Derrida and Zoophilia

[huskyluver]

I was thinking about the philosophy of Jacques Derrida and how it relates to zoophilia the other day.
Basically, he argues that the only way we can understand or know of something is by knowing what it’s not. Therefore the thing always bears a trace of its other. We can, therefore, take ideas and see what’s at steak in differentiating them.
Through deconstruction we can likely show any argument which holds zoophilia as immoral can also be applied to non-inter species sexual and romantic coupling. Or, that this point is inconsistent (having sex with animals is immoral, but eating them is okay?).
What we could see is that the differentiation between these two types of sex isn’t really about the sex at all. It’s about maintaining a hierarchy of species.
Thoughts?

 

[pes]

I do not think philosophy is going to legalize zoophilia. The only way I see zoophilia being accepted by the law is proper hard biology, chemistry and animal/human psychology. A physical, repeatable, measurable proof of the human brain of a zoophile being hardwired to love an animal and a similar proof of an animal not being damaged in any way and wanting sex with a human for pleasure.

 

[nekdoneco123]

i am fairly sure this deconstruction thing was already done before with no effect... most anti-zoos are just hate-filled people who circle through the same "arguments" like "animals cannot consent." "animal don't do sex for pleasure" over and over