Raising, or creating, the ethical bar for zoophilia

Tailo said:
Yeah, many people will agree that it is your natural right as an omnivore to eat animals that you can prey on. People tend to feel like that. And even more people will agree that it is a crime against nature to have sex with these animals. So be aware that alluding to a natural order of things backfires when one discusses fucking members of a different species.

I'd say that it is not an ethical argument in either case. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem . The fact that some animals are preyed on does not imply that you ought to do so, or that it is morally right to do so. The facts that sex in these species has the function of procreation and that you, as a human, cannot procreate with animals of a different species do not imply that you ought not have sex with them or that it is morally wrong.
Click to expand...

That would make sense if animals strictly stuck to their own species. But just like humans, they have exceptions that will mate with other species. So an argument can certainly still be made that interspecies is a natural thing.
As long as animals can live a decent life before being brought to the slaughter I don't see any problem with it. And as a hunter i'd bring up a similar concept that we'd NEED to continue killing wildlife to keep up with conservation. We are the most vital part of the food chain since we have the intelligence to micro manage species.
 
Come on guys, I dare to presume that this post was not for heated discussion but to make it clear that we all have to set limits as far as bestiality is concerned.
It is not the same to have a pet, love her and have sex with her in the most normal way and other thing is drug a horse or a dog and fuck her
There must be certain limits between ourselves, otherwise it would be nothing but madness
It is my opinion
 
HyperWoof said:
That would make sense if animals strictly stuck to their own species. But just like humans, they have exceptions that will mate with other species. So an argument can certainly still be made that interspecies is a natural thing.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this. What I do not agree with is that it occurring in nature is ethically relevant. Rape occurs in nature—but we don't want to argue for a right to rape, do we?


HyperWoof said:
And as a hunter i'd bring up a similar concept that we'd NEED to continue killing wildlife to keep up with conservation.
Click to expand...

That's especially true because we decimated most other predators and eradicated some completely. Anyway, I agree that meat from sustainably hunted wildlife is the most ethical kind of meat from animals to eat.
 
Tailo said:
I agree completely with this. What I do not agree with is that it occurring in nature is ethically relevant. Rape occurs in nature—but we don't want to argue for a right to rape, do we?



That's especially true because we decimated most other predators and eradicated some completely. Anyway, I agree that meat from sustainably hunted wildlife is the most ethical kind of meat from animals to eat.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's actually an argument I make semi frequently. Natural to nature does not mean morally good.

Glad we can make some common ground there then. That can be quite a contentious point and i'm not sure why. Hunting is a much more ethical form of population control than good ol' mother natures way (mass starvation until level pop.)
 
Tailo said:
Yeah, many people will agree that it is your natural right as an omnivore to eat animals that you can prey on. People tend to feel like that. And even more people will agree that it is a crime against nature to have sex with these animals. So be aware that alluding to a natural order of things backfires when one discusses fucking members of a different species.

I'd say that it is not an ethical argument in either case. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem . The fact that some animals are preyed on does not imply that you ought to do so, or that it is morally right to do so. The facts that sex in these species has the function of procreation and that you, as a human, cannot procreate with animals of a different species do not imply that you ought not have sex with them or that it is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that we have a moral obligation to eat some species. We've thoroughly screwed up the balance of nature in many areas by killing off predators. Wouldn't that make it our duty to take over their function until the balance can be restored? And what about introduced species like feral hogs? We have to something about them or there won't be any nature to restore.
 
In regards to porn, If I ever were to make zoo porn, I'd produce nonsexual animal content along with it. Like showing little "slice of life" vignettes from your and your animal partner's life (kinda like those animal raising Youtube channels), and some nice, mutually passionate screwing sessions interspersed beside it. I don't believe it would be nearly as popular as the porn itself, but I believe it would be a good "proof of concept" that the animals are handling it well and they're not traumatized, and I personally think that getting a real feel of the animal husbandry from all angles would be really lovely!
 
HyperWoof said:
As long as animals can live a decent life before being brought to the slaughter I don't see any problem with it. And as a hunter i'd bring up a similar concept that we'd NEED to continue killing wildlife to keep up with conservation. We are the most vital part of the food chain since we have the intelligence to micro manage species.
Click to expand...

The act of killing an animal is immoral in and of itself. As @Llandefie said in another thread, killing an animal "kindly" doesn't change the fact that killing an animal is wrong (just as killing a dog or a human is wrong). So saying that animals can live a "good life" before being killed is nonsense. (Animals should not be killed in the first place, because they have a right to live). Slaughter and hunting are speciesist activities, because they value the lives of humans more than the lives of other species.

The idea that hunters need to keep hunting animals to keep a "balance" is a myth. Nature can take care of its own. Humans don't need to kill animals to keep things "balanced". There is no need for humans to use lethal "management" techniques.

Also, the "food chain" justification (that humans can kill animals because they are part of a "food chain") is a fallacy and is not morally justifiable. Humans know morals/ethics, and make decisions based on those -- and they know that killing animals causes pain/suffering, so the best option is to not kill any animals in the first place.

In my opinion, all hunting ought to be banned, because there is no justification for robbing a being of his/her life (be it a deer, moose, or any other animal). Also, people ought to stop eating meat because it is morally wrong.
 
Zoo50 said:
The act of killing an animal is immoral in and of itself. As @Llandefie said in another thread, killing an animal "kindly" doesn't change the fact that killing an animal is wrong (just as killing a dog or a human is wrong). So saying that animals can live a "good life" before being killed is nonsense. (Animals should not be killed in the first place, because they have a right to live). Slaughter and hunting are speciesist activities, because they value the lives of humans more than the lives of other species.

The idea that hunters need to keep hunting animals to keep a "balance" is a myth. Nature can take care of its own. Humans don't need to kill animals to keep things "balanced". There is no need for humans to use lethal "management" techniques.

Also, the "food chain" justification (that humans can kill animals because they are part of a "food chain") is a fallacy and is not morally justifiable. Humans know morals/ethics, and make decisions based on those -- and they know that killing animals causes pain/suffering, so the best option is to not kill any animals in the first place.

In my opinion, all hunting ought to be banned, because there is no justification for robbing a being of his/her life (be it a deer, moose, or any other animal). Also, people ought to stop eating meat because it is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Very well, reductio ad absurdum: Please stop killing the billions of bacteria in your body and let them live happily ever after as they consume you.
 
Zoo50 said:
The act of killing an animal is immoral in and of itself. As @Llandefie said in another thread, killing an animal "kindly" doesn't change the fact that killing an animal is wrong (just as killing a dog or a human is wrong). So saying that animals can live a "good life" before being killed is nonsense. (Animals should not be killed in the first place, because they have a right to live). Slaughter and hunting are speciesist activities, because they value the lives of humans more than the lives of other species.

The idea that hunters need to keep hunting animals to keep a "balance" is a myth. Nature can take care of its own. Humans don't need to kill animals to keep things "balanced". There is no need for humans to use lethal "management" techniques.

Also, the "food chain" justification (that humans can kill animals because they are part of a "food chain") is a fallacy and is not morally justifiable. Humans know morals/ethics, and make decisions based on those -- and they know that killing animals causes pain/suffering, so the best option is to not kill any animals in the first place.

In my opinion, all hunting ought to be banned, because there is no justification for robbing a being of his/her life (be it a deer, moose, or any other animal). Also, people ought to stop eating meat because it is morally wrong.
Click to expand...

OK. What's your solution for animal overpopulation? Do you think mass starvation and extinction of species is a kinder means?

And where does that line get drawn? Are rats in your attic fair game? Can you only kill when convenient to your needs? Your stance is hypocritical at best
 
Sure.

Be kind to your animal. Just care.

Make up your mind: do you love your animal or not?

If you do not, then you are not like me.
 
caikgoch said:
Very well, reductio ad absurdum: Please stop killing the billions of bacteria in your body and let them live happily ever after as they consume you.
Click to expand...

Bacteria aren't even animals, caikgoch.

In another thread we identified a being's own will to live, the case where it values its own life, as relevant. This criterion would only include beings with some kind of consciousness and reflection about itself, in my understanding, and may be a better point to think about than whether a being belongs to the taxonomic kingdom of animalia.
 
Tailo said:
Bacteria aren't even animals, caikgoch.

In another thread we identified a being's own will to live, the case where it values its own life, as relevant. This criterion would only include beings with some kind of consciousness and reflection about itself, in my understanding, and may be a better point to think about than whether a being belongs to the taxonomic kingdom of animalia.
Click to expand...
Only vertebrates are possessed of a central nervous system. Of the five traditionally accepted classes, I find that the ones that are the most effective at conjuring in me substantial empathy are birds and mammals.

However, I have been known to rescue snakes from garden hoes while telling the old women that wield them, "How dare you? This humble rat snake is probably the reason why your back yard is not so infested with moles and other pests that you could not have a garden at all. Show the animal some gratitude!" I have also told them months later, after they complained that they had needed medical attention after tripping over a mole mound, "I remember that you used to have a nice family of rat snakes to keep those at bay. You know, the ones that I told you that you should not kill with a garden hoe? Whatever happened to those?"

The fact that I hardly care a rat's ass, either way, about the majority of lizards, though, is notable.

I always rescue birds and rodents from my cat's jaws when I take him out on his walks, though. For one thing, there are too many wonderful beneficial snakes afoot for me to feel threatened by the rodents that live in the ground, so it doesn't really do any special service to the environment to let my cat eat them for no reason when he has perfectly serviceable food indoors. My cat has had his fun, so the usefulness of letting my cat hunt it has passed. For another, my husband is a bird-lover, and I would just as soon not discourage them too much from nesting in the vicinity.

It is killing a creature without really needing to for any particular purpose that makes me wonder about a person. Is that person going to take a hatchet to me just for laughs, given a chance? Or out of blind, ignorant, irrational fear? Or out of an unshakable belief that that creature is harmful when it really is demonstrably beneficial? I would not feel safe around such a person. Such people are dangerous, and they are therefore a pestilence and a threat in their own right.
 
Last edited:
underdoge said:
It's tough to figure out what porn is consensual without knowing the animal. All animals are individuals and have different ways of communicating. No one understands my dogs the way I do. Certain dogs might be ok with dildogging (although mine aren't). Unless the animal is struggling to get away I wouldn't say it's certain that a dildogging video is non-consensual. I'm not against creating a rule to promote consensual porn but it needs to be understood that it WILL false positives and take down legit videos. There is no non-subjective way to judge this via computer.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's simple. Is the animal pursuing the human? If yes it is definitely consensual. Is the animal in an open environment and free to walk away? If yes it's at least tolerated.
 
caikgoch said:
Very well, reductio ad absurdum: Please stop killing the billions of bacteria in your body and let them live happily ever after as they consume you.
Click to expand...

@Tailo is right -- the fact that you're comparing higher-order sentient beings (such as cows, pigs, humans and dogs) with bacteria is absurd. Animals like cows, pigs, humans and dogs have a desire to live, and a right to live, and they can feel pain/suffering/consciousness etc. Bacteria have none of these attributes.
 
Zoo50 said:
@Tailo is right -- the fact that you're comparing higher-order sentient beings (such as cows, pigs, humans and dogs) with bacteria is absurd. Animals like cows, pigs, humans and dogs have a desire to live, and a right to live, and they can feel pain/suffering/consciousness etc. Bacteria have none of these attributes.
Click to expand...

You ignored my response. I am assuming that is because you have no reply?
 
HyperWoof said:
OK. What's your solution for animal overpopulation? Do you think mass starvation and extinction of species is a kinder means?

And where does that line get drawn? Are rats in your attic fair game? Can you only kill when convenient to your needs? Your stance is hypocritical at best
Click to expand...

Have you considered that humans (a kind of animal) are overpopulated? There are billions and billions of humans.

In terms of animal overpopulation, nature can take care of its own. Lethal "management" techniques are not necessary. I don't know what you mean by "mass extinction and starvation of a species", but when it comes to morality, not killing animals is more morally justifiable than killing them. In other words, it is wrong to harm / kill an animal. In the same way that dogs and humans should not be killed, other animals (like pigs) should not be killed either.

Rats in the attic should not be killed. There are many animal species that are worthy of being treated as moral equals -- dogs, humans, pigs, cows, deer, etc. If a being has a brain, nervous system, has sentience / consciousness, and can feel pain/suffering, it should not be killed.
 
Last edited:
Zoo50 said:
Have you considered that humans (a kind of animal) are overpopulated? There are billions and billions of humans.

In terms of animal overpopulation, nature can take care of its own. Lethal "management" techniques are not necessary. I don't know what you mean by "mass extinction and starvation of a species", but when it comes to morality, not killing animals is more morally justifiable than killing them. In other words, it is wrong to harm / kill an animal. In the same way that dogs and humans should not be killed, other animals (like pigs) should not be killed either.

Rats in the attic should not be killed. There are many animal species that are worthy of being treated as moral equals -- dogs, humans, pigs, cows, deer, etc. If a being has a brain, nervous system, has sentience / consciousness, and can feel pain/suffering, it should not be killed.
Click to expand...

Management techniques are not necessary....lmao, so the government employs thousands of wildlife biologists for no reason?
So do you even know what you are suggesting? Nature has a good way of balancing itself out, that's correct. But her way of balancing is brutal and results in a very long recuperation time, and if you don't understand that then you've been watching too much Disney.
 
Well, let's toss in some elements and see how we would want to arrange them.

- no sexual imposition on any unwilling partner
- no restraints
- no pain or injury to any partner
- act only with clear consent
- do not train other peoples' animals in sexual behavior with humans
- commit to lifelong good care of animal partners
- actively socialize with the animals, build loving relationships

That can be a starting point.
 
Want a draft? Here is one – ZETA Principles:
  1. Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself.
  2. Consider the well being of an animal companion as important as ones own.
  3. Place the animal’s will and wellbeing ahead of one’s desires for sexual gratification.
  4. Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.
  5. Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.
  6. Censure sexual exploitation of animals for the purpose of financial gain.
  7. Censure those who practice and promote animal sexual abuse.
Source: http://www.animalzoofrance.net/index.php/Zeta
These are decades old and stem from the US of A.
 
What's wrong with restraining an animal that does not mind though?
 
Barb Dwyer said:
For me, restraints are a warning flag that the animal is not fully free to bail out of the encounter.
Click to expand...
Not only that, many animals, horses for example, will freeze when trapped in any fashion. I have seen cows that starved to death waiting for someone to come free them from being tangled in a fence.
 
caikgoch said:
If the animal is restrained, how do you know that they don't mind? Particularly through the lens of a camera?
Click to expand...
Barb Dwyer said:
For me, restraints are a warning flag that the animal is not fully free to bail out of the encounter.
Click to expand...

Yes, when we talk about porn, restraints are a warning sign. They make it even harder to see whether the animal doesn't mind what's happening, which is hard enough in case of passive animals since the one who sets up the camera and edits the video and sound controls what we can know. I see that no restraints is in zooville's content guidelines.

Generally speaking, there are numerous signs how a restrained animal can show that it disagrees: by making sounds such as growling or whining, by squirming, by body tension, by trying to free itself from the restraints, by a certain look in the face or by evading eye contact, by the movement or position of its tail and ears ... it depends on the kind of animal and on the individual. Basically anything that you would reply if someone asked you how to tell that an animal disagrees although animals don't speak our language—minus walking away.

I feel that when you have a rule such as "act only with clear consent" and you are worried about the case where the animal does mind restraints, you don't need an extra "no restraints" rule, because consent is already covered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tailo said:
Want a draft? Here is one – ZETA Principles:
  1. Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself.
  2. Consider the well being of an animal companion as important as ones own.
  3. Place the animal’s will and wellbeing ahead of one’s desires for sexual gratification.
  4. Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.
  5. Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.
  6. Censure sexual exploitation of animals for the purpose of financial gain.
  7. Censure those who practice and promote animal sexual abuse.
Source: http://www.animalzoofrance.net/index.php/Zeta
These are decades old and stem from the US of A.
Click to expand...

Then why are you here? This forum is full fetish seekers and bestialists. It also contains porn. I believe this site even allows members to monetize their own content. So this forum breaks a whole bunch of your sacred zeta principles. So why don't you try turning this forum into something better, something a true zoo can be proud of. Porn, fetish seekers, bestialists all give Zoo's a dirty name and bring disrepute to all real zoo's. So why not start by campaigning for the admin to prohibit any and all porn. Also take down any threads referring to the fetishistic side of Zoo's or besitiality. IE animal like sex toys, and threads such as "bestiality as a fetish." That would be a good start, don't you think.

If I was a "true zoo" I wouldn't want anything to do with ZV
 
caikgoch said:
I'd argue that we have a moral obligation to eat some species. We've thoroughly screwed up the balance of nature in many areas by killing off predators. Wouldn't that make it our duty to take over their function until the balance can be restored? And what about introduced species like feral hogs? We have to something about them or there won't be any nature to restore.
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of cannibalism? :p

I don't think one can get to "moral" via killing without it being entirely out of mercy and not convenience. Many ways we could restore some of that balance, just we don't because it's too expensive and would require more effort than killing them.
 
I incorrectly stated that only vertebrates have a central nervous system. Octopi can actually have very large, complex brains!

However, I am not sure what to say about an octopus, except keep the oceans healthy. Octopi really like healthy oceans!

I will now perform a tap-dancing routine while singing a song.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top