You could not be more wrong. You obviously have no understanding of the matter and have never talked with anyone who does. You may not comprehend it, with your “animals == moving rocks” outlook, but for quite a lot of people, there is much more to it than just a quick furry fuck. Almost without exception, it’s long-term rather than one-night-stands, and quite a few go to great lengths to take care of their pet-lover-mate-whatever. They call it “zoophilia” for a reason: it encompasses more than just sex.
Be careful when you’re waving that broad brush around based on your own assumptions on a topic you know nothing about.
But wouldn’t you agree that many societies share taboos, and usually for good social, biological, or psychological reasons? Many people would recoil at the thought of killing someone, or having sex with their mothers, but maybe not all. A few may be exempt from the “eww factor” of those (AFAIK, universal) taboos, but they’re still subject to social pressures to avoid the behavior in question–and it’s a good thing, too. Or don’t you think so?
Some taboos might look silly on the face of it when you only consider each person as an island unto himself, and when the direct consequences of actions aren’t immediately apparent. But broken taboos still have a way of turning around and biting us in the ass–as someone mentioned, bestiality might be a great way to introduce virulent new pathogens into human populations. And isn’t there an ancient Jewish taboo against feeding cattle the leftovers from carcasses of other cattle (or something like that)? Following that seemingly silly taboo might have prevented the outbreak of mad cow disease.
I agree. I am wondering if these taboos are actually the result of some innate human instinct, or a social thing. Although, I suppose if the taboo exists in society at all, it could be argued that it’s a result of instinct. But then again, there are lots of stupid taboos, one being sodomy, as was mentioned before. Oh well.
Yeah, I suppose disease could be a pretty good reason not to have sex with your dog That being said, I still do not mind is someone wants to do that, as long as they aren’t sneaking into my backyard to rape my pet.
The whole feeding cows their friends and neighbors thing is really sick, and I would think that would have been a taboo even without some ecclesiastical command. Although, it does seem to be an extremely efficient way to save money.
Come on. We form deep emotional attachments to our children as well…yet most folks recognize that there are different kinds of emotional bondng between children-adults and adults-adults.
Well, I don’t generally support harmful delusions. Harmless delusions, fine. But if someone thinks that their dog has a relationship with them that is equal to the relationship that a person can have to another person, well, I think they’re fooling themselves to their ultimate overall harm. I would not impose my belief on them unless asked, but I would believe that they are doing themselves harm to expect the sort of reationship form an animal that they could from a person. I’m not trying to prevent people from having non-abusive sex with animals, but if their relationship with animals is interfereing with their ability to have relationships with people I think the relationship is a bad idea.
::shrug:: I don’t. Anyhow, my objection based on the absence of any possibility for a relationship is why I think bestiality is a bad idea, it doesn’t explain all of my “ew” reaction. Part of the “ew” reaction is just the generalized “that’s not my thing” feeling that I have towards, say, scat. Even if I think they’re both icky, bestiality is the only one where, if asked, I would probably express a feeling that it might not be a really good idea. However, since I feel approximately the same “ew” reaction towards sex with a severely retarded person and sex with an animal, I do think my objections are based on the inbalance between the partners and the inability to form any sort of relationship the equal to that with a fully mature human. Artificial or not, that does seem to be what it’s based on.
Because given our dire taboos against bestiality, I tend to think that someone who engages in it has a strong likelihood of using it as a substitute for a relationship with other people. (In a society with a more lax attitude towards bestiality, I think casual hook-ups would be more likely, and so I might have a more accepting attitude towards bestiality in general, but I think I would still frown on actual sexual/emotional relationships with animals.) Most humans seem to need/want emotional and intellectual connections, as well as sexual ones, and tend to look for those emotional/intellectual/sexual connections in sexual partners. I don’t know of anyone who fulfills their emotional/intellectual love needs in one place, and their sexual needs in another. It is possible, but I don’t think it’s the way we tend to be wired, so I am inclined to think those who habitually practice bestiality in this society do often become emotionally involved with their partners. I don’t know, I have no hard statistics; this is just a general feel I get from the readings I have done on bestiality. Mekhazzio might have more input on this, although s/he may be disinclined to support me on this since I am currently arguing that human-animal relationships are not the equal of human-human relationships and are generally a Bad Idea.
OK, now that you’re all paying attention, it wasn’t quite the way it sounds. I held an object for her to rub her bottom against, because she was in heat, and I felt sorry for the poor thing. Clearly, I didn’t rape Cookie by letting her rub against a chopstick. She made her wishes-hell, her desperation-very clear with long sultry meows and by scooting her butt across the floor. I didn’t get any pleasure out of it; I don’t swing that way. But suppose I had? Would Cookie have suddenly become non-consenting? Suppose instead of a cat, it was a female animal large enough to be penetrated? I don’t think the analogy between zoophilia and pedophilia is a good one. I have yet to hear of a Golden Retriever who needed 20 years of therapy for incest-related PTSD.
Well, maybe this is just me, but I wouldn’t sleep with my cat. I don’t know where she’s been, for one thing. And you’re not just sleeping with your cat: You’re sleeping with every cat your cat’s ever slept with. All nine lives. And the last thing I need is to come down with genital ticks or something. Although…sandpaper tongue…
MEKHAZZIO contends that I am wrong to believe that bestiality is exploitive, and knowingly so:
This criticism is difficult to refute. I know very little about bestiality and care even less. This thread probably constitutes the longest discussion I’ve ever had on the matter. I personally doubt that most people are having sex with animals thinking that it’s anything other than exploitive and unhealty, but I also know from professional experience that people can delude themselves into thinking sexually abusing a child is okay (“I love her; I would never hurt her; she likes it”), so maybe GAUDERE is correct and the same thing can and does happen where animals are concerned.
[quote]
You may not comprehend it, with your “animals == moving rocks” outlook, but for quite a lot of people, there is much more to it than just a quick furry fuck.[/quot]
I have never said, and do not believe, that animals are the equivalent of “moving rocks.” In fact, I’m certain I care more about them than a person who would stoop to having sex with one. But then it is almost easier to attack a person for what he or she didn’t say than to actually address yourself to what he or she did say.
Gosh, may I have inadvertantly insulted someone who has sex with animals?? Let me take a moment to see if I can work up an ounce of dismay or regret.
I think this is rather disingenuous, if not “dishonest”. You suggest that it’s possible to get one’s “emotional/intellectual love needs” fulfilled in a toilet stall, or a roadside rest station, or a viewing cubicle at a theater showing fist-fucking films? Come on, you may not be acquainted with them personally, but you should know damn well that many people–heterosexual and homosexual–get their kicks from unattached, unemotional, purely physical sex, after which they may or may not go back home to a stable wife or partner for a sense of security.
Since you judge it to be a Bad Idea, and you say that you would “impose” your belief on them if asked, would you encourage such a person to seek out therapy if they said “Gaudere, I’d like to break this habit of bestiality, but I seem to have some compulsion that makes me unable to stop”? Do you think it’s possible for therapy to help them with such a problem, if they’re willing? I’d really like an answer to my question.
Not really, but at least there’s potential. I’d be unlikely to consider healthy someone who has never had any human sexual relationships besides anonymously in toilet stalls too. And even in a one night stand I think there’s a recognition that this is a fellow human that you simply don’t get with an animal.
Number one, my use of “impose” in that instance refers only to the fact that I would volunteer my opinion on the subject if asked, not that I’d force someone to submit to electroshock therapy or something. Let’s keep that clear.
If someone is deeply unhappy with part of their life, of course they have the right to attempt to change it. Or perhaps they cannot change their desires, but need therapy to help them deal with their unhappiness with it. Anyone who hates something they do, yet cannot stop, probably would benefit from some sort of therapy, to decide if the problem is due to self-loathing, other people’s predjudices, or an utter inability to practice the behavior in a healthy manner, and come up with ways to hopefully improve the quality of their life.
I think it is possible for someone to practice bestaility in a healthy manner. However, sex and love and emotion and intellect often are all tangled together, and I consider the practice of bestaility to have a high potential for resulting in choosing to fufill your needs through a relationship with an animal that I would think exists primarily in the person’s mind. Particularly in this society; given the strong taboo against it, anyone who would have sex with an animal would have to likely feel very strongly about it, it wouldn’t be just, “Hey, here’s a warm place to put my penis!” So I suspect that someone who wants to have sex with animals so badly that they’ll ignore the taboos against it probably feels very strongly about the animal, or is unable to form anything even approaching a fulfilling human relationship, and that seems to me to make attempting to make the animal into more than a masturbatory aid rather likely. Now, maybe I’m wrong; maybe there are large numbers of people who have healthy human relationships but who sometimes screw/be screwed by animals on occaision, but I’m not thinking it very likely for the reasons I’ve given. However, if someone has solid and happy human relationships and just occasionally gets horny and slips it to a nearby cow (in a non-abusive manner, and with protection), well, it’s not my thing, but if he’s healthy and happy with the situation I don’t really think it’s doing him any harm.
(And are you still pretending you’re not drawing parallels to homosexuality here, O Mr. J. Smith? I forget.)
So having sex with a dog and getting some anal lovin’ from a stranger in a toilet stall are equally OK, as long as one has a loving human relationship to go home to? Interesting. What kind of parallel are you drawing?
And what’s with the “J. Smith”? Is that the name I registered under at the SDMB? I forget. If so, why are you mentioning it in this thread?
Um, no, “anal lovin’ from a stranger” would be superior, for the reasons I listed above; you are connecting at least on some level with a person for whom there is a possibility for a relationship while with animals there is not such possibility, anyone who breaks the bestiality taboo yadda yadda yadda. And of course, if one is in a loving relationship, there are the issues of emotional/physical faithfulness, safety, etc. that must be considered as well. So I’d hardly say that meaningless sex outside a relationship is “OK” unless your relationship is such that it will not be harmed in the slightest by that, which is possible in a relative rarity of cases, IMHO. I’m saying it’s not necessarily unhealthy to have occaisional utterly meaningless sex (actually, more like aided masturbation) with no possibility of a relationship if it doesn’t harm your ability to form relationships, not that as long as you are in a relationship you can boink whatever you want.
Whoops. Swift. A reference to your comparing yourself to the author of A Modest Proposal. I can tell you that if he posted his proposal on the MB and I said, “Ok, so you want to discuss the way the poor are treated, well, I think blah blah blah…” and he said, “Who said anything about treating the poor badly? I’m talking about eating their babies! C’mon, debate that,” I’d be equally peeved. Most days I prefer to debate people’s actual arguments, not stalking horses.
I’d find that rather droll, myself. I take your point, though. I thought my comparison was transparent enough that there wouldn’t be any confusion, but you’re right, as the thread moved on I should have been more straightforward.
What interests me is how individuals and society relate to unconventional or taboo behavior, especially in regard to the justifications offered for each. For example, do zoophiles consider themselves zoophiles from birth, and their zoophilia something about themselves they have no choice but to accept? And how does that compare to the justifications given for homosexual behavior? That’s not to equate the two behaviors, or say one or the other is right or wrong. So I wasn’t being all that Swiftian in my original question–I am interested in the question for its own sake.
That’s an open-minded opinion. “My book says that you are wrong, so you are!”. I must say that I am continually amazed by the religious bigots in this world.
I don’t agree with your Bad Idea conclusion, no, but I’m not trying to say it’s the same thing. Obviously, there’s a substantial difference…my argument is just that there is a relationship to it. Most folks in this thread have been taking it for granted that animals are mindless automatons who have no feelings, needs or desires, and that it’s impossible for a human & animal to connect at -any- level. It certainly is possible, and does happen. Just writing it off as “furry masturbation” is misunderstanding the issue at a basic level.
As for if an animal relationship is “the equal” of that with a human…well, like most qualitative comparisons, that’s largely a matter of opinion. I’m personally of the opinion that a very good human relationship is, indeed, superior, but I consider myself extremely lucky to have found a human (and two of them, in fact) with whom such a relationship is possible. Also, as I’ve mentioned earlier in the thread, the animals with whom I feel particularly ‘connected’ to – well, the ones that can be found – would all consider me more of a lunch than a lover. This is actually part of the bond I have with aforementioned humans, but this is getting into an entirely different topic, so I’ll leave that for a different thread
Now, as to the blanket statement that -all- human relationships are better, that I certainly wouldn’t agree with. Some, even the average human relationship can be…destructive is a very mild term for it. Personally, I’d consider no relationship to be much better than that, so a relationship with an animal, particularly the more intelligent ones, can be substantially healthier and more fulfilling. I’ve heard some bad tales, yeah, but I’ve also heard some stories from people that are entirely happy with their mate at a deep level. Is it self-delusion? They certainly don’t think so, and I believe the people I’ve talked to are levelheaded and know what they’re talking about. In the long run, who are we to judge someone else’s experience with life?
I don’t expect anyone to understand zoophilia unless they have at least some connection to it within themselves. What bothers me is the kneejerk condemnation, because it’s completely unjustified – and I think that most folk doing it would realize that if only they knew more about it and/or talked with those for whom it’s a very real part of life.
I offer some basic links for general education here. For obvious reasons, it’s generally not made very public, and I’m very reluctant to broadcast private sites in an open forum like this, so my sources here are just those I’ve found in some quick web searching. If you wish to do your own searches, I suggest using “zoophilia” instead of “bestiality” (which will often just get you to porn sites) Be aware that what you find will quite often go into the…shall we say…technical aspects of the matter.
Zarathustra:
As for the justifications generally used for zoophilia, we’d really have to ask a zoophilic (Mekhazzio?), but I still stand by my previous belief that there is a HELL of a big difference between a relationship between two sentient, mature people, of any sex/genetics/race, than between a person and an animal. I believe that the reason arguments for homosexuality and arguments for zoophilia may appear to have a lot in common is that people who argue for homosexual rights do not often expect to be challenged on the zoophilic angle, so their arguments may get a trifle sloppy (if you include caveats for every possible attack, your points get rather convoluted and tedious, and there’s no point in confusing the issue without good reason). So yes, the arguments may be similar, but I think there are significant, insurmountable differences betwwen sex with humans and sex with animals that invalidate any perfect parallels that someone may attempt to draw between the two.
I suspect it is much like that, though I have almost no acquiantance with the zoophilic culture. But I think that someone who would reject the very strong taboos aginst bestiality likely has felt very strong leanings that way for quite a while.
Mekhazzio:
I don’t think animals are mindless automatons. I do connect with my cat…but not in any way like the manner in which I connect with a fellow human, and I think I’d be doing both of us a disservice to try to make her take a human’s role in my life, or try to make me take a cat’s role in her life. I don’t think, as Jodi does, that non-zoophilics care more for animals than zoophilics; but I do think that non-zoophilics can care for animals in a different, more realistic way, one unclouded by sexual desire and all its attendant baggage (baggage that an animal cannot understand or return, IMHO).
Yes, there are crappy human realtionships too. But all the descriptions of zoophilic relationships I have seen have been based on a great deal of projection and idealization, and I wouldn’t think that healthy in a human relationship either, and in them there is possibility for a mature realistic emotionally/intellectually fulfilling relationship that is impossible in a human-animal relationship.
For example, from one of the sites linked to: “This was more than just a horse, this was a special being, a kindred spirit, an entity that shared his passion for life. […] But this was no ordinary animal, either. He was overcome by feelings which shocked him at first. It wasn’t his obvious love for this animal, that wasn’t new, although the strength of the emotion was. It was an almost overpowering desire to experience a further understanding, a further joining with the animal that seemed to be able to look straight into his soul…No human had ever evoked this kind of emotion in him before. More than love, it was something he couldn’t explain. Not lust, even though he looked at the stallion’s beauty with obvious appreciation, but such a deep caring that he didn’t know the words for it, nor did they matter at that moment…He had never felt anything like this with any human lover, ever…He didn’t know whether to go on or not, but then he felt it in the air and in his head–the feeling of love coming from this animal, as if the stallion were consoling him, telling him that it was ok, that their love was strong…and then he had no question…He quickly removed the rest of his clothes and stood naked in front of his lover, who looked at him with a look of appreciation and genuine love. he trusted this horse completely, more than he had evertrusted any being before…” (It goes on at some length in this vein in various places; I’ve chopped it down a bit for brevity’s sake.) Anyhow, woo…major unrealistic view of an animal, major projection, major substitution of an animal for a human relationship going on here. My Ew Reaction seems to be partially based on the concept of an animal/nonsentient lover taking a fully sentient human lover’s “place” and the feeling that such a thing is Wrong. However, I don’t think my feeling of wrongness is simply outdated superstition; I do think the zoophilic relationship can be a danger to the emotional and physical health of both the human and animal, due to the human trying to make the relationship and the animal into something it simply cannot be. The ability to connect in a satisfying emotional and intellectual relationship with another person is a vitally important part of most human’s psyches, so I see something that intereferes with that ability by replacing it with a delusion of a relationship to be a Very Bad Idea.
There is a viral disease called Feline Immune Deficency Syndrome . Yes , it is related to A.I.D.S. No, unlike A.I.D.S., it is not always fatal… to cats.
It is possible for a cat to have F.I.D.S. & not appear “sick”.
As I stated earlier in this thread, diseases may “jump” the species barrier.
As far as I know, this has never happened to any human being.
Well, if I were to come across said ravenous dingoes and were to be asked that very same question, I would respond with the sound of my gun being fired.
I am a human being. I have a large, complex brain capable of higher thought. I can go down to my local Wal Mart and buy a gun. I could then use my new gun on anything that tried to harm me. Animals do not have the abilty to think on a higher plain or to invent things, therefor I can eat them because my teeth are bigger and my claws are sharper.
It’s not a question about permission. It’s a question about the thing with the physical or mental advantage. And in the case of my and my cat/dog/snake/emu I win. I can therefor do whatever I want to it. I don’t, however. I happen to enjoy my cat’s presence very much, and she is my companion on many a late night spent reading late at night to finish off a book, but if I so chose, I could use her to get me off. I think it’s sick and disgusting, but the point is that I could, and there is nothing out there to stop me.
Yes, it’s substantially different. However, I can’t even begin to agree at all with a blanket statement that ALL human relationships are better than ALL non-human relationships.
No, I am not personally into it much in action, but plenty in spirit. I’ll give a little background on myself to help explain my stance on things: I’ve dabbled a little in bestiality (canines are nice :)) but not to any great extent, for my real true animal lust is towards dragons – obviously this presents a problem. All the creatures on this earth that have similar appeal all tend to either not mindo eating people, or have various sorts of germ residents that are unfriendly to mammals I also don’t have the means to, say, carefully raise and tame an alligator or monitor from hatching, and that, by itself, raises problems – it would kind of haunt me that it would just be “submitting to more training”. So I content myself with just making naughty drawings of dragons, and roleplaying such with kindred spirits thanks to this nice internet thing
Pretty much, yeah. Taboos don’t take much root when you think about the topic and wonder why in the world said taboo exists. To get a feel for this, take any personal fetish you feel -very- strongly about, and ask yourself if you would still have or practice said fetish even if you grew up in a society where it was taboo. My guess is that it’s very likely
Everybody has opinions This is mainly where I don’t agree with you – I feel, from my short dabblings and from having my own pets, that it can, in fact, be possible. Yes, it’s very different from that of another human, but it’s there. Not necessarily better or worse taken overall but just different. Sure, a zoo relationship can be a bad thing, and it’s not terribly uncommon for it to be such. On the other hand, human relationships can be pretty darn bad themselves, and that’s not uncommon either (in fact, I’d hazard to say it’s MORE common than successful relationships) It’s easily possible for someone to screw themselves up with simple, natural mistakes (that we’ve all made, and hopefully realized before going too far) when it involves something so emotionally overpowering as love and sex. But, in the end, at least with a zoo relationship you don’t have to worry much about things like being left with a child, being stalked by a spurned lover, or any of the other things people do to make each other’s lives miserable.
As for classifying a zoo relationship as inherently being a textbook example of projection…well…it’s as much so as in any human relationship, really. I’ve seen a lot of people, including myself, try so hard to “make it work”, fooling themselves into a deep bond with someone completely foreign, that I agree it’s a problem – but not one unique to zoos. This is also an issue where it may just be a difference in world views: what you see as patently impossible (and therefore must be projection) may, to someone else, be perfectly clear. Someone may feel spiritually attached to animals in general, or a specific type in particular (like me and my dragons), and have feel a close kinship to them…perhaps in a manner similar to, say, someone “having a close relationship to Jesus Christ”. Spirituality is a foggy concept. More than a few cultures of the world have respected, revered and worshipped animals, even the ones that are seemingly only waiting to be eaten, like cows.
The world is viewed through the eyes of the observer, and so we all have a different tint of reality. This is, IMO, just a case where different people see, feel and experience different things. Maybe I’m just biased (seeing as how I share the zoo tint myself), but I can’t see anything inherently wrong or bad about bestiality/zoophilia. I think it has its own merits and pitfalls, but generally isn’t much of an issue to the rest of society any more so than sexual preference or polyamory is. But these are also things that society likes to make a big deal of, and I tend to question other strong taboos too, so perhaps I’m just far too much of an oddball to listen to. You be the judge
I don’t really mind clashing opinions. I expect them, since I seem to be the only person currently posting that understands the dissenting viewpoint on zoophilia. This makes me feel somewhat obligated to share the other perspective on the topic, and to be honest, I’m actually enjoying it. It’s so very rare to actually be able to rationally discuss things like this, I’m happy for any opportunity
That being said, I still do not mind is someone wants to do that, as long as they aren’t sneaking into my backyard to rape my pet.
I also don’t have the means to, say, carefully raise and tame an alligator or monitor from hatching, and that, by itself, raises problems – it would kind of haunt me that it would just be “submitting to more training”. So I content myself with just making naughty drawings of dragons, and roleplaying such with kindred spirits thanks to this nice internet thing