In case you haven't been following the ongoing argument about bestiality that has been gracing the comments section of this blog, allow me to give you the brief version. I think it's gross and cruel, mynym thinks it's just gross, but not neccessarily cruel, because you never know...cows might like having sex with people...It's an interesting theory. I proposed he put it into practice. I have not heard back.
Anyway, that's one of the reasons (along with my being, in general, amused by perverts) I wanted to link to this story from the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Now, I know what you're thinking..."Stupid perverts making headline news from New Jersey? No way." But, I swear, it's true.
Here's an excerpt:
Jose Rodriguez, 39, who lives on State Street, was caught by Perth Amboy police with his pants down, straddling the dog last month after her owner, Maritza Rosario, called for help.
Rosario had obtained a court order in the city municipal court, barring Rodriguez from her property after she caught him sodomizing the 5-year-old female Rottweiler, named Precious, in her back yard.
On Dec. 19, police caught Rodriguez in Rosario's back yard, allegedly standing behind the dog with his pants down, authorities said. The officers called the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
What a great blog this is. I hope you people appreciate it.
The best part of the article? The part about police catching him having sex with the dog in response to a call from the owner, Maritza Rosario. So, imagine with me the scenario. Ms. Rosario comes home to find the 39 year old man who lives (with his mother!) down the road having sex with her Rottweiler (Precious!) in her backyard. She phones the police. When they get there, Jose is still having sex with the dog. Now, either the Perth Amboy Police are Johnny-On-The-Spot when it comes to dog-sex calls or this guy was really getting into this particular taboo act.
Did she yell at him to stop before the police got there? Or did she just go into the other room and try not to think about it. Or, dare I even pose the question, did she watch?
Anyway, I'd just like to point out to mynym that the man was arrested on charges of "animal cruelty," not "gross, unnatural acts relating to an animal," so at least in this case, the rule of law is on my side. Nyeh nyeh.
"I think it's gross and cruel, mynym thinks it's just gross, but not neccessarily cruel, because you never know...cows might like having sex with people..."
ReplyDeleteI think that zoophilia is unnatural. You have no consistent and valid reasoned argument against it. As I noted, the Harvard professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer has already pointed this out.
The reason that you do not have a consistent argument against it based on the typology of Nature seems to be because you just believe in pop-culture type prejudices. So on one hand, you want to prescribe homophilia and on the other proscribe zoophilia. If the typology of Nature and Natural Law are admitted to then homophilia is clearly unnatural. So you do not admit to the typology of Nature and go with pop-culture instead.
You can't quite put the two together, homophilia and zoophilia, although all sexual disorientations tend to blurr together. So expect to see more stories like what you mention as American civilization declines, etc. (Actually, it is all of Western civilization. You might call its decline, animalization.)
Example of blurring,
"From a clinical perspective, rape, incest and homosexuality can convert into one another and lead from one to another (cf. Myers 1982). Such transformations can extend to bestiality as well. At least one case has been recorded (Schneck 1974) in which a beloved mare, was equated in fantasy to the patient's mother. Victims of incest can see themselves or be seen as 'rat people' (Shengold 1967). Animal categories can intersect with sexual abuse."
(Definition and Violation: Incest
and the Incest Taboos
Dorothy Willner
Man, New Series, Vol. 18, No.
1. (Mar., 1983), pp. 134-159)
An article on zoophiles,
"CONSIDERING what we do routinely to our fellow creatures, incarcerating them, castrating them, filching their milk, slaughtering them and eating their flesh - practices deemed acceptable in nearly all human societies - and considering the additional bodily invasions visited upon them under the auspices of modern science, it is striking that there should be just one universal prohibition in our relations with them: the ban on sex. It is striking, too, that owners of individual domestic animals, whose love for them may well surpass the love of men, should concur with this prohibition.
Who, in fact, even in this age of compulsive transgression, has ever argued publicly for the right to have sex with a pet? In My Dog Tulip J R Ackerley owned up to what might be termed interspecific frottage, but the confession was not exactly a rallying cry for zoophile liberation. ....Nonetheless we are still waiting, as Midas Dekkers puts it, ''for the first man to tell Oprah Winfrey . . . about the wonderful night he had with his goat''.
The author's archness is catching. Yet Dearest Pet is a serious book. The fact that it is so hard to discuss the subject without facetiousness is a measure of the success of the prohibition. Even in the current atmosphere of doctrinaire tolerance, where all kinds of sexual practices have become widely accepted, the ridicule and opprobrium that attach to bestiality remain. Perhaps it is because the whole system of human exploitation of animals depends on a categorical differentiation between us and them, one that is radically threatened by the idea of human-animal coupling. If we were to countenance the play of sexual desire extending legitimately to other species, given our ideal of mutuality in sexual relations, meat-eaters would become like cannibals, stock-keeping would be tantamount to slave-trading.
Be that as it may, many people do have - or have had - sex with animals. According to the Kinsey reports (which are now, it should be remembered, half a century out of date) the figure is 8 percent for American men and 3.5 per cent for women. [......]"
(The Independent (London)
July 17, 1994, Sunday
THE SUNDAY REVIEW PAGE; Page 34
BOOK REVIEW / Yearning's outer limits; 'Dearest Pet: On Bestiality' - Midas Dekkers: Verso, 18.95 pounds
BYLINE: JOHN RYLE)
I'll get to Kinsey on my blog. He was a fraud, so that is a ridiculous number. (Unless you are talking about people put in prison for sex offenses, etc., which is the type of sample he drew his surveys from.)
You won't admit to the typology of Nature and so you have no argument against zoophilia, necrophilia, pedophilia, etc.
The APA takes sexual perversions off of their list of disorders on the basis of them being harmful. In the case of homophilia, harmful "per se," i.e. in itself. Yet by that process, all sexual perversions can and will be normalized. Zoophiles are born that way, for why would anyone choose it?
And so on.