You are quite right about the statutory rape law being a necessity. It is there as a reasonable and enforceable safeguard that allows minors to be protected from those that might take advantage of them. I don’t believe however that the issue of informed consent applies in the same way when dealing with animals. My reasons are as follows:
An animal is not a human being, that doesn’t mean they it is right to treat animals cruelly, on the contrary it is wrong. However this does mean that applying an argument about sexual activity that (quite rightly) applies to humans gives weight when applied to animals. Of course an animal does not understand the full ‘intellectual’ implications of sexual conduct because that is a human concept. How anthropomorphic, and how ironic considering the context of this debate! (giggle)
Human sexual desire is often mixed with a desire for security, the feelings are highly intense and have intellectual as well as physical consequences. Therefore for all people it is important to be fully informed as to the nature of the sexual activity you wish to partake in, and with full scope to backing out if need be. However animals behave on a more instinctual level, therefore if they have a sexual desire then they will seek to gratify it immediately, whereas with humans there are consequences to consider. In such a case I don’t believe one has to expect a deep ‘human’ understanding of the context from this animal, it isn’t inappropriate to help gratify that desire.
I think your argument is based on the assumption that human-animal sexual contact is ALWAYS abuse. “And I feel I am perfectly within my rights not to approve of anyone who would condone this act of cruelty against animals, either.”
This clearly isn’t going to be ALWAYS the case, particularly if you understand what most zoephiles’ views are on the issue. Yes there are always those that are cruel, and if you were putting forth an argument that perhaps on balance it is safer to not permit such activity based on such people I would probably be more in agreement.
I will certainly concede two points you make. Yes this activity is illegal, you are entirely correct in that, and it is up to you to decide on your own conscience if you will report this activity. I certainly wouldn’t stand in your way. It is also true that zoephiles’ being associated with the fandom has led to a decrease in the so called ‘reputation’, clearly this is upsetting for you, and lots of other furs. There is no easy solution to this, I think the most that can be expected just like everyone else is to show some restraint about describing your interest. But I can’t chastise people for standing up for something they genuinely don’t see as wrong.
Let me say this though. zoephiles that I’ve spoken too so far seemed like balanced and normal individuals. If you believe this is all an act to fool people you’re forgetting the golden rule. No matter how bizarre their interest, people are always just people, no more nice, nasty, clever or dumb that anyone else. I don’t believe that everything about zoephiles they have written or put forward is bullshit, because why the need for an elaborate facade if they really all just wanted to rape?
Perhaps there is a cruelty issue and the only way to stop this issue is to keep behaviour like this illegal. You may well be right there. But as for the issue of whether or not ‘consent’ is given, I do believe in some circumstances it probably is.
BTW, your arguments are very clear and well thought out and I certainly wasn’t expecting an answer of such depth to my comments. :-)
You are quite right about the statutory rape law being a necessity. It is there as a reasonable and enforceable safeguard that allows minors to be protected from those that might take advantage of them. I don’t believe however that the issue of informed consent applies in the same way when dealing with animals. My reasons are as follows:
An animal is not a human being, that doesn’t mean they it is right to treat animals cruelly, on the contrary it is wrong. However this does mean that applying an argument about sexual activity that (quite rightly) applies to humans gives weight when applied to animals. Of course an animal does not understand the full ‘intellectual’ implications of sexual conduct because that is a human concept. How anthropomorphic, and how ironic considering the context of this debate! (giggle)
Human sexual desire is often mixed with a desire for security, the feelings are highly intense and have intellectual as well as physical consequences. Therefore for all people it is important to be fully informed as to the nature of the sexual activity you wish to partake in, and with full scope to backing out if need be. However animals behave on a more instinctual level, therefore if they have a sexual desire then they will seek to gratify it immediately, whereas with humans there are consequences to consider. In such a case I don’t believe one has to expect a deep ‘human’ understanding of the context from this animal, it isn’t inappropriate to help gratify that desire.
I think your argument is based on the assumption that human-animal sexual contact is ALWAYS abuse. “And I feel I am perfectly within my rights not to approve of anyone who would condone this act of cruelty against animals, either.”
This clearly isn’t going to be ALWAYS the case, particularly if you understand what most zoephiles’ views are on the issue. Yes there are always those that are cruel, and if you were putting forth an argument that perhaps on balance it is safer to not permit such activity based on such people I would probably be more in agreement.
I will certainly concede two points you make. Yes this activity is illegal, you are entirely correct in that, and it is up to you to decide on your own conscience if you will report this activity. I certainly wouldn’t stand in your way. It is also true that zoephiles’ being associated with the fandom has led to a decrease in the so called ‘reputation’, clearly this is upsetting for you, and lots of other furs. There is no easy solution to this, I think the most that can be expected just like everyone else is to show some restraint about describing your interest. But I can’t chastise people for standing up for something they genuinely don’t see as wrong.
Let me say this though. zoephiles that I’ve spoken too so far seemed like balanced and normal individuals. If you believe this is all an act to fool people you’re forgetting the golden rule. No matter how bizarre their interest, people are always just people, no more nice, nasty, clever or dumb that anyone else. I don’t believe that everything about zoephiles they have written or put forward is bullshit, because why the need for an elaborate facade if they really all just wanted to rape?
Perhaps there is a cruelty issue and the only way to stop this issue is to keep behaviour like this illegal. You may well be right there. But as for the issue of whether or not ‘consent’ is given, I do believe in some circumstances it probably is.
BTW, your arguments are very clear and well thought out and I certainly wasn’t expecting an answer of such depth to my comments. :-)