Not bad! You've clearly put more thought into this than the average person.
>Infection
That's certainly the most obvious. I don't suppose you have any information on how big a risk that is. I would be inclined to guess it's lower than for intra-species sex, but I can't back that up.
>Social isolation
Eh, I guess. Doesn't seem like a big deal.
>Punishment
I never thought of that one. That would be a big concern for any zoophile living in such a culture.
>lack of consequences
This is a good point since many other arguments seemingly lead to the (silly) conclusion that we shouldn't let animals mate at all, but this one doesn't.
I have to dispute a couple of details though:
>they feel no pleasure from it
How can you possibly know that? It seems to me fulfilling a "biological urge" is almost synonymous with experiencing pleasure. It's pretty hard to imagine they don't get some sort of positive sensation out of it.
>it has no social meaning for them.
This isn't necessarily true. But it's also not necessarily a point for the zoophile team. For instance, dogs (one of the more likely animals for a human to have sex with) do sometimes mount eachother when they're not trying to procreate. Apparently they do it mainly to assert dominance
That weakens your claim that animals use sex solely as a means to reproduce. But on the other hand, if it means something different for them, there's a real possibility of a sex-based miscommunication
Do you think that animals can give consent?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Not bad! You've clearly put more thought into this than the average person.
>Infection
That's certainly the most obvious. I don't suppose you have any information on how big a risk that is. I would be inclined to guess it's lower than for intra-species sex, but I can't back that up.
>Social isolation
Eh, I guess. Doesn't seem like a big deal.
>Punishment
I never thought of that one. That would be a big concern for any zoophile living in such a culture.
>lack of consequences
This is a good point since many other arguments seemingly lead to the (silly) conclusion that we shouldn't let animals mate at all, but this one doesn't.
I have to dispute a couple of details though:
>they feel no pleasure from it
How can you possibly know that? It seems to me fulfilling a "biological urge" is almost synonymous with experiencing pleasure. It's pretty hard to imagine they don't get some sort of positive sensation out of it.
>it has no social meaning for them.
This isn't necessarily true. But it's also not necessarily a point for the zoophile team. For instance, dogs (one of the more likely animals for a human to have sex with) do sometimes mount eachother when they're not trying to procreate. Apparently they do it mainly to assert dominance
That weakens your claim that animals use sex solely as a means to reproduce. But on the other hand, if it means something different for them, there's a real possibility of a sex-based miscommunication