Quote:
|
Originally Posted by funnytimes
I understand if you want to pet your animals or pat your kids on the back but you would never do anything sexual with your kids, why would you do it with your pets?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aivey
Engaging in sexual acts with a child is wrong, simply because the child would be hurt, wouldn't have a choice, and isn't even sexually interested.
|
A comment on this comparison: I'm fairly sure that in most cases of pedophilia, the child isn't actually purposefully hurt, and they're given a consensual (if manipulative) approach, and are interested, either sexually or out of curiosity. These people are mostly "sweet" perverts, not harsh molesters, and therefore they feel justified in doing what they do. (Because everyone (and the media) talks about child rapists, when those are in fact the minority.)
The main reason it is wrong, I think, is that they are prevented from developing in a healthy way psychologically, especially if it is a family member or someone else they depend on. The arguments about the child getting abused being the main reason doesn't hold up, because sexual abuse (or any abuse) is a separate crime, and the only reason why one would not separate consensual sex from abusive sex in children when it is distinguished between in adults is the argument that any sex is a form of abuse, which leads in to the point above of healthy psychological development.
Carrying this over to bestiality, to reply to funnytimes above, this reason doesn't really work when you replace 'kids' with 'pets'. For one thing, if an animal's psyche is not ready for sex because it's comparable to a kid's psyche (which is not ready for sex), then how could it mate at all? Adulthood and sexual maturity happens in animals as well as humans.
From what I've seen, the main argument against bestiality (except religious or unfounded conviction) is along the lines of what funnytimes mentioned, that the pet is the submissive part in a relationship it can't get out of and that being approached sexually by its owner will be abuse. It's also often claimed that animals can't give consent or deny. Bestiality proponents on the other hand may say that they can indeed tell if their pet consents, and that it will give signs of discomfort if it's not happy. Many are even convinced that they're making their pet happier by allowing it to have a sexual life, and speak very harshly of those who neuter their pets or otherwise take away something from them sexually, saying that they're abusers. I daresay that in most cases of bestiality, the animal is a male (such as a male dog), and that the animal is actually horny. People get off on the degrading idea that they're being shagged by a dog. All in all, it is difficult to argue against the ones who take all the precautions, have a happy and consenting pet, etc. etc. The law being as broad as it is (in most countries) and banning all animal/human sexuality is arguably more of a safeguard than an ideal. (An animal can't report or sue, it can't testify in court etc., so making much of a distinction is often impossible.)
On sensitive / debated and well known topics like this, Wikipedia is excellent because it is under heavy peer review. It also has links to more information.
Bestiality on Wikipedia - 'perspectives' section