The next boundary to be crossed: sex with animals?

[Abeona]

Spotted this thread from Malcolm Clark on Twitter. Supporters of sex with animals involved in an Italian Pride march.

https://x.com/TwisterFilm/status/1804583470292726205

Well, I say that about children...but MAPS disagree. The sad thing is the swing back when it comes,which it will, is going to be a really big over correction which will hurt the innocent who aren't responsible for this.

Warning - I'm going to refer to, but not link to something very disturbing. Hence the large gap.

I'll be honest , I put more time and money into campaigning for animal rights than women's rights, because animals can never speak up for themselves.

I recently got a change.org email about sexual abuse of female and juvenile primates posted on Facebook which made me throw up.

I read stories about that happening to female Orangutans and I have an extremely bleak view of men whenever I remember it. It made me tearful and it took all my will power not to smash something so I understand how you feel 💐

I fear the swing back will be huge too. Not just the LGB but women will also be put back in our box.

That is of course the argument, and I think it's really important to understand it's a big part of how we got here. It's not all queer theory.

We don't talk about consent with animals. We are free to make them go on walks, or take pills, cut their balls off, or even euthanize them. Or eat them. It's not a really relevant legal, or even moral category to use.

It's really not why beastiality was a taboo. It's nothing to do with that.

But we have reduced the moral eight of sex to the point that consent and the ability to consent is the only framework most people have for sex, unless they happen to be members of something like a religious community. But society as a whole only recognizes consent as a valid organizing principle for ethical sex. You see something similar with attempts to squash other types of sexual exploitation into being problematic with consent, when really there are other ways they transgress boundaries that are more significant.

If consent is the only boundary, it doesn't apply to animals any more than it applies to a sex toy. You could look at cruelty which does apply to animals, but it would have to be shown to be the case, not just assumed. I suspect it would not apply to all human/animal sexual contact cases.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is deeply immoral and also gross, but unless we start to look at principles other consent for regulating sex, it should be no surprise that people argue this isn't problematic.

Raping defenceless animals. There are no words for this horror or the kind of filth that would indulge in this torture.
I am no believer in the death penalty but I would kill one of these fuckers with my bare hands if I had the chance.

Revolting.

Unfortunately I bet beastiality is probably a lot more widespread that anyone would think. Look at child abuse. If people can abuse children they aren't going to draw the line at an animal.

It's all these weirdos using the Internet to 'affirm' this is normal because so many other weirdos are doing it they will be chanting about their rights to fo this openly being human rights.

All this took off in response to same-sex marriage being legalised, iirc - it's all a gigantic pushback against women's rights and LGB rights, spearheaded by the most perverted sexual predators one could find.

@TempestTost

« , but unless we start to look at principles other consent for regulating sex, «

This is interesting - what other principles could be used?

I think this is the most horrifying thread I've ever read on Mumsnet.

What the fuck?!

So what do you propose? I'm getting a bit tired of people being able to say what's wrong about something but not proposing a solution or improvement.

Oe might be, is this kind of thing healthy for individuals, or society? Not only in terms of the health of the body, but psychologically, and also socially.

This is how sex used to be looked at - as something where people could behave immorally, exploiting the vulnerabilities of others, or using them as an end for their personal pleasure without any more permanent or deep connection or responsibility attacked.

We very deliberately jettisoned these ideas though, and made consent the only metric. Some people might also include direct physical harm, but even there it can be a struggle now to draw a boundary.

The problem of course is that if we considered these other kinds of principles, it might impact how we look at things like anonymous sexual encounters/one night stands, kink, sex clubs, etc. And that's just prudishness, right?

So we are left with consent. And it's already well established in law that animals don't need to consent, so this is on the table, just like sex work of various kinds, bdsm, polycules, etc.

Spain has not decriminalised bestiality. The idea that it has is a deliberate misinterpretation of the new act, which makes all kinds of sexual acts with animals illegal but imposes different grades of punishment depending on the severity.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/02/24/spain-decriminalize-bestiality/

https://www.eldiario.es/politica/nuevo-bulo-ultraderecha-decir-quiere-despenalizar-zoofilia_1_9951558.html

I believe the amendment to the Act hasn't even been passed through the Senate yet, which means it's not even in point.

Overton window innit.