Let's talk about the people who insist bestiality is *always* psychologically harmful to the animal involved. We're gonna run through this argument and see why it's not only false, but gives me a giggle.

#Zoophilia #Zoophile #Zoosexual #Zeta

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that unless it's otherwise stated, every single situation presented here is consensual and free of abuse, manipulation, and coercion. We wanna avoid as much confusion as possible.

Again, all in the interest of clarity, the argument is "the animal is almost always psychologically harmed through bestiality!" I personally think that there's only three ways this statement could possibly be true.

I'll list them from least to most absurd.

1 - Interspecies sex is always psychological harmful
2 - Interspecies sex is always harmful but only with humans
3 - Interspecies Sex of Enigmatic Ambiguity: It's only harmful when the person making this argument says it's harmful.

Statement 1

How is this even logical? While interspecies sex has been observed in nature, psychological trauma doesn't follow. Hell, even humans have practiced bestiality through the ages. How would this even work, or have we just never thought about what this actually means?

Does one's body have some kind of process it goes through to figure out "this is the cock of my species" and "this isn't a cock of my species"? Even then, why would the body react by traumatizing one or both of those involved?

If some kid on Twitter states this is an objective fact, it should be easy to provide a scientific study, right? One that proves there's some biological system that differentiates between cocks and reacts accordingly, always resulting in mental harm.

Statement 2

...... Maybe it only affects "lesser" animals! We superior humans, the clear apex of evolution in the galaxy, have evolved beyond this. We've developed an immunity to the trauma of interspecies sex, which would explain why it only affects the non-human partner!!

Jesus christ, what a stupid argument. How could a dog fuck a bitch, be fine, immediately mount a human, and even though both have consented, it's going to traumatize the dog? How can you unironically try to argue that, or is the sheer absurdity just lost on you?

Even I, someone who has trouble being attracted to our own species, wouldn't say that' were such a bad fuck that we'd psychologically traumatize the other, lol.

I don't really have an argument against statement 3 as the absurdity is hopefully blatantly obvious.

Now to be clear, that doesn't mean it's impossible for someone to be traumatized or harmed through sex. There is such a thing as sexual abuse or rape. Those situations are nonconsensual and, in short, absolutely awful.

It's why I take such an issue with this type of argument. In my opinion, it's discrediting humans and other animals that have suffered ACTUAL sexual abuse and now have legitimate issues because of it.

Zoophiles have nothing but love and respect for animals and it doesn't always include sex. If bestiality resulted in any kind of assured harm to the animal, why in the hell would we willingly subject our partner to that?