by sprock » Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:49 pm
Agreed. But though I don't think it is appropriate, I also don't think it should be a cause for much guilt, especially not in a society that treats animals as badly on a routine basis as ours. That is to say, humans' relationships with animals are very confused and often hypocritical.
When it comes to bestiality, if the animal hasn't come to harm, I think generally the only thing harmed is the individual's sense of self-worth/ integrity. If you ever see a zoophile interview they do not come across as happy individuals. But these are people who have deluded themselves into thinking they can have some kind of sexual relationship with an animal. It is not the same as an immature or confused child/ teen doing something stupid as a result of hormones once or twice. To be fair - as you say yourself - "OP was a child though and understands that it's wrong now, so I doubt they'll be doing it again in the future."
In short, I think it's not a good thing to do, but I don't think it makes sense or is morally right to make direct comparisons between child abuse and zoophilia since the trauma in the former does not equal trauma in the latter. Moreover, once one starts to think about animals in terms of consent, some of their own sexual practices must also be ethically questioned (I say this having lived alongside ducks for several years) ... plus, the stark fact that animals don't consent to be killed (or sometimes tortured) for humans' use/ consumption/ sport.
Basically, zoophilia is squicky and Not a Good Idea as it could potentially cause an animal physical harm and it seems to erode the self-respect of the human involved and their ability to form proper relationships. But it is its own separate thing and I really don't think comparisons, in this case, are useful.