Consent and Courtship in the Court of Cretins: A Scathing Condemnation of the Anti-Zoo.

To begin, an important distinction. An anti-zoo is not directly an individual who finds themselves put off by the mere idea of an intimate relationship with a non-human, but one who seeks to condemn all those who have non-human partners as abusers of all kinds. Emotional responses cannot necessarily be controlled, but understanding that this distaste is merely an opinion and not a fact worthy of restricting the lives of humans and animals is what separates the reasonable, if disagreeable, from the bigoted and harmful.

Typically, it isn’t worth engaging with such individuals. For anyone to suggest they have such utter disregard for the boundaries of non-humans as to say they cannot possess them in the first place, should immediately place them in leagues with the most ridiculous of conspiracy theorists, who would likely be insulted by the comparison. After all, there are more believable models for the Earth as a disc, than there are for a man being able to kill a horse with his penis.

Having dealt with this group for many years, I wish I was merely constructing a strawman out of them. That people weren’t genuinely spewing verbal sewage quite as vile as they are, but unfortunately the reality of the situation is laid bare any time an openly Zoosexual individual chooses to appear publicly on social media.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

How bad can it be?

Provided you can actually spark a discussion with an anti-zoo, It usually begins with consent. They argue that animals cannot adequately communicate their feelings. Yet, this argument merely shows their lack of knowledge on animal behaviour. Ask any anti-zoo to name a handful of courtship behaviours, and they will come up empty. Even more basic, easily visible examples such as flagging are unknown to them.

If you’re lucky, you may be able to educate them on the existence of courtship behaviour, or encounter the unicorn-like individual who is already aware of it (but arbitrarily restricts it from functioning with humans). The typical anti-zoo might opt to argue that they only do such things with their own species, or only have sex for the purpose of procreation. Yet, the mere existence of interspecies sex and homosexual relations (along with all other forms of non-reproductive sex) immediately disproves these claims, rooted in ignorance as they are.

Of course, establishing clear communication between species is the easy part, especially given that mounting and penetration of the human by the animal is absolutely unmistakable as a sexual advance. Although the more irrational anti-zoo may attempt to use the “humping is just to relieve stress and anxiety” argument - something entirely irrelevant, and if pressed, they will never be able to make a distinction between sexual advances for “other reasons” and attraction (or answer if it invalidates all sexual advances performed by non-humans, even in regards to other animals).

After this point, it’s quite likely they’ll have shifted the goalposts to their next talking point - “Animals are children”. A more “reasonable” anti-zoo may cite the usual article comparing animals to two-year-olds, without ever actually reading into the metrics used to compare the two. Unsurprisingly, arbitrary methodology (how many words they can remember and how high they can count) is used. Any reasonable individual would find it repugnant to state the mental capacity of the two is identical based on these criteria. Were you to ask universities to evaluate candidates by having them jot down the amount of words they can remember and how high they could count, you would be laughed out of the room, yet the anti-zoo sees these as reasonable metrics for comparing overall intelligence. They may ask “Well, what IS a good metric, then?”, failing to see the point that comparing the two is something they only wish to enable in order to fuel their irrational, moralizing views.

Furthermore, anti-zoos fail to see the point of informed consent and why it is reasonable to demand of humans. We demand informed consent of humans, as it is likely they will regret or otherwise be negatively impacted by their decisions when they reach their heightened state of awareness, be it becoming an adult or recovering from drunkenness. Not only that, but sex has greater consequences for human, thus it should be obvious that informed consent should have different standards to match them.

Occasionally, you’ll encounter the type of joker who immediately flops their ignorance on the table with a line likely resembling “Bestiality is a crime!”. Yet, they often find it difficult to respond when faced with the fact that it isn’t. Or rather, it isn’t - as long as you don’t enjoy it. Indeed, animal breeding practices are more than commonplace. Be it harvesting semen from a stallion, dog, bull, or artificially inseminating mares, bitches, cows and sows; they’re a part of normal life in many animal-related professions. Curiously, suddenly it becomes immoral when the sexual satisfaction of both parties becomes the focal point. Asking them to make a meaningful differentiation between the two will lead down one of two paths, depending on the type of anti-zoo you’re faced with.

On one hand, they may attempt to take the easy way out, and try and condemn all sexual acts as abusive, although this can easily be shut down with welfare and ethics assessments of breeding practices. Of course, this isn’t to say that there aren’t negative aspects to these practices in more unethical industries (if the animal does not consent, they may be restrained and forced into it, with negative psychological repercussions), but the notion of all sexual acts being harmful is pitifully easy to dispel.

On the other hand, they’ll give up the pretense of it being about animal welfare, as opposed to their own moral disgust. Stating that one is acceptable and the other is not, because one is a business venture and the other is for the “gratification of some degenerate”. It has nothing to do with animal welfare, and everything to do with people experiencing pleasure they deem to be unworthy of consideration.

Overall, regardless of the outcome, it’s unlikely you’ll have had a pleasant experience or have educated the anti-zoo on anything, as that would require them to listen, as opposed to merely responding, which brings me to my final recommendation.

Value your own time.

Populate your schedule with more productive things. Care for those around you, contribute to wider communities, surround yourself with people who wish to better your life, as opposed to those who wish to destroy it. This should be seemingly obvious, but it is surprisingly difficult to follow through with. It’s more than worth the payoff, no doubt. Do your best to educate the willing, but do not try to raise the dead.

Article written by Werewoof (August 2021)

Related posts

On Consent 

So what even is consent? I'm serious. It seems like an easy to understand thing, but for something so universally…

Humans Can't Consent

Humans can't consent. It's true. They can't. As someone who's only had sex with animals, I feel like it's my…

Consent and Ableism

Consent and Ableism in the wider Internet Community Having grown up in a time where sexuality and kink was all…