You Sexy Beasts

How my next article on moneylending got sidetracked by a bestiality discussion

Whenever I write “coming up in my next piece,” it’s a near-certain bet that the next piece will be delayed. The universe invariably says “challenge accepted” and throws me a curveball. And hoo boy, did it throw me a doozy this time.

Sex With Dogs & Other Critters Back In Vogue, Thanks To Academic Peter Singer

It all started when William M. Briggs posted an essay entitled “Sex with Dogs & Other Critters Back in Vogue, Thanks to Academic Peter Singer.” As Mr. Briggs explains:

Peter Singer … has just published, in the peer-reviewed Journal of Controversial Ideas, the paper “Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible.” By some person calling herself “Fira Bensto” (I put that into an anagram solver and got “Fiat Boners”). I only assume it’s a woman, because the journal announces the name is a pseudonym.

In these troubled times when we stand on the precipice of a Third World War, it’s good to see that academics are keeping their minds on important issues like defending zoophilia. If there is an Ig Nobel prize for Philosophy, Mx. Fiat Boners is certainly one of this year’s top candidates.

As you might have expected, most commenters were equal parts horrified and amused. But then one PJ London arrived on the scene to play horsefucker’s advocate:

Please explain how a male equine is raped by a human female? Apparently these 'shows' were very popular with tourists.

I am not supporting or proposing 'zoophilia' merely demonstrating the nonsense of the arguments against it.

I believe Mr. London is referencing the infamous and probably apocryphal Tijuana donkey show. But his confusion regarding equid love is understandable. London, like Singer and Bensto, does not support or propose zoophilia. He simply thinks that moral prescriptions against it are “nonsense.” It’s not that he wants to do it, mind you. He simply thinks that those busybodies who want to come between a boy and his dog are misguided.

London is dead set against animal abuse. But, in response to several horror stories about animal rape, he asks:

Would it have ben [sic] OK if the dog had not been trussed up and not been injured?

What if it had been a sheep, goat or horse?

It is clear from history that these animals are not necessarily physically harmed.

So we can assume that in London’s moral universe bestiality is only OK if it’s done with care, compassion, and enough lubricant. But once those guidelines are met, London notes:

[I]t is clear that thousands of people have had coitus with animals, not mere fantasies but actual coitus, your basis was that it was not 'consensual' and that the animal was injured. This objection would be true if the object was human. It has nothing to do with the fact that it was an animal.

The idea that a male animal cannot/does not give consent is not based on reality.

Male dogs have shown to be very keen on the idea, they will hump anything.

Mr. London appears to be unclear about the distinction between sexual intercourse and masturbation. The fact that a dog will rub his genitals against your leg for stimulation does not imply that he wants to have sex with you. London is also not clear on the definition of informed consent. A developmentally disabled adult might enjoy the sensations of sexual stimulation from a caregiver. That caregiver would still be committing a crime and taking advantage of an adult who is incapable of consent.

But, like many sex-positive activists, London seems to think that these rules are rooted in prudery rather than genuine concern for the vulnerable.

[A]nimals have sexual impulses and desires even to the point where many (most) male and female animals reach orgasm and are not merely receptive but actively seek sex.

Endless instances of cross-specie [sic] coitus exist.

My point is that the hysterical anti-sex has got to the point where unless it is clothed, in the missionary position, with the lights off, the populace goes insane.

I’m not sure where Mr. London lives. In the reality I inhabit, most Americans couldn’t care less what consenting adults do to or with each other in their own bedrooms. Sexual deviance (in the clinical, not the pejorative use of the word) has never been more widely tolerated and accepted than it is today. But for Mr. London, zoophile-shaming is just the first step on a slippery slope to chastity belts and Christofascism.

Montreal Pride Parade, 2019

Of course, you don’t have to be an Evangelical Fundamentalist Holy Roller (or even a Roman Catholic) to frown on sex with children and animals. Even the most ardent atheist might take a utilitarian approach and recognize that the pleasure received by the child molester or zoophile is enormously outweighed by the potential and actual harm to the child or animal. But here Mr. London chimes in to express his disagreement.

A few other items, as far as sex with children and animals being "Abuse" there is no evidence for that. It was found in a large Psychological study, that the child's trauma came not from the act but from the societal consequences of being found out and "Counselled". There is no evidence that any societal harm has been caused by the thousands of bestial acts. The only harm for both comes when violence is present.

I’ve heard similar claims in the past, generally from “Minor Attracted Persons” and their supporters. When I asked Mr. London to provide me with a citation of this “large Psychological study,” he claimed:

Now like all articles from some years ago, that article is somewhere in the memory hole as it does not fit the narrative of current thinking.

Any search brings only the crap from the NSPCC [National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children] which is as useful as consulting Fauci on Covid.

As the main source of information without actually going to the University library is controlled by the US government (Alphabet) there is no way that I can provide the source. Your disbelief does not invalidate the facts.

While only a few scholars have focused their attention on bestiality, there are innumerable studies which have concluded inappropriate early sexualization of children and child sexual abuse has serious and lasting traumatic effects on survivors. It’s telling that London considers that material to be “crap” written as part of a COVID-level conspiracy to keep children (and those who love them) from finding sexual satisfaction. And that his rebuttal information has the source “trust me, bro.”

You might accuse me of shooting fish in a barrel. London may not have the rhetorical skill or the academic degrees, but he’s working on the same assumptions as Bensto, who states:

I would like to argue that zoophilia is permissible, i.e. that it is not wrong to engage in zoophilia. To do this, I will take for granted a broadly antispeciesist or non­anthropocentric perspective that rejects human exceptionalism. Such a perspective ascribes some inherent value or rights to animals and refrains from appealing to tradition, status quo, human or animal essence, or God to reason about ethical issues.

This allows us to circumvent a number of objections against zoophilia which usually focus on the “human side” of the relationship and take zoophilia to be a vice, a sexual perversion or to go against Christian morality or human essence.

Like London, Bensto considers Christian morality and appeals to “tradition, status quo, human or animal essence, or God” to be outmoded ways of seeing. Faith is delusion, and only Reason can explain to us why we should only love our animals in the Platonic sense. Except that, when we reject those preconceptions, there aren’t really a lot of rational arguments as to why kinder, gentler zoophilia is worse than any other “sexual orientation.” In this house we believe love is love, etc…

If you believe that every rule and restriction must be rationally and logically justified, you’re going to spend an awful lot of time ruminating on what you should or should not do. I propose an easier model, one based on Chesterton’s Fence.

G.K. Chesterton’s initial response to this topic

As G.K. Chesterton put it in his 1929 book, The Thing:

IN the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox.

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away."

To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

Instead of saying “I don’t see the use of these tired and outdated bestiality taboos. Let’s get rid of them,” let’s start with “Why do we have bestiality taboos in the first place?” And from here, we’ll go to a famous 2008 observation by sex advice columnist Dan Savage, in a response to a zoophile named RUFF:

I think fucking dogs is wrong, wrong, wrong. But I had pork and beef and chicken at dinner last night—all 100 percent factory-farmed meat, derived from animals that were cruelly tortured every second of their brief and miserable existence—and my particular strain of Tourette's syndrome commands me to say this: If I were an animal, I'd much rather be screwed than stewed. We murder animals for their flesh, skins, fur, and just for the fuck of it. Those of us that eat meat; wear fur; run around in leather pants, jackets, shoes, restraints, etc.; and kill animals for sport don't have much moral authority when it comes time to lecture those of you who wanna smooch the pooch.

Savage rightly notes that factory farming is an atrocity. But if we abuse animals we eat, why would we not also abuse the animals we use as sex toys? Is factory farming a justification for zoophilia, or a great example of why zoophiles are the very last people who should have access to animals?

I could accept an argument that gay marriage has improved the quality of life for many homosexual Americans. I’m not sure how many zoophile Americans are being cruelly deprived from loving relationships with their pets. Let’s turn again to Bensto, who gives us this example of a loving and harmless zoophile relationship:

Alice self-­describes as being in a romantic relationship with her dog. She cares a lot about his well­being and strives to ensure that his needs are fulfilled. They often sleep together; he likes to be caressed and she finds it pleasant to gently rub herself on him.

Sometimes, when her dog is sexually aroused and tries to hump her leg, she undresses and lets him penetrate her vagina. This is gratifying for both of them.

We could argue about whether or not Alice’s relationship with her dog is doing psychological harm to the animal or to Alice. But based on this information, it appears that neither Alice nor Fido are suffering physical damage from their sexual encounters. And so long as that relationship stays behind closed doors, there’s no way that anybody else would ever find out about it. Which brings us to my next observation.

The issue here isn’t whether people should be arrested for human-animal sexual relationships that cause no physical injuries. The issue is that zoophiles feel that they are being unfairly pushed into the closet. Bestiality is already legal in several states and is only rarely prosecuted in most others, generally in conjunction with charges for animal cruelty or trespassing on somebody’s farm. But it’s not enough to have de facto tolerance. These zoophiles want society to recognize their fetish as just another lovestyle to be celebrated with parades and affirmations.

Riley J. “Rapey Penis” Dennis

Soon after we drew the line at “consenting adults,” we started hearing questions like “so is sex with children and animals always a bad thing?” We also started hearing complaints about how consent was used to prop up racism, ableism, and a whole bunch of other inherently oppressive -isms. These are exactly the fruits I would expect from a philosophy rooted in transgression. Every boundary must be challenged and every taboo must not only be allowed but actively celebrated.

There are certainly issues with Unquestioned Dogma from on High. But as John Michael Greer frequently notes, the opposite of a bad idea is generally another bad idea. Knee-jerk disobedience is no more productive than knee-jerk obedience and is considerably more corrosive to the social order.

We’re pack primates with a hard-wired need for structure, order, and hierarchy. There’s definitely room for flexibility within our structure, tolerance within our order, and accountability within our hierarchies. But a philosophy that seeks only to wipe away tradition and make us all our own gods can only sink ever deeper in search of new perversions as the old ones become just another flavor of vanilla.