. .

Sprachwahl/Language

Share us

The case against general criminalization

Abusing animals – including sexual abuse – is already illegal in Germany

  • Animals are protected by the German animal protection law § 17 TSchG (German Animal Welfare Act), which addresses all animal abuse regardless of the motivation.
  • As soon as the animal is harmed, these laws are applicable, even today..
  • his “harm” comprises not only corporal suffering but also psychological harm (development of behavioural disorders like apathy, anxiousness, aggressiveness etc.). It is therefore not only illegal to excessively lash or otherwise manhandle the creature, but also to psychologically abuse it such that it develops disorders.

 

It is plain wrong to equate zoophilia (or even the whole zoosexuality) with the sexual abuse of animals

  • Sex does not imply harm! Nature evolved the sexual drive of mammals such that male as well as female adult mammals in general enjoy the consensual act. When they make positive experiences they will try to repeat these – this ensures the endurance of a species. Anyhow, humans as well as animals are not permanently happy to mate. If an animal is forced to perform or endure acts of a zoosexual nature the German Animal Welfare Act § 17 Tierschutzgesetz is applicable.
  • The cases of forced or violent human-animal intercourse are very isolated. These are cases of zoosadism. Zoophiles explicitly denounce all and every kind of violence against animals!
  • How is it just to criminalize the complete group of zoosexuals because of a few such individuals in it?
  • “Sexual orientation” does not mean that the sex is dominant. Just as with all other sexual orientations, there are zoosexual partners who do not have any, or very few intercourse.
  • Human-animal intercourse is more than just the penetration of the animal by the human. There are other options which probably together are the majority of all cases:
    • penetration of the human by the animal
    • oral sex by the human on the animal or vice versa
    • masturbation

 

Interspecies intercourse is not unnatural

  • Animals, which have been bred by mankind since the beginning of time, often see a human as a herd-/pack member. The extension to see him as a sexual partner is very small, if at all.
  • With domesticated as well as wild animal species intercourse in between species has been observed and is well documented.
  • Interspecies intercourse is not defined as sexual abuse. Why, on the other hand, must it always be so when a human is participating?

 

It is plain wrong that animals do not have the ability to communicate consent or dissent

  • It is true that animals do not speak a human language, nor can they fully comprehend one.
  • However, it is a fact that animals communicate without words, with each other as well as with humans. Well known are:
    • animal sounds (purring, hissing, growling, barking, whimpering, snorting, neighing, …)
    • body language
    • facial expressions
  • In every other case we accept that humans can interpret animal expressions e.g. whether they are thirsty/hungry, whether they want to be walked, whether they are tired, whether (or not) they desire to be petted, whether they are anxious at the veterinarians, whether they like having the claws clipped or being injected, whether they fear the slaugthering house etc.
  • Why is communication suddenly completely impossible when it is about sexuality? Why should a human be incapable of reading whether or not an animal is ready to mate at the moment or whether it enjoys or merely uneasily suffers sexual acts?

 

An animal can have a beneficial sexual partnership with a human

  • Please recall that we are discussing adult animals. These possess a completely developed sexuality, which they want to satisfy. Adult animals are not asexual stuffed toys!
  • Addressing their sexual needs will reduce their crave to do so. This leads to relaxation, lower aggression and a balanced soul. This is why professional trainers use masturbation as a common tool during the training of an animal.

 

Often the animal starts the advances

  • As was mentioned before, many animals which were domesticated throughout history see the human as a herd-/pack member. It is not uncommon that these animals try to woo the humans or openly offer matings. But sexuality in public is taboo within our culture, and the sexuality of animals is “embarassing” for us. Therefore we act to suppress such acts from the beginning – including castration to completely get rid of the animal’s sexuality.
  • Moreover, as has been stated, there are cases of sexual acts in which the animal plays the active role and the human is passive. Can the animal suffer in this constellation at all, when it acts without the human doing anything? For example when it starts to lick or penetrate on its own?

 

Professional breeding uses masturbation and penetration

  • In the professional animal production industry there rarely is a natural breeding today. The seed is very often extracted from the male animals by using artificial vaginas, manual masturbation, or even anal electro-stimulation of the prostate. The seed is then inserted into the female animals by funneling and similar technological means which penetrate. Usually, during these procedures the animals are fixated, such that they are unable to move away or fight against this treatment. And more often than not during these procedures animals are manhandled or need to be drugged.
  • We zoophiles specifically point out that we resent these procedures absolutely. The fixation, the involved violence, the narcotics involved make it impossible that the animal is consenting to it, or enjoying it.
  • Another problem would be that sexual actions on animals are legal if done for commercial reasons. These can for example be the refinement of a cow breed, cheap mass production of meat and other goods derived from animals, or to keep the breed alive. In these circumstances it is completely disregarded whether the animal suffers through the treatment or needs to be forced into it. Yet a law criminalizing consensual human-animal intercourse, which can be enjoyable for both partners without any coercion, outlaws basically the same sexual things when done for mutual pleasure. It is therefore evident that the sole motivation behind such a law is to prohibit actions which are seen as “digusting” by some. Such a law would establish a penalty for causing no damages at all.
  • An animal is not pondering the underlying morals of a human. It solely judges whether some actions are enjoyable or not and whether it is therefore agreeing to these or not.

 

The base of the anti-zoophilia groups’ argument for a general criminalization is fundamentally flawed:

  • The law shall not peruse and judge on whether the animal was penetrated as an indicator, nor whether or not it was sexually fulfilling for the human. It must be based on how the animal liked the interaction, whether it is consenting (recall our discussion of animal communication abilities above). Or is the animal forced to do this, was it uncomfortable?
  • Because why should the sexual intercourse between human and animal be prosecuted when the animal enjoyed it? A special clause in the law against this ultimately solely casts a specific moral point of view in stone.