this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
130 points (82.2% liked)

Asklemmy

54622 readers
460 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] communism@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don't benefit from having sex with animals (they don't enjoy having sex with animals).

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Speak for your self buddy!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ThunderQueen@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is exactly why many indigenous cultures put an emphasis on thanking the animal for their meat.

[–] sqauffle@slrpnk.net 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can I not also thank a squirrel after sex?

[–] helix@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why a squirrel specifically? 🀣 dear Lord, you're an evil spirit πŸ˜…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] graphene@sopuli.xyz 29 points 1 day ago

There is no logical consistency except what allows the continued survival and flourishing of life and the human race.

Having sex with animals could get you sick and cause all sorts of problems. Eating animals on the other hand can extend your life beyond a few days and perhaps even into years after you can no longer drink your mother's milk and has very few downsides, especially with the invention of cooking. Sure, we don't need the source of sustenance that is meat today when we have several times more food than is necessary to feed the whole globe and then throw a lot of it away, but this wasn't true for the vast majority of our history. People only a few hundred years ago had to scrape for every protein they could find.

There's no special moral reason because we didn't decide. It's just an instinct, though one that we can examine and ignore if we want.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

So you interviewed those people individually and determined that they are in fact the same people? Excellent work!

Wait... you didn't? Then go away.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

It's like how soldier rapists are bad, but soldier murderers get a medal.

Humans are fundamentally absurd, no exceptions

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 0 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Food is necessary for survival, sex isn't

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 53 points 2 days ago (23 children)

False premise. Zoophilia isn't condemned because animal rights etc. It's condemned because 'ew WTF we don't want people doing that, to the extent that we will make laws against it.'

It's the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.

I'm not saying it should be allowed because we (some of us) grew up and realised that laws against homosexuality were stupid. Just that, that is the reason. Collective societal disgust. It's only justified by using animal rights (and rightly so, because EW) the same way we justified antihomo laws because it goes against some obscure biblical / Koranic rule.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago
[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A number of US states agree with op here, some it's legal to have sex with animals within limits, anything over 20 pounds rings a bell for one, alabama maybe. They might have changed those laws because they were getting made fun of idk.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most of the states that were ok with it changed after Washington State, which use to have the most permissive laws about this for whatever reason, really buckled down after that guy β€œMr Hands” died from a horse

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I think I remember that case, a kid that was on probation for banging a horse on camera and trying to like sell it online, got busted doing it again. Maybe ten years ago or less idk.

[–] Fleppensteijn@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

People raping and killing for their own enjoyment is sick. Someone else doing the dirty work for our enjoyment (i.e. eating meat), well that's different. If somehow zoophilia were proven to enhance meat flavor, we'd probably be OK with it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί