Why Bestiality Makes Sense in a Sexualized Culture

I’ve recently become convinced that sex with animals is not wrong. Now, hear me out: I’m not encouraging sex with animals, nor am I personally interested in having sex with them. I merely see this as a logical consequence of my other beliefs about sex and sexuality. So, my cat Muffin is safe from any sort of sexual advances from me. Mainly because I am not sexually attracted to animals.

There is a difference between realizing something is not wrong and condoning or doing the action. First of all, we all recognize that pre-marital sex is not wrong, yet it does not follow that we all must do it or are all going to do it. Especially when girls don’t like nice guys like me and only go after womanizing Giga Chads with six-packs. Likewise, just because bestiality isn’t wrong, it doesn’t mean we must have sex with animals or that I’m going to do it.

The argument for sex with animals is complex but simple. First of all, we must ask ourselves: What makes bestiality wrong? Well, I think for the most part, a lot of us would agree that since animals lack the proper rational faculties to consent to having sex, and since we need consent to have sex, any sort of sexual engagement with animals is rape.

However, the major problem with requiring animal consent is that animals cannot consent to being eaten. Yet the majority of us who don’t have sex with animals eat them anyway. Without getting too much into detail as to why I am not a vegetarian, I reckon that a lot of us realize that meat just tastes so delicious. Thus, the idea of not eating meat is out of the question.

We must find a way to reconcile these two ideas:

1. Bestiality is morally wrong because animals cannot consent.
2. Animals cannot consent to being eaten, but eating meat is not morally wrong.

The solution is simple and elegant: A reductio ad absurdum against the principle of consent-only sexual ethics.

We take for granted the following principle: In order that a transaction between two sexual parties is ethical, we only need consent. Since it’s no one else’s business who we have sex with, all I need is for Sally to be sexually receptive and give me the consensual green light for a night of passion. Likewise, since the autonomy of all parties is relevant in matters of sex and eating (I, for one, cannot eat you, unless you consent to it), consent-only is needed for a transaction between the two parties for it to be ethically okay.

The logical consequence of this principle is that having sex with animals is not ethically okay. Which seems obvious, at first…

The problem arises when we recognize that the transaction between us and eating animals is non-consensual. But I like eating meat. It’s no one’s business what I eat as well. So, it follows that the transaction between the animals and us is ethically fine.

And since eating animals is ethically fine, it follows that it is not the case that only consent is required between two parties for an ethical transaction. Thus, as I wanted to argue, sex between man and beast is ethically fine as well.

Repugnancy and Homophobia

One may try to argue that the mere repugnancy of having sex with animals is good enough to prove that bestiality is morally wrong. But the emotions that stir up at the very idea of someone showing Ol’ Yeller a good time are really just a personal preference. Religious people find pre-marital and gay sex repugnant, yet these are beautiful expressions of human sexuality because they just obviously are!

Speaking of religious people, they’re allowed to believe that bestiality is morally wrong and that eating meat isn’t morally wrong because of their dogma. God gave people dominion over the animals, and according to their antiquated values, sex is only meant to be between a man and a woman who are married to each other (barf). But God doesn’t exist because He commands us not to do things that I want to do, like having sex with anyone who makes sexual advances towards me. And I simply cannot believe in a God who won’t let me express my true self, no matter how much I’m acting like a pig (even if you think I’m actually a pig, I’ve already proven you’re still allowed to have sex with me!). I digress…

Since animals cannot consent to sex nor can they consent to being eaten, and since I like eating meat, it follows that there’s something wrong with the consent-only principle for sexual ethics. Thus, sex with animals is morally permissible. Lest we become vegetarians or religious! Anyone who appeals to moral intuitions or the repugnancy of the idea of sex with animals is relying on antiquated and bigoted assumptions and should just stop and become better humans. We don’t need anymore homophobes.