acts have been counted, not preferences In face of the fact of how immensely widespread secondary zoophilia is among the general population, I’d ask whether this heightened percentage is truly present because there is a higher amount of primary zoophiles given That is, whether there are actually more zoophiles in the closer sense present among sexual delinquents and if thus zoophilia seems to be a reason to become one or that if I am a person with weak inhibitions, if I am a sex offender in the first place I will have even less inhibitions to abuse an animal because the opportunity is given, or because of power fantasies or whatever I’d say Beetz has been all too quick in drawing conclusions One of the reasons why I would think that is that remarkably, the zoophile community has shown a greater degree of ethical reflection and a more active dispute concerning the ethical implications of their paraphilia than the community of any other I know So there you actually have a massive degree of reflection in discussion, dispute – most zoophiles have a very clear idea of what they think is acceptable and what isn’t and they can give you reasons as well Especially questionable practises make that very clear, bringing those up often yields a fully thought-out answer almost instantly The practice of fence hopping, for instance – this refers to the act of having intercourse with an animal owned by another person without that person’s knowledge that’s where the name comes from, jumping over someone’s fence at night- this act is explicitely and well-foundedly condemned by 75 to 80% of all zoophiles At the same time, there is no higher frequency of injury to be found in zoophilic acts than in acts of regular sexuality It is presumed – more of an educated guess than anything else – that 5 to 10% of all sexual acts lead to any kind of injury accidental injuries included Regular sexual acts do indeed yield a similarly high rate Eh, sorry, I mean, not 5 to 10% of all sexual acts but 5 to 10% of all involved participants So that’s one in ten to twenty persons suffering from any type of sexual injury at any time – and with animals, the rate is the same It is to be said though that this depends on the partner species involved Smaller, anatomically unfit animals, especially when penetration occurs, usually suffer heavy injury or death during the act especially with smaller dogs, birds, cats, reptiles and comparable species. The most commonly involved species are larger dog breeds and horses I will be always referring to anatomically fit species from this point on, I think that zoophilia involving a species that I’m murdering in the act being wrong is something we can agree on Perhaps a small thing last that’s rather curious to observe: zoophiles as well as their most outspoken enemies are most commonly found among animal rights activists 33% of all zoophiles… (laughter of death) 33% of all zoophiles have reported involvement in an animal rights group as either a voluntary capacity or a full-time job So in this dispute we have at the most time animal rights activists being at each other’s throat, actually There. So what is now to follow will be an ethical evaluation Right off the bat we can, based on what we just found, settle this: the physical side of this will not be largely relevant We have the statistical data, it’s not the issue, there aren’t that many injuries What stands out instead is the question of consent, the psychological element Is an animal capable of of consenting to such an act, can it communicate that consent, how does that look like, does it even need to, that kind of questions (Keep messing up my notes, sorry) As we go on, one thing must be clear from the get-go: we must not approach our evaluation from an anthropomorphistic viewpoint We must not ask: is it unnatural? Is it disgusting? Is perhaps ‘degrading’? Those are anthropomorphic questions We only ask ourselves this one question: does the animal suffer in any way while subjected to this act? And there’s the Utilitarian perspective in this:no suffering, no wrongness. Concerning the question of psychological suffering, the question of consent, the American sociologist (and environmentalist) Piers Beirne (likely one of the most influential persons concerning this subject as of now) has noted that animals are in an imbalance in their position in comparison to humans Humans have domesticated, subjugated, trained animals, animals are raised to obey humans in general This would create an issue of coercion – the same type of problem that is, by the way, also brought forth as a central argument in critizising pedophilia and therein I would very much agree with it at this point however, even Piers Beirne himself, who is a decided critic of zoophilia has objected this argument as not substantial, as an imbalance of power by itself is not enough to constitute coercion (only to make it possible) Just because I am in a situation of imbalance with a person that wants something from me doesn’t mean I can’t want it as well An example given, if a teacher asks me as a student whether I want to go and eat some ice cream, the teacher is in a position of authority in comparison to me but that doesn’t mean that I can’t want to go and eat some ice cream by my own volition all the same He instead brings forth the issue of consent communication and giving consent in the first place An animal does not possess the kind of consciousness required to give proper consent, nor does it have the means by which to properly communicate that consent to a human Let’s hold that thought for a moment I think this will be the first thesis to give some reason for some proper debate: There’s one thing we must be aware of at this point In face of the highly restricted form of consciousness that most people – at least most people involved in the public dispute – would attribute to animals This question is at this point naturally double-edged, meaning that it includes the counterquestion: do animals even need to give consent? Now, obviously an entity that has no consciousness at all would not be required to give any kind of consent either Say, with a sex toy no one would claim that since it cannot give consent, using it is wrong And thus arises the question: where do we place the degree of consciousness present in an animal? Do we say the animal is either of so little consciousness that it doesn’t even need to give consent, or that it is of such great consciousness that it actually can give consent or is it right in the middle, thus needing to give consent but not being able to I would argue that animals, as beings capable of suffering, are definitely required to at least not reject the act In other words, their wellbeing is ethically significant But I would also argue that we cannot apply the human term of consent to them and that we thus need to redefine consent when dealing with animals and for the following reasons: Full awareness is not given. Animals, like children, are not fully and completely aware of what is happening to them but that is something they never do We are dealing with a mentally and sexually mature creature here, its momentary mental state also marks the apex of its potential What it does not comprehend now, it will never comprehend. Momentary consent equals general consent, there’s one massive difference to children already Moreso, intentional mind, which as we will see is the central issue with pedophilia, is not given within animals, at least according to the general theory of animal consciousness today Children can consciously relate to the act, they can remember it, think about it, reflect upon it and refer it to themselves A creature that possesses neither intentional nor self-consciousness cannot think about it, cannot remember it, at least in a cognitive way, and cannot employ it in reference to itself So I would at this point confront critics of zoophilia with the accusation of an anthropomorphism I would argue that in this discourse, when debating animal mind and sexuality, human measures of both are often if not always presupposed And sexuality as well, bear in mind, is a completely different matter in animals than it is in humans Human terms such as intimacy or eroticism, things like these that first ever construct that concept of sexuality as it exists in an intentionally conscious creature are not present in animals; mating is not an intimate act Intimacy in our sense of the word is not known to animals, at least not to the common partner species that we can observe Concepts as personal dignity require self-reference The word ‘concept’ by itself presupposes as much So if we truly go on claiming that animals have no intentional mind….

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Watched this video a few times now. I feel like it's a really great presentation, and a dialog on three topics people really don't like to discuss. Valuable little video.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *