To answer the question: “Is having sex with animals necessarily abusive? If yes, why? If not, why not?”, we must first ask ourselves the question: what is considered abusive? Another question to ask is: what is animal abuse? Being violent means causing physical harm or even being emotionally cruel. That is, this definition does not exclude other species. Robert Agnew in The Causes of Animal Abuse states that animal abuse "typically states that harm inflicted on animals should be 1) socially unacceptable, 2) intentional or deliberate, and/or 3) unnecessary." (Agnew, 179) A definition given at a conference on animal abuse was as follows: “Animal abuse is any act that contributes to the pain, suffering, or unnatural death of animals or that otherwise threatens or harms the their well-being. Animal abuse can be physical, sexual, psychological or emotional. It may involve active mistreatment or passive neglect or omission. It can be direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional." (Classroom lesson) Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. The question here still remains to be asked whether it is necessarily abusive to have sex with animals. On the one hand there are those who will say that it is abuse to have sex with animals. Then there are those who say that it's not actually abuse to have sex with an animal. In this essay I will discuss both the arguments and their reasoning, as well as where I stand on this question. This essay will talk about bestiality and how people view bestiality in terms of normal behavior or deviant behavior to have. Before I begin with the two topics and my point of view, I want to acknowledge a piece of information I obtained through web research by Dr. Piers Beirne. On this site he presents his thesis on how bestiality should be viewed and condemned. He states that bestiality should not be condemned based on religious beliefs but how, why and with what consequences since it is so similar to the abuse of women by men or even children by men and women. “The argument I would like to develop is that bestiality should not be condemned for religious reasons… Bestiality in that context is seen as a violation or breakdown of the natural order and should not be condemned in those terms at all. believe. I believe, in short, that bestiality should be condemned, how and why and with what consequences is another story, because it is so similar to the abuse of women by men, and perhaps even more so of young children by men and women." (Piers Beirne; web) I will keep this topic in mind as I point to the discussions between both sides, even if they will include arguments that include things like whether the behavior and action are morally wrong or not. Having said that, I'll start with my first topic. Why is it wrong to have sex with animals? Those against these actions debate whether the animal can give consent. Consent is an enthusiastic yes of one's own free will, without any threat. Since animals cannot speak human language, they cannot give consent. It cannot be fully said that just because the animal is excited about an action since it is wagging its tail or doing something which may or may not suggest that it is enjoying that action that the person is doing to it, that it fully knows what is being done They. With each definition, arguments are made as to whether or not it is acceptable and whether or not it includes what needs to be included. Another argument in favor of this view is that some people who participate in bestiality,they could participate only for their interests and benefits; that they are using that animal as an object to play with and used for their own interests, which means being violent in two forms: abuse of power over them and sexual abuse. Since the animal cannot speak "human" language, it cannot talk about what is happening to it, which is also emotional abuse. Of course in this way those who participate use them because for some it can be difficult to find someone who wants to participate in a sexual act with them so they use their animals to satisfy that need that they cannot get from anyone else. other human being. Can being loyal to your owner and wanting to make him happy be confused with him giving his consent? Those against it agree that it can actually be confused with that. Just as someone who just wants to make their partner happy can say an enthusiastic yes, the same thing can be said for animals. Of course they are still animals by nature and will attack if they feel they don't like what is about to happen, some may still do so because they are devoted or may be influenced to do so by some form of treats or such. The main agreement that many who are against bestiality raise is that of those who have moral and religious beliefs. Some people believe that humans are superior to animals and therefore should not interact as zoophiles do with animals. Based on this point of view, one would say that humans should interact with other humans only because they can understand each other on a human level and talk about relevant things that are happening, while the same cannot be done with animals because they may not respond. . Those who believe that it is not actually considered violent to have sex with animals argue the following. As stated in the previous paragraphs, being violent means physically or sexually harming the person and/or the non-human partner. They see that their actions do not physically harm and especially do not sexually harm their non-human partner because it appears that their non-human partner does not appear to be in pain and may in fact be enjoying the behavior as much as they are. People who are bestialists or as some call themselves zoophiles explain that what they have between them and their non-human partners is much more than simply physical; that they too “maintain a deep and caring bond with each other.” (Sarah Wheeler; web)One issue that usually always comes up when talking about bestiality is that of consent. Those in favor of sex with animals argue that animals can actually give consent, both through body language and actions. If an animal has the feeling that it doesn't particularly like a situation and/or an action, then it will make a noise that you will understand when it is time to withdraw and not continue further. An example of this would be when a dog growls when he is in an uncomfortable situation or doesn't like what is happening. Just as they are able to let you know when to back off, they are also able to let you know when they are looking for something more, such as sex. Even then the question remains whether they can give consent and whether they know what giving consent means and what they are giving consent for. They argue that other species cannot be expected to understand at the same level as humans, just as a person cannot be expected to understand at their level of understanding of the world. It's what makes each species unique. After analyzing these two points of view I understand why some people believe that it is not considered abuse to have sex with animals. While I understand their reasoning, I believe it is still considered abusive to have sex.