My internal personal struggle

[unfortunatefiller0]

I've considered myself a furry for several years now, and have been agnostic my whole life.
I've struggled with self identity for a while and in particular I feel burdened in general, as I desire to to live a morally sound and honest life.
I have to ask myself if what I do is OK, if I'm causing harm by participating in what I do, and what the implications of my actions have. I'd like to say that I am mostly sound in my behaviors, but its truly impossible to judge my own actions as there is no objective moral good to adhere to, unless I decide to call a religion objective truth, which I struggle with. I have occasionally thought things and felt urges to do things that I can't say are acceptable. A discernment between "acceptable" things and "morally sound/ok" things exists clearly in my mind, and I can't tackle this on my own.

I've struggled to define the moral value of zoophilic/zoosexual behaviors and thoughts and it concerns me since they are unacceptable by most standards. I just want to explain my thoughts and the moral problem I've had to tackle to see what others think and maybe find some sort of comfort and SOLELY to learn and grow, and become better.

The relations between humans and other animals are particularly different from those between two humans. As far as I'm aware, we usually exhibit two types of inter-influence between animals.

The first I'd like to talk about is one of utilitarian purpose, that I'll call the practical dynamic. A person and an animal offer two different sets of skills or resources that complement each other in achieving a shared or individual goal. For example, humans may domesticate animals for agricultural purposes. We feed the livestock and in turn the livestock provides us with labor or products.
The second type of inter-influence could be described as an emotional dynamic. Here, the connection is less about tangible benefits and more about companionship, emotional support, or cultural significance. Pets like cats or dogs serve as emotional companions, creating bonds of affection and loyalty which provide something separate from utility.

Regardless of which relationship a human has with an animal, it's heavily skewed in favor of the human. The animal takes on a subservient or submissive role in almost all cases, as humans have control over the terms of the relationship. We control the world through our own primary force, which is unlike any other animal. We are anything but animal in every way except for the biological sense. Sexual interactions with animals don't and can not hold the same value as a sexual relationship with another person.

You don't mutually meet an animal.
You don't get to grow naturally close to an animal.
You don't take an animal to dinner.
You don't form a romantic connection with an animal, and
you can't ask an animal how it feels.

Just as the practical and emotional dynamic is skewed in favor of the human, the concept of a romantic or sexual relationship with an animal is inherently one-sided and void of mutual consent, understanding, or shared emotional depth. Unlike interactions between humans, which can be built on mutual respect, communication, and shared experiences, relationships with animals lack foundational elements of equality and agency. The animal had no part in the decision to enter such a relationship, and it cannot express consent or dissent in a way that aligns with the moral and ethical standards we apply to human interactions. This absence of agency makes attributing meaning to those relationships as you would human relationships null.

I can't speak for if this makes human-animal sexual relationships invalid, however it does bring into question the ethical and moral implications of such interactions. It forces me to really consider and evaluate the principles we hold to understanding relationships and consent. A cornerstone in human-to-human relationships is mutual agency. Both parties actively choose to engage, with a shared understanding of the nature of the relationship. This is indeterminate in human-to-animal interactions. What I can say for certain however, is that sex can, and should be a mutually enjoyed interaction, excluding the biological purpose of sex.
Sex does not have to cause harm, or be abusive, and can serve as a deeply personal and fulfilling act when approached with consent, respect, and understanding. In human-to-human relationships, this mutual experience works to build emotional intimacy, trust, and personal growth. Without such mutuality, the act becomes something else entirely. Sex becomes a projection of one’s desires without understanding of the autonomy or well-being of the other. Sex without mutuality is rape.

Animals do exhibit some form of consent, which holds true and can be observed during mating behaviors. If a dog is dissatisfied with sexual actions or does not desire such, they will make it abundantly clear through body language, vocalizations, or outright refusal to engage. Animals can display preferences and aversions, and when discussing consent in human-to-animal relationships, they must be viewed within the context of these natural behaviors. Regardless of the indeterminable nature of the topic, it isn't absurd to recognize that an animal like a dog does choose (in the highest sense that the dog is capable of) to engage in or refuse specific interactions based on its instincts, comfort, or inclinations.

The explicit reasoning for why human-to-animal sexual relationships are immoral and wrong stems from several arguments, primarily one of the natural order and one of the imbalance of power and the sanctity of the animal. The natural order argument suggests that human-to-animal sexual relationships violate the inherent roles and purposes of both species, disrupting a boundary that nature itself maintains. I can't justify this argument as anything but void considering the fact that we, as humans, regularly defy "natural order" in countless ways, from our use of technology to medical interventions, and even to arguments about sexual identity, preference, and affirmation. I would particularly parallel this to the unnatural behavior of same-sex relationships, which were historically condemned as unnatural but are now widely understood to be an acceptable variation of human sexuality. To claim that one specific behavior violates nature while ignoring others seems inconsistent.
The alternative argument, of the imbalance of power and the control of the animal, presents a more compelling moral case. This argument focuses on the inherent dynamics between humans and animals, where the human's cognitive and physical dominance creates an unequal relationship. Again, I can only void this argument, as this imbalance of power exists in many human-animal relationships already, such as pet ownership or farming. We already exhibit behaviors that violate animal autonomy, such as selective breeding, confining them to enclosures, or even determining their lifespans based on our needs. If the imbalance of power argument were to be upheld strictly, it would call into question almost every form of human interaction with animals, not just sexual ones. I simply can't consider sexual behavior with animals worse than other forms of human exploitation of animals that already occur in various industries. The moral consistency required to condemn one behavior without addressing the broader scope of human treatment of animals seems contradictory.

As much as it feels wrong, I can't say that zoophilic and zoosexual behaviors fall outside of the moral foundation that I have developed for myself.
I wish to my highest extent that this wasn't the case, but I feel my reasoning is valid. Believe me, I am open to challenging this belief and I actively want to live a morally sound life.

The moral consistency I try to apply to my own actions, especially in terms of relationships and ethical behavior, leaves me in a state of ambiguity when it comes to such behavior. I’ve had to reconcile the tension between trying to evaluate this through as much of an objective overview of all stances as I can acquire. This leads me to a more uncomfortable place where I question the true implications of drawing lines between what is acceptable and what is not.

In thinking about this, All I can say is that it's important to again look at our own moral behavior. I strive to live a life that is honest, respectful, and considerate of others--both human and non-human, and that requires acknowledging the inherent abilities, limitations and responsibilities we have as people, with the significant power we hold over the world around us. All I can say with certainty surrounding this is that the relationships we do have should remain within the bounds of respect for autonomy and well-being, as understood within their capacities.

 

[WalkingStarFish]

Well written! I think such things all the time. It's a deep and thought provoking topic. I ultimately either buy or take in an animal of my own will and the animal has zero say in the matter. But then a bond is formed of care, love, and companionship between the two parties. But is it really a morally good thing if the animal was just forced into the situation? Was it all just me who put the animal in the situation it is in?

Though on the other side of the coin can the same thing be said about humans? People can have extreme differences in intelligence and mind. If I happen to have a deep understanding of the physiological mind, how to talk to other people, subtly influence them purposefully, and use that to my advantage to court a much less versed individual who has a much lesser IQ, would that be morally wrong? Everything we do in day to day life is all a game of social hierarchy in one way or another. I want people to like me so I act a certain way and dress a certain way to them.

It is way above my pay grade to answer such questions.

 

[Schuppentier]

You can have a dinner with an animal.
You can mutually meet an animal.
You can grow natural close to an animal.
You can form a romantic relationship with an animal, and you can ask it how it feels.

Just all the points above are Usualy not as straight forward or different with an animal.

Of corse you can't take your horse to a Fancy restaurant, but you can have a picknic.

You also can verbally ask it, how it feels, but don't expect a verbal answer. Usualy, animals show you how they feel,especialy if you bonded with them.

Of course you a right that in the most part, we choose the animal to partner with, and the animal has not mutch saying in it. But as we are differ wastly from animals, their concept of relationship wastly differs from ours. For example, I own a bull and he's my friend. He shows his affection different than we humans would.
When iam in the herd, he's always at my side. He often licks me, even when I don't have any food. He stays with me, even if the herd wanders off to a different part of the pasture. He even stayed with me, when the others got a whole box of treats just 30 meters away.
Thats his way of showing, that he likes me. He chooses me over alot of other stuff he likes.
But is he monogamous towards me? Of course not. He's a bull. He will have sex with other cows, if he chooses to, and there is nothing I can do about that. The funny part is, so far he does not seem to be interested in other cows. I know he has a girlfriend, but they just like to hang out.

Anyway.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I'd like to say that I am mostly sound in my behaviors, but its truly impossible to judge my own actions as there is no objective moral good to adhere to

I think there is. The objectively good is that which is obtains and sustains your values without contradiction.

Regardless of which relationship a human has with an animal, it's heavily skewed in favor of the human.

Be careful not to assume a zero sum game without good reason.

The animal takes on a subservient or submissive role in almost all cases, as humans have control over the terms of the relationship. We control the world through our own primary force, which is unlike any other animal. We are anything but animal in every way except for the biological sense.

I would say we like animals in every way except our ability to layer abstractions onto one another indefinitely. This has allowed for every attempt to reshape nature beyond a burrow in the ground or a beaver dam.

Our emotions, instincts, and sensations are no more different from other animals than they are different between non-human animals.

Sexual interactions with animals don't and can not hold the same value as a sexual relationship with another person.

The value of a sexual relationship is rarely one dimensional and it shouldn't be one dimensional.

Some dimensions are missing compared to non-humans, but that doesn't mean the other dimensions are inferior to their human-human analogs.

You don't mutually meet an animal.
You don't get to grow naturally close to an animal.
You don't take an animal to dinner.

Some of these are the result of the social setting. Our civilization doesn't permit animals unless they're someone's property and responsibility. One could easily imagine a world where machines can see to the basic needs of animals who are neither wild nor attached to a human i.e. "strays".

In such a world animals would not need to be cooped up in shelters or stores waiting for "rescue", they could wander and spend more or less time with those they prefer.

Similar things happen every day with strays or "town pets" even if it's not the normal way to meet an animal.

You don't form a romantic connection with an animal, and

Many claim to.

you can't ask an animal how it feels.

No, but that does not mean it's impossible to tell. If you're looking for an emotion you can't describe that may be a lost cause.

Just as the practical and emotional dynamic is skewed in favor of the human, the concept of a romantic or sexual relationship with an animal is inherently one-sided and void of mutual consent, understanding, or shared emotional depth. Unlike interactions between humans, which can be built on mutual respect, communication, and shared experiences, relationships with animals lack foundational elements of equality and agency. The animal had no part in the decision to enter such a relationship

Nobody needs to consent to the emotions of another, animals try to have a part in negotiating the nature of relationships. Whether they are listened to or overridden is something you can decide.

and it cannot express consent or dissent in a way that aligns with the moral and ethical standards we apply to human interactions.

Every movie where the love interests start kissing without obtaining verbal consent is a counter-example.

Those who claim body language is insufficient to establish consent have a double standard unless they find such movies scenes abhorrent.

This absence of agency makes attributing meaning to those relationships as you would human relationships null.

Perhaps it is the thought that counts. I believe that animals are far less aware of their lack of agency than we are. Unless their powerlessness is repeatedly shoved in their face they do not necessarily assume that they have no control.

It is only from our side that we know they can't possibly create a plan to escape our power. To them if they can open a gate on their own, or get us to do something they want they may feel satisfied or even smug in their agency.

For a specific example, cats sometimes bring you their kills. That's not an act of an animal who believes itself a useless pet with no agency.

I can't speak for if this makes human-animal sexual relationships invalid, however it does bring into question the ethical and moral implications of such interactions. It forces me to really consider and evaluate the principles we hold to understanding relationships and consent. A cornerstone in human-to-human relationships is mutual agency. Both parties actively choose to engage, with a shared understanding of the nature of the relationship.

That sounds more like an ideal than a cornerstone.

Most of the drama literature the human race has created revolves around misapprehension of relationships.

You remember those infinite layers of abstraction? That's an unlimited degrees of freedom when it comes to errors and assumptions.

I would say it's easier to form a relationship with a non-human that one can know is completely well defined and it's far more likely that you can know exactly what a non-human sees the relationship as than you can with a human, even with the disadvantage of complex language.

Sex without mutuality is rape.

Although it may seem pedantic rape is a strong word and should be used carefully. Rape is forced sex. Where there is consent there cannot be rape, and it is improper to imply there is a set of motivations or sensations that can transform consensual sex into rape.

In other words if one party doesn't give a shit about the other or the other's pleasure, the other doesn't get any pleasure, but the other consented that is not rape.

It's not good, but it isn't rape either.

To claim that one specific behavior violates nature while ignoring others seems inconsistent.

It is, and as you somewhat alluded to there is a grand theme which is being ignored in appeals to nature.

The nature of nature is to defy nature.

That's an equivocating sentence but what I mean by that is the story of life is the story of defiance of entropy.

The natural order of the universe is increasing disorder and life is defined by raging against that machine. Every stage of evolution has defied the rules of the previous epoch.

Evolution is birthed from physics but creates a new order of rules on top of those of physics. Intelligence is birthed from evolution but again creates a new order of rules on top of those of evolution.

We are the pinnacle of intelligence in this evolutionary stream, to pretend as if the rules we create based on our vision of the ideal are some how wrong or unnatural is mere cowardice.

If we find nature cruel and dream of a world without death and suffering then let that be the goal, the novelty here is that we choose; so let us choose!

As much as it feels wrong, I can't say that zoophilic and zoosexual behaviors fall outside of the moral foundation that I have developed for myself.

I wonder why it feels wrong to you, is there some part of this you don't quite believe?

Believe me, I am open to challenging this belief and I actively want to live a morally sound life.

That's a starting point many people never reach. Perhaps you need to "go on a pilgrimage" and try to debate some people who would condemn bestiality (or any other part of your moral theory).

Unfortunately there aren't as many now who will give you that opportunity as there used to be.

I like the way you think and I respect your philosophical awareness.

 

[oakheartbear]

That's why I prefer to just fantasize about taboo subjects like zoo. I don't want to actually hurt anyone or anything. It's fun to think and talk about but I don't think I could ever actually engage in the act.

 

[Yuri1944]

That was quite a good read. And you've got a very good point, although humans tend to bend this "natural" state of things on a extreme scale. By considering zoophilia immoral ( as you did ) we should consider many other animal-related activities immoral. So, in the end, I think it doesn't matter this much as long you respect the animals you work and live with...

 

[cookiemonster432]

I think there is. The objectively good is that which is obtains and sustains your values without contradiction.



Be careful not to assume a zero sum game without good reason.



I would say we like animals in every way except our ability to layer abstractions onto one another indefinitely. This has allowed for every attempt to reshape nature beyond a burrow in the ground or a beaver dam.

Our emotions, instincts, and sensations are no more different from other animals than they are different between non-human animals.



The value of a sexual relationship is rarely one dimensional and it shouldn't be one dimensional.

Some dimensions are missing compared to non-humans, but that doesn't mean the other dimensions are inferior to their human-human analogs.



Some of these are the result of the social setting. Our civilization doesn't permit animals unless they're someone's property and responsibility. One could easily imagine a world where machines can see to the basic needs of animals who are neither wild nor attached to a human i.e. "strays".

In such a world animals would not need to be cooped up in shelters or stores waiting for "rescue", they could wander and spend more or less time with those they prefer.

Similar things happen every day with strays or "town pets" even if it's not the normal way to meet an animal.



Many claim to.



No, but that does not mean it's impossible to tell. If you're looking for an emotion you can't describe that may be a lost cause.



Nobody needs to consent to the emotions of another, animals try to have a part in negotiating the nature of relationships. Whether they are listened to or overridden is something you can decide.



Every movie where the love interests start kissing without obtaining verbal consent is a counter-example.

Those who claim body language is insufficient to establish consent have a double standard unless they find such movies scenes abhorrent.



Perhaps it is the thought that counts. I believe that animals are far less aware of their lack of agency than we are. Unless their powerlessness is repeatedly shoved in their face they do not necessarily assume that they have no control.

It is only from our side that we know they can't possibly create a plan to escape our power. To them if they can open a gate on their own, or get us to do something they want they may feel satisfied or even smug in their agency.

For a specific example, cats sometimes bring you their kills. That's not an act of an animal who believes itself a useless pet with no agency.



That sounds more like an ideal than a cornerstone.

Most of the drama literature the human race has created revolves around misapprehension of relationships.

You remember those infinite layers of abstraction? That's an unlimited degrees of freedom when it comes to errors and assumptions.

I would say it's easier to form a relationship with a non-human that one can know is completely well defined and it's far more likely that you can know exactly what a non-human sees the relationship as than you can with a human, even with the disadvantage of complex language.



Although it may seem pedantic rape is a strong word and should be used carefully. Rape is forced sex. Where there is consent there cannot be rape, and it is improper to imply there is a set of motivations or sensations that can transform consensual sex into rape.

In other words if one party doesn't give a shit about the other or the other's pleasure, the other doesn't get any pleasure, but the other consented that is not rape.

It's not good, but it isn't rape either.



It is, and as you somewhat alluded to there is a grand theme which is being ignored in appeals to nature.

The nature of nature is to defy nature.

That's an equivocating sentence but what I mean by that is the story of life is the story of defiance of entropy.

The natural order of the universe is increasing disorder and life is defined by raging against that machine. Every stage of evolution has defied the rules of the previous epoch.

Evolution is birthed from physics but creates a new order of rules on top of those of physics. Intelligence is birthed from evolution but again creates a new order of rules on top of those of evolution.

We are the pinnacle of intelligence in this evolutionary stream, to pretend as if the rules we create based on our vision of the ideal are some how wrong or unnatural is mere cowardice.

If we find nature cruel and dream of a world without death and suffering then let that be the goal, the novelty here is that we choose; so let us choose!



I wonder why it feels wrong to you, is there some part of this you don't quite believe?



That's a starting point many people never reach. Perhaps you need to "go on a pilgrimage" and try to debate some people who would condemn bestiality (or any other part of your moral theory).

Unfortunately there aren't as many now who will give you that opportunity as there used to be.

I like the way you think and I respect your philosophical awareness.

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

 

[unfortunatefiller0]

You can have a dinner with an animal.
You can mutually meet an animal.
You can grow natural close to an animal.
You can form a romantic relationship with an animal, and you can ask it how it feels.

Just all the points above are Usualy not as straight forward or different with an animal.

Of corse you can't take your horse to a Fancy restaurant, but you can have a picknic.

You also can verbally ask it, how it feels, but don't expect a verbal answer. Usualy, animals show you how they feel,especialy if you bonded with them.

Of course you a right that in the most part, we choose the animal to partner with, and the animal has not mutch saying in it. But as we are differ wastly from animals, their concept of relationship wastly differs from ours. For example, I own a bull and he's my friend. He shows his affection different than we humans would.
When iam in the herd, he's always at my side. He often licks me, even when I don't have any food. He stays with me, even if the herd wanders off to a different part of the pasture. He even stayed with me, when the others got a whole box of treats just 30 meters away.
Thats his way of showing, that he likes me. He chooses me over alot of other stuff he likes.
But is he monogamous towards me? Of course not. He's a bull. He will have sex with other cows, if he chooses to, and there is nothing I can do about that. The funny part is, so far he does not seem to be interested in other cows. I know he has a girlfriend, but they just like to hang out.

Anyway.

I never necessarily said they couldn't be done, that's why I used the word don't, lol..
Otherwise I meant the same thing you ultimately clarified. My point with what I was saying there is that at least in the manner we interact with animals, you can't ever recreate the natural dynamic of two people growing closer to eachother in a natural, non-controlled setting. if animal companions could choose to pursue something consciously and with an equal intent as a person (equal contribution), or choose to abandon such interactions as a person could if they felt uncomfortable (equal control), then likely there wouldn't be any reason for it to not be considered acceptable. There is no opportunity for an animal to exhibit this behavior in the context of the dynamics we have with them, and it'd be foolish to assume that things would play out in such a way that they have for you if they actually had that opportunity.

 

[unfortunatefiller0]

I wonder why it feels wrong to you, is there some part of this you don't quite believe?

I just want to live a fair life that I can come to terms with. I don't want to challenge what's considered acceptable unless I find it important to me.
I would be happier if I didn't have to think about this... Either I need to find a VALID reason why it's either unacceptable and immoral or a VALID reason why it's morally sound and should be acceptable. Right now I don't want to bare this in-between point because just being in this state and thinking about this makes me feel guilty for my thoughts.

 

[unfortunatefiller0]

I think there is. The objectively good is that which is obtains and sustains your values without contradiction.

I meant objective moral good as in some set of rules that people can agree are sound, not just from my own perspective. Considering my perspective more "right" or "valid" than others would make me selfish.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I meant objective moral good as in some set of rules that people can agree are sound, not just from my own perspective. Considering my perspective more "right" or "valid" than others would make me selfish.

Considering others more valid than yours is no more rational.

Everyone chooses their own values. That's the way it is. The only consistent way to compare values is using logic.

History has proved beyond any doubt that people are not reliably rational. Perhaps even more in groups they are irrational. They hold contradictory values and they fail to pursue or maintain the values they have in an effective way.

Tethering your morality to the contemporary consensus is like tying your lifeboat to an iceberg. (for those that don't know they unpredictably break apart and turn over)


I'm not suggesting that anything you happen to decide is true and correct, but your own values are the only sane place to start.

 

[JessWoof]

There's no point struggling.

I gave years of my life to a bad and dangerous relationship and years before that to believing sex was a conservative activity and my pleasure was secondary.

Life's too short.

Enjoy whatever fantasy you have and, if it becomes real, enjoy that too, so long as its consensual and no one gets hurt.

 

[WalkingStarFish]

There's no point struggling.

I gave years of my life to a bad and dangerous relationship and years before that to believing sex was a conservative activity and my pleasure was secondary.

Life's too short.

Enjoy whatever fantasy you have and, if it becomes real, enjoy that too, so long as its consensual and no one gets hurt.

Preach.

 

[unfortunatefiller0]

Considering others more valid than yours is no more rational.

There's no point struggling.

I gave years of my life to a bad and dangerous relationship and years before that to believing sex was a conservative activity and my pleasure was secondary.

Again, it's not a matter of "My values are less valid than others" but rather I should be considerate of other peoples' values and their experiences when contemplating my own values. If I'm not, then I'm denying the moral contemplation that they have done (as long as they actually did contemplate it) and I would be placing myself above others. I think putting value on only my thoughts and seeing my feelings as the primary ones that matter is hardly fair to everyone and everything else.

 

[unfortunatefiller0]

I just want to come back here after an absence of activity to state something else I realized

I can't tell if zoophilic actions are ok, so the only way to weigh my actions is to think statistically, kind of like pascal's wager
If participating is morally negative, then not participating will be seen as not problematic, and participating will be seen as bad.
If participating is morally neutral or positive, then both not participating and participating are not problematic

Statistically, it makes sense in this scenario, no matter the likelihood or odds, that one shouldn't participate in zoosexual behavior, unless you can entirely prove and be sure that participating is morally neutral.

Since we can't do that (yet, not going into detail about technological advances), it's best to avoid participation.
I may not see any compelling arguments on either sides, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to move forward through this. I'm just a guy who's touch-starved for the most part, and I'm sure I can find satisfaction elsewhere.

 

[WalkingStarFish]

I just want to come back here after an absence of activity to state something else I realized

I can't tell if zoophilic actions are ok, so the only way to weigh my actions is to think statistically, kind of like pascal's wager
If participating is morally negative, then not participating will be seen as not problematic, and participating will be seen as bad.
If participating is morally neutral or positive, then both not participating and participating are not problematic

Statistically, it makes sense in this scenario, no matter the likelihood or odds, that one shouldn't participate in zoosexual behavior, unless you can entirely prove and be sure that participating is morally neutral.

Since we can't do that (yet, not going into detail about technological advances), it's best to avoid participation.
I may not see any compelling arguments on either sides, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to move forward through this. I'm just a guy who's touch-starved for the most part, and I'm sure I can find satisfaction elsewhere.

Sounds like you know what you need to do. You're not willing to take the risk and that's plenty fair.

 

[Aspen Tuwal]

I just want to come back here after an absence of activity to state something else I realized

I can't tell if zoophilic actions are ok, so the only way to weigh my actions is to think statistically, kind of like pascal's wager
If participating is morally negative, then not participating will be seen as not problematic, and participating will be seen as bad.
If participating is morally neutral or positive, then both not participating and participating are not problematic

Statistically, it makes sense in this scenario, no matter the likelihood or odds, that one shouldn't participate in zoosexual behavior, unless you can entirely prove and be sure that participating is morally neutral.

Since we can't do that (yet, not going into detail about technological advances), it's best to avoid participation.
I may not see any compelling arguments on either sides, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to move forward through this. I'm just a guy who's touch-starved for the most part, and I'm sure I can find satisfaction elsewhere.

If I may ask, how exactly would you go about proving that doing anything is "morally neutral or positive"? Do you do such active "proving" to yourself or others with every slightly questionable act? Can you prove that engaging in any relationship with any person or animal is absolutely certain to be "morally neutral or positive"? I think those ideas are inherently vacuous, personally.

If I can give my two cents, I try to live based on consequences and the perceived probabilities of those consequences. If I believe, based on personal evidence, logical deduction, or the testimony of those I trust, that an act has minimal risk of harm, or that the risk of harm is vastly outweighed by the likelihood of positive outcomes (such as health, happiness, etc.), then I believe that act is acceptable and potentially worth doing.

Any relationship has the potential to cause harm or benefit, joy or suffering, but what actually happens boils down to the thoughts and actions of those involved. I believe it is possible to have meaningful, mutually beneficial relationships between humans and animals, of greatly varying natures. Due to the power imbalance, there is almost certainly a higher risk of certain types of harm than there would be in a relationship between two humans, but that alone does not make such relationships immoral, in my opinion.

 

[unfortunatefiller0]

If I may ask, how exactly would you go about proving that doing anything is "morally neutral or positive"?

I think that it's fair to assume my actions can and will have an impact on the world around me, and I want to minimize the negative impact I leave behind. Since we can't prove in any meaningful way what an animal is thinking, (unlike asking a person to explain themself or what they're feeling) you can't make any non-void claim that your relationship with that animal is moral or not. I don't know if that will stay the case forever, or even within our lifetimes, but I think taking caution and avoiding rolling the philosophical dice is morally the correct thing to do.

 

[Aspen Tuwal]

I think that it's fair to assume my actions can and will have an impact on the world around me, and I want to minimize the negative impact I leave behind. Since we can't prove in any meaningful way what an animal is thinking, (unlike asking a person to explain themself or what they're feeling) you can't make any non-void claim that your relationship with that animal is moral or not. I don't know if that will stay the case forever, or even within our lifetimes, but I think taking caution and avoiding rolling the philosophical dice is morally the correct thing to do.

You can't technically know for certain what anyone is thinking or feeling, precisely. Yes, a human can use some words to try to explain how they feel or what they think, but if you have a relationship with a human, you can't "prove" that the relationship is actually what the person wants, even if they say that they do. A human might not even know if a relationship is what they want. Thoughts and feelings are simply too complex to try and boil them down to binary ideas or try to involve them in conclusive proofs or arguments, and that goes for humans and animals.

Again, I rely on my consequence-based philosophy. There are behaviors that most people would agree indicate that an animal is happy or unhappy. If an animal exhibits behaviors that indicate that they are happy, then whatever treatment they are receiving is very likely to be "good", and if they indicate they are unhappy, their treatment is likely "bad". Even these ideas are not entirely concrete, as animals probably don't like receiving medicinal shots or being bathed by humans, but they are for the animal's benefit, and so most people would consider them overall "good", despite evoking behaviors in the animal that indicate that they are unhappy. It's also entirely possible that behaviors that seem to make an animal happy are actually harmful, and thus largely "bad", such as over-feeding with unhealthy treats.

I do not believe it is possible to conclusively prove that any action involving the thoughts or emotions of a sentient organism is "good" or "bad". Sometimes you have to go with your "gut", as it were, and other times you rely on patterns of behavior. Either way, as nice as it would be to be able to say that something is "good" or "bad" across the board, that's just almost never the case with nearly anything in reality. Life is a constant struggle of moralities, and unfortunately, it's more stressful for those of us with consciences and empathy, but these qualities ultimately make life better for everyone. If I had to make a recommendation, it's that you continue to struggle with your morality and your desires, because the alternatives are more likely to induce suffering in either yourself or those around you.

 

[Vernon]

I've considered myself a furry for several years now, and have been agnostic my whole life.
I've struggled with self identity for a while and in particular I feel burdened in general, as I desire to to live a morally sound and honest life.
I have to ask myself if what I do is OK, if I'm causing harm by participating in what I do, and what the implications of my actions have. I'd like to say that I am mostly sound in my behaviors, but its truly impossible to judge my own actions as there is no objective moral good to adhere to, unless I decide to call a religion objective truth, which I struggle with. I have occasionally thought things and felt urges to do things that I can't say are acceptable. A discernment between "acceptable" things and "morally sound/ok" things exists clearly in my mind, and I can't tackle this on my own.

I've struggled to define the moral value of zoophilic/zoosexual behaviors and thoughts and it concerns me since they are unacceptable by most standards. I just want to explain my thoughts and the moral problem I've had to tackle to see what others think and maybe find some sort of comfort and SOLELY to learn and grow, and become better.

The relations between humans and other animals are particularly different from those between two humans. As far as I'm aware, we usually exhibit two types of inter-influence between animals.

The first I'd like to talk about is one of utilitarian purpose, that I'll call the practical dynamic. A person and an animal offer two different sets of skills or resources that complement each other in achieving a shared or individual goal. For example, humans may domesticate animals for agricultural purposes. We feed the livestock and in turn the livestock provides us with labor or products.
The second type of inter-influence could be described as an emotional dynamic. Here, the connection is less about tangible benefits and more about companionship, emotional support, or cultural significance. Pets like cats or dogs serve as emotional companions, creating bonds of affection and loyalty which provide something separate from utility.

Regardless of which relationship a human has with an animal, it's heavily skewed in favor of the human. The animal takes on a subservient or submissive role in almost all cases, as humans have control over the terms of the relationship. We control the world through our own primary force, which is unlike any other animal. We are anything but animal in every way except for the biological sense. Sexual interactions with animals don't and can not hold the same value as a sexual relationship with another person.

You don't mutually meet an animal.
You don't get to grow naturally close to an animal.
You don't take an animal to dinner.
You don't form a romantic connection with an animal, and
you can't ask an animal how it feels.

Just as the practical and emotional dynamic is skewed in favor of the human, the concept of a romantic or sexual relationship with an animal is inherently one-sided and void of mutual consent, understanding, or shared emotional depth. Unlike interactions between humans, which can be built on mutual respect, communication, and shared experiences, relationships with animals lack foundational elements of equality and agency. The animal had no part in the decision to enter such a relationship, and it cannot express consent or dissent in a way that aligns with the moral and ethical standards we apply to human interactions. This absence of agency makes attributing meaning to those relationships as you would human relationships null.

I can't speak for if this makes human-animal sexual relationships invalid, however it does bring into question the ethical and moral implications of such interactions. It forces me to really consider and evaluate the principles we hold to understanding relationships and consent. A cornerstone in human-to-human relationships is mutual agency. Both parties actively choose to engage, with a shared understanding of the nature of the relationship. This is indeterminate in human-to-animal interactions. What I can say for certain however, is that sex can, and should be a mutually enjoyed interaction, excluding the biological purpose of sex.
Sex does not have to cause harm, or be abusive, and can serve as a deeply personal and fulfilling act when approached with consent, respect, and understanding. In human-to-human relationships, this mutual experience works to build emotional intimacy, trust, and personal growth. Without such mutuality, the act becomes something else entirely. Sex becomes a projection of one’s desires without understanding of the autonomy or well-being of the other. Sex without mutuality is rape.

Animals do exhibit some form of consent, which holds true and can be observed during mating behaviors. If a dog is dissatisfied with sexual actions or does not desire such, they will make it abundantly clear through body language, vocalizations, or outright refusal to engage. Animals can display preferences and aversions, and when discussing consent in human-to-animal relationships, they must be viewed within the context of these natural behaviors. Regardless of the indeterminable nature of the topic, it isn't absurd to recognize that an animal like a dog does choose (in the highest sense that the dog is capable of) to engage in or refuse specific interactions based on its instincts, comfort, or inclinations.

The explicit reasoning for why human-to-animal sexual relationships are immoral and wrong stems from several arguments, primarily one of the natural order and one of the imbalance of power and the sanctity of the animal. The natural order argument suggests that human-to-animal sexual relationships violate the inherent roles and purposes of both species, disrupting a boundary that nature itself maintains. I can't justify this argument as anything but void considering the fact that we, as humans, regularly defy "natural order" in countless ways, from our use of technology to medical interventions, and even to arguments about sexual identity, preference, and affirmation. I would particularly parallel this to the unnatural behavior of same-sex relationships, which were historically condemned as unnatural but are now widely understood to be an acceptable variation of human sexuality. To claim that one specific behavior violates nature while ignoring others seems inconsistent.
The alternative argument, of the imbalance of power and the control of the animal, presents a more compelling moral case. This argument focuses on the inherent dynamics between humans and animals, where the human's cognitive and physical dominance creates an unequal relationship. Again, I can only void this argument, as this imbalance of power exists in many human-animal relationships already, such as pet ownership or farming. We already exhibit behaviors that violate animal autonomy, such as selective breeding, confining them to enclosures, or even determining their lifespans based on our needs. If the imbalance of power argument were to be upheld strictly, it would call into question almost every form of human interaction with animals, not just sexual ones. I simply can't consider sexual behavior with animals worse than other forms of human exploitation of animals that already occur in various industries. The moral consistency required to condemn one behavior without addressing the broader scope of human treatment of animals seems contradictory.

As much as it feels wrong, I can't say that zoophilic and zoosexual behaviors fall outside of the moral foundation that I have developed for myself.
I wish to my highest extent that this wasn't the case, but I feel my reasoning is valid. Believe me, I am open to challenging this belief and I actively want to live a morally sound life.

The moral consistency I try to apply to my own actions, especially in terms of relationships and ethical behavior, leaves me in a state of ambiguity when it comes to such behavior. I’ve had to reconcile the tension between trying to evaluate this through as much of an objective overview of all stances as I can acquire. This leads me to a more uncomfortable place where I question the true implications of drawing lines between what is acceptable and what is not.

In thinking about this, All I can say is that it's important to again look at our own moral behavior. I strive to live a life that is honest, respectful, and considerate of others--both human and non-human, and that requires acknowledging the inherent abilities, limitations and responsibilities we have as people, with the significant power we hold over the world around us. All I can say with certainty surrounding this is that the relationships we do have should remain within the bounds of respect for autonomy and well-being, as understood within their capacities.

I love how you think and feel about what you are going through