Doublethink: Zoophilia is rape, eating an animal is not murder

Here’s an interesting article that I came across the other day that examined zoophilia written by Mark Griffiths. The interesting aspects are that, apparently, there are rather a lot of zoophiles perhaps as high as 8% of males and 4% of females. The studies suggest zoophilia is an orientation not merely a consequence of circumstance (such as poor access to humans, shyness etc).

Then, we get to the interesting bit. At the very start of the article it mentioned how zoophilia is criminalised in some places but “still” legal in others (yes “still” is interesting wording, showing the bias of the article is towards criminalisation). The author’s ideological underpinnings are made clear at the end of the article where he suggests:

Many zoophiles believe that in years to come, their sexual preference will be seen as no different to being gay or straight. This is not a view I adhere to especially because animals cannot give consent (although many zoophiles claim the animals they have sexual relationships with do give ‘consent’).

It seems the same ideological feminist underpinnings is leading to the criminalisation of zoophilia as paedophilia. However, what is most striking is that in the case of zoophilia the author’s blatant hypocrisy is made far more clear than for someone arguing against paedophilia. I suspect that almost certainly the author eats meat, thus the author is participating in the murder of animals. So why, then, does the author seem so concerned about an animal “not being able to consent” to relatively harmless sex yet is perfectly fine with the murder of animals? Even if it so happens that Mark Griffiths does not eat meat then his logic still fails as he is making an assertion regarding the whole of society: Most people eat meat thus most people are hypocrites if they claim that it is wrong to have sex with animals yet are more than happy to eat animals. It is of course possible for society to take such a hypocritical stand, and I believe it now does, but the glaring gap between reality and ideology is, I think, ultimately far too great to stand the test of time.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Doublethink: Zoophilia is rape, eating an animal is not murder

  1. Opus says:

    I had always understood that having sexual-relations with a non-human animal was illegal (whatever its age).

    Consent – the sine qua non – of present sexual law, is its Achilles heel, for all one has to do is to demonstrate that either consent is incoherent as a concept or that in the alternative consent was de-facto given and the entire attack on normal male sexuality (but here on bestiality) falls to the ground in broken shards. You make the case as to the killing of animals for food and the lack of consent given by the animal but how about when I see your dog needs some affection and I scratch him under the ear and rub his tummy. Should I be prosecuted for assault on the ground that Fido failed to consent to my love and affection – certainly as he rolled on his back he seemed to be enjoying himself, wanting me to continue, but as there is nothing in writing and no one heard his verbal ‘yes’ I suppose I must be guilty as charged. When your yappy little dog jumps on to my leg to have sex with my leg am I (or you) to be accused of having groomed him to do so.

    It may of course be said that the purpose of an animal – say a pig – is to be killed and eaten, (as Aristotle explains in – I think – The Physics) and that having sexual intercourse with an non-human animal can not be part of the animals purpose, but that argument as to purpose (whether the pig agreed or not) is instantly contradicted by our happiness to indulge homosexuality or – say – sodomy or even oral sex let alone consensual sado-masochism. Ultimately behind their sophisms and woeful arguments (washed down with sanctimony) the people who make our laws are merely demonstrating their own bias and tastes – not that I can quite get my head round bestaility, and would prefer not to try.

    I have often wondered about women who own large male dogs.

  2. Diseases, not capable of reproduction and if they ever where, retardation would moist likely accur.. no spoken consent.. one can freely interpret claims of what dogs are saying etc.. evolution has made us to reproduce and get healthier.. not dwell in sexual depravity.. the same way that tiger lions etc needs meat to SURVIVE and can’t live off plants but still choose to adobt baby calf.. also apathy and psychopathic tendencies keepoophiles in a state of mind where pain only for animals doesn’t ever exist and if any damage done claim it isn’t their sexual depravities/lust fault even though it could be.. everyone experience pain.. and breeding cycles could cause stress depression/etc..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s