The case of a man who regularly masturbates near dolphins forms the basis of a US author's argument that beastiality should be legal.

The case of a man who regularly masturbates near dolphins forms the basis of a US author's argument that beastiality should be legal. Photo: Photographer: Dino Ablakovic

“Prostitution, Polygamy, Incest and Bestiality. I would argue that all of them should be legal.”

So says American author, bioethicist and social critic Jacob Appel in a recent Big Think article.

Mr Appel goes on explain his stance is based on the view that the state should only intervene in people’s private sex lives if the behaviour “directly and negatively affects other people in a tangible way”.    

He argues none of the items above do, providing they occur between consenting human beings – animal consent not qualifying as a “meaningful” consideration.

It’s an interesting point of view. But should it be taken seriously?

People complain about monogamy all the time, for example, and advocate polygamy as the answer. Certainly one of the first things you learn in anthropology is that multiple spouses are a cultural ideal across most of the world – our preference for pairs is the minority view. There are also polygamists who say the argument for same-sex marriage should extend to include their kind of union in the definition.

Do they have a point? Should polygamy be legal in Australia? Should we seriously consider it as a viable familial formation?

I recall the subject of bestiality being discussed very seriously on Q and A not that long ago. Helen Coonan was on the panel with Peter Singer. She had spoken about owning a pair of gorgeous golden retrievers. He then spoke about mutually satisfying sex between animals and humans. The ensuing discussion prompted general joshing about new meanings to the old phrase ‘doggy style’.

But Singer was serious as Appel is serious. Speaking from a similar utilitarian perspective, Appel bases his argument for the legalisation of bestiality on the idea that it’s difficult to determine whether sex between people and creatures is necessarily unpleasant. For example:

“There is a man who, off the coast of England masturbates with the dolphins,” he writes.

“Not something I would particularly choose to do, but he seems to find it fulfilling.  And we know the dolphins find it fulfilling because they keep coming back for more. I think you’re hard pressed to argue that this is fundamentally unethical. People talk about animals not being able to consent.  Your dog can’t consent when you play Frisbee with it either. Nobody evaluates the question in that term.”

Or do they? Are there cultures that would ask if a dog wanted to play ball before playing ball? Different cultures have different ways of evaluating all manner of interactions. Enter the incest taboo, for example, which is ever-present though rarely consistent. One culture’s taboo might be another’s standard practice; some matrilineal societies don’t mind relations between a son and his father’s sister for example.

However there is general agreement between anthropologists that sex or marriage between parents and their blood children is almost universally forbidden. How this came to be is a matter of great debate.

Ultimately, discussions about why some things are right and others are wrong are good because they require us to actively question our beliefs. Hence, today’s blog, and my call to you to share your views on the points put forward by the radical Appel.

Do you agree or disagree with him? And why?

twitter  @katherinefeeney

tumblr  Tumblr

facebook  Facebook