|
I've never made love to an animal. I want to clear that up right away, because I don't want anyone to finish reading this essay and feel ripped off because I didn't include any stories about my own sexual exploits with creatures. If I had any good bestiality stories of my own, you can bet your ass I'd tell them. I believe that the literary marketplace of 2006 is ripe for memoirs of bestiality. In 2005, the number-one story on the Seattle Times website, by far, was about a man who died from a perforated colon after having sex with a horse in Enumclaw, Washington. In fact, that story was probably the most widely read piece of journalism in the paper's 109-year history. If the man had lived to tell his tale, he'd have a bestseller on his hands. In recent years, readers have enjoyed memoirs by a writer who has sex with her dad, a writer who has sex with hundreds of complete strangers, and a writer who has sex in front of cameras. A passionate tale of bestiality would be a similar hit, and
I'd like to read it.
However, living practitioners of bestiality have so far been reluctant to let their stories be known. No doubt they fear public perception. So, to encourage them along, I thought I'd take a moment to explain that, while I don't practice bestiality myself, I do think it is perfectly ethical and certainly not cause for shame.
Getting people to come forward with their stories will not be easy. I only know one person who admits to having had sexual contact with an animal. It's a friend of mine, whose family raised sheep in northern California. When their ewes would die from birthing injuries, it was my friend's job to bottle-feed the orphans. The lambs sucked on anything that smelled like milk, so one day, when my friend was a teenager, he dipped his pecker into a jar of lamb formula. Voila! This friend of mine would shit himself if I revealed his identity. However, he wouldn't mind at all if I revealed him as the only guy I know who's had sex with three of his stepsisters in a tent, which he is. You see, on the sexual deviancy hierarchy, it's widely held that bestiality is worse than humping your relatives. So that's the mindframe I'm up against.
My buddy told me that story about the lamb years ago, back before I was sympathetic to bestiality. When he told me, I felt as though I should feel morally outraged by his confession. I actually tried to feel morally outraged. But I couldn't. Until then, bestiality had been nothing more to me than an abstract stereotype. You might hear someone say, "Kentuckians fuck pigs," or "folks from Wyoming fuck sheep," but you don't often hear someone say, "I got a blowjob from an orphaned lamb." With a real practitioner of bestiality in my presence, I just wondered if sheep fellatio felt good. But I wasn't comfortable asking; such a question might have implied my tacit approval.
My buddy's story stayed with me. I wrestled with it. I thought about it every time I looked out a car window and saw a flock of sheep in a field. I wasn't haunted by my friend's transgression as much as I was perplexed by my own indifference to it. Because I was thinking about it so much, I started telling his story at parties. The story was met by others with the very moral outrage I'd been unable to muster. The story — even telling the story —
|
My curiosity about my buddy's act of bestiality might have tortured me forever if I hadn't eventually found myself in a trailer with fifty-one female sheep.
|
seemed to be the epitome of sexual taboo. But this taboo was different from other taboos, because it wasn't grounded in logic: If you have sex with your mom, you might have deformed kids. If you have sex with a child, you're certain to leave an emotional scar. But the wall that separates man from animals seems utterly unnecessary.
My curiosity about my buddy's act of bestiality might have tortured me forever if I hadn't eventually found myself in a trailer with fifty-one female sheep. I was transporting the ewes as a favor to a friend, my first experience handling livestock. To transport sheep, you've got to pack the animals into
the trailer tightly, so they don't get jostled; but you can't pack them so tightly that they suffocate. It's a hard call, so I had climbed into the trailer to make sure everybody had the proper amount of elbow room.
The backs of the ewes came up to my hips. The animals were smeared in mud and manure. Each of them had a couple ID tags punched into their ears. Their backs were branded with neon-orange spray paint. As I stood there, they looked over their shoulders at me. The paint and the earrings made them look like punk rockers. Their tails were cropped short, so their sex organs were perfectly visible before me, row upon row, like a display of oblong pink fruit in a supermarket.
If a man believed, as I'd been claiming to, that it's morally permissible to fuck sheep, and if he had the inclination, he couldn't have been in a better position. But truth be known, I felt not even the slightest stirring of arousal. In fact, I berated myself for even thinking about sex in the presence of these spray-painted, shit-covered sheep. Which almost worried me.
You see, I have this nagging fear that I'll grow old and realize that I was sexually repressed as a young man. To prevent this from happening, I ask myself deeply personal sexual questions, and force myself to answer them honestly. This is not an easy method of self-discovery, to be sure. In order to pull it off, you have to swear that no matter what your answers are, you won't get mad at yourself (or congratulate yourself). For instance, whenever I meet a gay man, I ask myself if I'm attracted to him. When my answer is no, I'm not allowed to be thankful. I'm not allowed to think, "Good. My mom would be pissed if I was gay," because that sort of judgmental thinking is what makes a fella sexually repressed in the first place. So surrounded by all these sheep, I began to worry that I was repressed. Why didn't I want a blowjob from a sheep? Why? I thought of my friend in California with the jar of sheep formula, and I worried that he was more liberated than I. By the time I finished driving the sheep to a new pasture, I had vowed to learn the logic behind the bestiality taboo; it was time to come to peace with my buddy's transgression, and with my own lack of interest in following his lead.
The Puritan leaders of early American history had a tremendous fear of zoophilia, as bestiality was known back then. (Until the nineteenth century, an accusation of "bestiality" just meant that someone was behaving like an animal.) Puritans didn't even like to describe the act of human-animal sex. Instead, they called it "a sin too fearful to be named." The usual punishment, throughout much of the Western world, was death by hanging or by burning or by beating the person on the head. The corpses of the accused man and animal were sometimes buried together. Even in notoriously tolerant Sweden, there was a 143-year period during which 700 people were executed for bestiality.
Bestiality isn't as much of an issue today; the practice seems to be decreasing in popularity. Back in 1948, the researcher Dr. Alfred Kinsey reported that 8% of American males, and 40-50% of American farm boys, had experimented sexually with animals. These numbers have dropped considerably
|
It's the judgment of the act, not the act itself, that seems to be the real problem.
|
since then, because, the logic goes, most people no longer have farm animals in their yard. There's no federal statute against bestiality, but in a majority of states you're not allowed to — as some laws put it — engage in oral/genital contact with animals, or insert a penis or digit (except in the case of animal health care) into an animal's vagina, anus, or cloaca.
To me, it all sounds pretty arbitrary. Should it really be illegal for a woman to allow a dog to lap her clitoris (a favorite internet trick, executed by covering the genitals with a tasty substance)? If she can legally masturbate with her own hand, a dildo, even a dildo shaped like a dog's tongue (or the popular Jack Rabbit dildo), and if there's no law against letting a dog lick her palm, or, for Christ's sake, her face, or against feeding the dog treats, then why shouldn't she be allowed to combine all the licking and masturbating and dog-feeding into one succinct act?
Thankfully, our hypothetical woman doesn't need to worry about being hanged and buried in a hole with Fido. Nowadays we treat bestiality as a psychological disorder. This is also puzzling. A person is usually diagnosed with a psychological disorder when his ability to function in society becomes impaired. For example, if a person likes to be really clean, that's fine. But if he likes to be so clean that he washes his hands all day, non-stop, he's diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Well, unless the woman who finds sexual pleasure in her dog's tongue is skipping work or neglecting to eat in order to give her dog more time in her crotch, she's still absolutely a functioning member of society. In fact, her participation in society is only compromised when other members of society chastise her for practicing bestiality. It's the judgment of the act, not the act itself, that seems to be the real problem.
Bestiality is also pretty practical. It's certainly more practical than loving a dog in a deep, non-sexual way, which many people do. Many people think that their dog is their best friend, but all they do is feed it and let it lie around their house. In my mind, that's not a friendship; that's called being taken advantage of. Someone who feeds his dog peanut butter from his own penis is at least getting something in return. The bestiality practitioner is also more practical than the person who uses other humans solely for sexual gratification. Finally, unlike humans who sleep with other humans, the guy who sleeps with his dog doesn't have to worry about being abandoned by his lover, unless he forgets to close the gate.
Even academics, who you'd think could rise above emotion and religious morality, can't come up with a satisfying indictment of bestiality. After reading a few academic papers, I was disappointed by the flaccidity of the logic. The most compelling argument I found against bestiality was a long, drawn-out theory that the real problem with bestiality has nothing to do with religion or sexual taboo; the real problem is that bestiality is mean to animals. The writer reasoned that, since an animal can't communicate consent, bestiality is like rape. After visiting the websites the writer referred to in his article, I was convinced that he had no idea what he was talking about. You can bet your ass that the dogs on those sites are enjoying themselves much more than they would be playing
|
Humans do all sorts of things to animals, things way worse than sex, that are considered perfectly just.
|
fetch. One in particular, a German shepherd, was riding a blond woman (doggy-style, of course), his front legs wrapped around the woman's waist like a furry tourniquet; he was wearing the closest thing to a smile I've ever seen on a dog. But the writer of the academic paper completely ignored the dog's joy, and went on to tell the story of a man in L.A. who raped his ex-girlfriend's chicken as an act of revenge. The chicken died, so the writer concluded that bestiality is bad.
Well, okay. But it seems more accurate to say that violently raping your ex-girlfriend's chicken as an act of revenge is bad. Which it is, because violently raping anything as an act of revenge is bad. If they were forced to choose, though, most people would agree that raping a chicken isn't nearly as horrible as raping a human. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of the world does not, in either action or thought, treat humans and animals as equal beings. Humans
do all sorts of things to animals, things way worse than sex, that are considered perfectly just. You can lock an animal in a zoo for its entire life and people will pay to look at it. You can tie dogs to a sled and make them drag it around, and the press will call you an athlete. You can ride a horse all day in the hot sun, kicking spurs into its ribs, and filmmakers will romanticize your lifestyle on the silver screen. You can kill a cow and eat it. You can keep a fish in a bowling-ball-sized aquarium, denying it any chance of ever seeing another fish throughout its entire life, and that's just fine. So who's to draw the line at sex? If I was a sheep, slated to be someone's lamb chop, I'd damn sure hope a farmer would take a liking to my booty, rather than slit my throat and chop me into pieces of meat.
Once I had determined that there is no solid argument against bestiality, and that I still had no desire to have sex with a sheep, my worry about being repressed deepened. Maybe I'd lost my libido or my sexual curiosity or my lack of inhibitions, or, God forbid, all three. As I mulled it over, I got to thinking about some things that had happened to me over the years. I remembered this one night in a bar when a girl that I'd never met before said, "If you come home with me, I'll suck you all night. And I swallow." I didn't take her up on the offer. Another time, I was sleeping on my couch because my roommate had a visitor and I'd given her my bedroom. In the middle of the night, I woke up because the visitor was gently shaking my shoulder, asking me to come upstairs to my room. I told her that I was fine where I was, but thanks. When I made those decisions, I wasn't acting on some noble idea of right and wrong; I was just making choices based on what sounded good at the time. The girl in the bar was a very big girl, big as a cow. The girl shaking my shoulder on the couch was the opposite — small, bony, angular, like a gerbil. But when I draw these comparisons to animals, I'm not implying that sleeping with a cow-girl or a gerbil-girl would have been immoral, or even akin to bestiality. I simply didn't want to sleep with anyone I wasn't attracted to. It's taken me years to stop feeling plagued by my friend's sexual experience with the lamb, but I'm finally over it. My lack of interest in sleeping with an animal is no different from the lack of interest I feel when I hear a guy talking about getting head from his unattractive wife; I may not want to try it myself, but I do love hearing the story.
n°
Related articles on Hooksexup:
Heavy Petting by Peter Singer | Bestiality by Rachel Sherman
|
Comments ( 44 )
Haha, wow. No I'm not laughing sophomorically at the content of the article, I am just simply amazed at the author's honesty and ability to express my opinion on sexual taboos as I've never been able to. Bravo! I do disagree on one point, though. It does seem a strangle torture to kill a chicken by raping it. I have a similar story about an aquaintance who killed a girl's cat by fucking it... but it was before they started dating...
okay folks, fess up. anybody?
I was willing to take this with a grain of salt until the sentence "Someone who feeds his dog peanut butter from his own penis is at least getting something in return." What's with the hostility, man? And unless you're a vegan I don't think your glib recounting of other forms of animal abuse holds much weight. Do you really care that animals are killed for food? I tend to doubt it, since you have so little regard for our furry friends in general. Don't use someone else's animal-rights beliefs to advance your pro-sheep-fucking agenda.
Wow. That's some funny shit. Seriously funny. Surprisingly well reasoned. Ha!
What's wrong with fucking animals? Well, let's see...yes, they don't have the ability to communicate consent, as you mentioned. You brought up the image of the dog fucking the blond and how it was obvious that he was having a good time. It's an ugly, little discussed fact that some women when raped, brutally or otherwise, have an orgasm. Did they consent? Obviously not. Did their bodies respond as they are supposed to and give a sexual response back to sexual stimulus? Yes. Let's look at another example. Children, when sexually abused, are capable of becoming sexually awakened through the experience. Does that mean that what's going on is healthy? I think you can figure that one out. And yet another example...picture yourself the older brother of a pretty sister who was born with mental retardation and is incapable of making healthy, everyday decisions for herself. Now picture a caregiver taking advantage of the fact that she doesn't know what's right or wrong and engaging her sexually. Might she enjoy it? Certainly, it's attention after all. Is it healthy? Again, I don't think there's much question in that.
One last point...you sound like you're saying that fucking an innocent animal (and they all are)is better than sending them off to the slaughterhouse or to the laboratory to be tested. It might be a clue to you that something is wrong when what you're doing is only a slight improvement on having one's head chopped off and your liver served on someone's dining room table.
I think that about covers it.
Steven - I loved this article. Bravo! I am compelled to quote your work and insert a pun, however:
"But the wall that separates man from animals seems udderly unnecessary."
Keep up the great work,
https://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/
https://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm
DK
A lot of you folks ranting against this article are just illogical. You keep projecting a very specific human sense of morality onto animals. Animals don't have morals; they're luckier than we are, thus they don't feel guilty when they fuck their mom.
Ladies: get on your hands and knees in front of a fully intact male dog when you're having your period. Observe what he does. I promise you he won't be damaged by it.
The problem with intelligently addressing "essays" like this one is that the smug tone of the writing renders all serious debate ridiculous.
Civilizations are judged on how they treat their most vulnerable members. If you just tried imagining that everything and everyone around you deserved the same dignity you believe you are entitled to, this entire argument would reveal itself for what it is-- sad.
Dude get off your high horse... civilizations have condoned the killing and enslaving of animals since the dawn of, well, civilization. If you're on a mission to "save" all the animals like some skewed version of a religious fundamentalist then this essay obviously doesn't speak to you. The fact is, most people *do* think those actions are okay and this essay might.
And for the people equating sex with animals as sex with handicapped people or children, don't be idiots. You're basically arguing that animals should be treated like them, and thus, that they should be treated like animals. *That* is uncivilized!
This is the problem with Hooksexup. It gives twenty-something hipsters with too much time on their hands a forum to be totally, unrelentingly self-indulgent and just oh-so-cheeky and cute and detached about moronic subjects. The worst sin of this article is being tedious and dull-witted. Who fucking cares about your not fucking caring about having sex with sheep, for fucks sake? Get a life.
I'm sorry I ever checked back in. This is why I stopped reading this stupid rag.
What a total dick this guy is!
On so many levels, in so many ways, he epitomizes the sense of entitlement, power, and self-indulgent license masquerading as freedom too many humans have. Bravo!
I long for the day when your kind dies out - one day it will happen, unfortunately, not in my lifetime.
Your contempt for animals is sickening, not sexy.
There is a reason that bestiality is forbidden by G-d in the Torah: it was a widespread practice that went hand-in-hand with pagan rituals like child/human sacrifice, promiscuity, and idol worship. Sexuality is supposed to be elevated because human beings ARE higher than animals, which is also why we can kill and eat animals for our own purposes and it is perfectly moral to do so. This essay is disgusting, and not because it talks about bestiality: the author indecisively attempts to break down the moral and spiritual barriers between acceptable behavior and outright depravity in a truly infantile way. Sex with animals is wrong because sexuality is not something to be treated like other bodily functions, it has a higher purpose and should not be shared with every person or animal that comes along.
Thank you for this hilarious essay, Mr. Rinella. To all you sanctimonious/religious right people writing negative feedback, learn to recognize a joke when you see one, and get over yourselves. The writer is simply saying that if we're going to ignore all of the other ways in which humans abuse animals, it's silly to act righteous about beastiality. To the person who accused this author of having too much time on his hands, you should consider the fact that he is a writer; he writes for money; you, on the other hand, took the time to write scathing feedback and no one paid you a dime.
To the Torah person: What are you doing reading a sex website if you're so damn religious?
The reason people aren't recognizing this as a satirycal piece is a good one- the writing isn't funny.
I fail to see a "higher purpose" than genuine love and mutual emotional supportiveness, if that is indeed what is going on.
Or maybe when religious people say that "human beings ARE higher than animals", that's a way of applauding torture, murder for fun, emotional games, abusive relationships, blind eyes to genocide, radioactive debris in the desert for the next few millennia, bribery and corruption of power, crusades, and destruction of the ecosphere. Oh yes -- and fanatics stoning ambulances on Shabbat, or wives being unable to get religious divorces even from abusive husbands, since our writer specifically was writing as a Jewish contributor, don't forget that one.
When people actually make a serious, concerted effort and sort out those few slight side-effects of human "higher nature", maybe then I'll respect religious people for complaining about the rather less important issue of how people engage in non-standard forms of affectionate or sexual relationships such as homosexuality (forbidden by Leviticus) and bestiality (when not abusive).
Steven -- don't listen to these folks, it was a very funny, life affirming, and at the same time well reasoned piece. Your detractors below are all indulging various forms of self-righteousness, whether religious, "ethical", or literary. I think a good lamb blowjob might help them out (this is humor folks).
btw check out the link to the peter singer article at the bottom of this essay. the renowned ethicist makes a more serious argument that its hypocritical to eat animals (causing them extreme discomfort) and then be outraged by a housewife bring her cat to orgasm with an oven mitt.
The author comments that "living practitioners of bestiality have so far been reluctant to let their stories be known."
This link, though short, might be of interest:
https://sparespace.elitezoo.com/ds/writings/zoophilia/twoworlds.html
I agree with so many of the posters who hated this piece. People who enjoy having power over an animal are not sexy, subversive, cool, or free. Even if you could make out a case for an animal consenting to or enjoying oral sex, how do you rationalize torturing or fucking an animal to death? How is this different from doing it to a human? Because we're "better", "higher", "smarter" than they are? Because they can't say no in our language? It comes down to "might makes right." Anything can be justified if a human being wants to do it. And while I believe there's a difference between the "kinder, gentler" bestiality supported/performed by humans who are sexually attracted to but compassionate of animals and the sexually murderous at the other end, it still comes down to power. The human has it all. And that makes a difference, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.
Being sickened by bestiality doesn't make you a prude any more than being sexually attracted to animals makes you an asshole. But to just conclude it's OK to have sex with animals because we want to is fucked up.
Even the masochist has the power to say no to the sadist. He may not want to, but he still has that power. What does the animal have?
I appreciated your essay, as I am one of these zoophiles.
I love my animal partners, and would never do anything with them that they didn't consent to. Most non-zoos just don't understand that you can't force a dog to hump you, they do it because they like it. (I'm a female who partners with male animals). Same goes with a horse, there's no way you can force a stallion to have sex, they do it because they want to. And I've seen mares proposition human men several times, they love being made love to, pure and simple.
Steve -
Your comment " Once I had determined that there is no solid argument against bestiality, and that I still had no desire to have sex with a sheep, my worry about being repressed deepened. Maybe I'd lost my libido or my sexual curiosity or my lack of inhibitions, or, God forbid, all three..."
God didn't forbid bestiality, the writers of Leviticus did. Having had one of the most popular non commercial Zoophile Web Page on the net for 5 years (no off line by my own design.) running. I had many people ask me of what I thought of the religious or spiritual aspects of Being a Zoophile/Zoosexual OR practictioner of bestiality. Here's part of what I had to say about this on my web page
[What is the difference between Religion and Spirituality?
I mentioned my spiritual connection between Carrie and myself. The current Christian belief concerning Bestiality is that it a "Sin". But why is this so?
Lets look at the Difference between Religion and Spirituality first.
Religion is a manufactured belief and control system created by Man/Men to excercies subjugation by a process "Do's and Don'ts" ie dogma. These texts and other works that are then attributed to being of "divine inspiration" are used as grounds of enforcement of that religion.
Spirituality goes much further then mere religion. The proper word I use is "Soul Science". The concepts of soul science are not by any means a religion.In the Soul Sciences the rules have been set since the beginning of ALL time. Never changing. Those who seek this "Soul Science" will be greeted by road marks or mile stones that lead the way. The way is simple. That of Light, Love and Life, no-thing else.If you enter or inquire into the reality of a deeper knowledge then that apparent to all, you are immediately surrounded by many and diverse opinions and influences. If you cling to the old ways of religion you will face opposition. This is what religion does to most individuals. Confusing and discouraging people from evolving in Spirit. Usually the overly religious person tries to clean up "Your House" before they have cleaned up their own "House". By house I mean the temple of the body and all it's component part, the physical, the mental and spiritual.
He who is without sin cast the first stone comes to mind.
Plenty of atheists are opposed to bestiality - don't make it out that everyone who thinks the practice is wrong is a religious nut or a prude.
What is wrong is the power difference. The animal has none. Maybe oral sex between humans and animals could be consensual, but I don't think getting fucked up the ass could ever be - do you honestly think a chicken or a cat or a dog wants this? As has already been pointed out, which I notice NOONE commented on, some animals are fucked to death. How can this ever be justified?
One question for the supporters & practictioners of bestiality: do you ever think there's an instance where it's wrong to fuck an animal?
I think I would be more supportive of bestiality if animals were protected in our society. But they're not. They have no rights, no protections, and the few laws purporting to protect them are not enforced. Until that changes (and I hope it does one day), bestiality is a suspect practice. Not necessarily wrong, but definitely suspect.
If you read zoophiles' websites, they are pretty much unanimously condemnatory of non consensual activities. They have, for the most part, thought longer and deeper than you have on this issue. Plus, of course, *they* can see whereas you are just imagining it. Any act can be abused, and this doesn't mean that non-abusive practices are a problem. If that were the case, then all sex, all parenting, and all animal supervision, would be automatically harmful. So the quick answer to your question whether zoophiles care is, visit a zoophile forum for yourself, and do your research. Ask your question, "Is sex with animals ever wrong". See what they say. As for power -- there's at least two kinds of power in any relationship. The power to abuse, and the power to be good for another and try to give them a good life. Animals don't lack the power to say no, strongly if they want to. If that's 100% listened to, then a relationship (emotional or sexual) will only ever contain consensual acts. Nobody has made any claim that "it's OK to have sex with animals because we want to." That's a bit of a straw man. (An argument nobody's actually making, put up because it's easy to knock right down again). The observation people do make is that if it were pleasing to both (and animals can and do signal strongly what they like, what they want, and what they don't, and also have a good memory for previous acts and how they felt afterwards), then that would be a very different situation. As to whether animals like sex, including from other sources that will give them it, I think you'd have to research this. Many people, including animal breeders, animal owners and scientists who study animals, claim the answer is they do (to the extent that many species are sometimes described as "sexual opportunists"), Wikipedia states that homosexuality in animals including penetrative sex has been documented in over 450 species now, and honestly, I can't see a compelling reason to dispute that.
Even though we disagree on this, I appreciated hearing your perspective on consensual sex between humans and animals. I agree with you that animals have the power to resist, and no doubt they do resist, but in the end, some humans can - and do - abuse them. And while many people decry it, I don't see them saying it's a crime to do that, that is, non-consensual sex. And when there is outrage, it's often written off as "sentimental" or some other absurdity.
I honestly don't know whether it's wrong to have sex with animals and I'm not judging anyone who has sexual feelings for them. But it is wrong to force your will on someone, anyone, any being, and I don't need a law to tell me that. Anyone with an ounce of compassion would know that.
I'm saying that because humans often trespass the boundaries of other beings, not to speak of their own species, restraint and respect are called for. I have no doubt you have both, and maybe many of the zoophiles you know share that. But does that in itself make the act right? I just want to know what you feel that makes this different from, for example, a sexual relationship between an adult and a child. Many children can and do consent, but does this in itself make the practice OK?
I don't feel any sex act is wrong, in and of itself - but when it comes to defining what's consensual, how can the person who wants to practice bestiality ever know if the animal would choose this if the human didn't already have control over him, i.e. he's the family "pet"?
The situation is more complicated than you make it out to be, even if it is consensual. I have no doubt that I could, if i wanted to, get my cats to play sexual games with me. And I have no doubt that they may very well like it, because they love me and want to please me. But I still hesitate, I still stop, something holds me back. I do not think that feeling that holds me back is a bad one, a prudish one, a religious one. And it's the same thing I feel when I think about children, my own or someone else's.
I don't think bestiality would be wrong if animals were truly free to consent - AND - humans were able to curb their murderous impulses.
But animals are not free, and no amount of being good to them, treating them well, feeling compassion for them, trying to make their lives better, will change the fact that humans have made them slaves. If our society were to change, it would be a totally different story. I'm not saying the practice of bestiality should be banned. I am saying that humans need to fundamentally change the status of animals before they talk about consent.
"I'm not saying the practice of bestiality should be banned. I am saying that humans need to fundamentally change the status of animals before they talk about consent." ... and there I think is ther nub of it. Other animals elsewhere may be slaves. Other animals may be cajoled to perform tasks or submit to whims, be caged killed or mutilated in society. But in the homes of zoophiles, that exact change is the status quo. Animals are not slaves, they are treated and spend their lives in a context in which they are considered to have (and grow up assuming is "how the world is") from birth, all the respect, emotional consideration, and self-standing, a human has. Their feelings are easily perceived, and their manifest wishes are expressed in the context of a platonic or sexual relationship which involves compromise and give and take, on both parts. At times a human may say something has to be, such as a vet visit or staying indoors. But likewise so may any animal say "this is what I insist", for food, solitude, companionship, or sexual release, and they are insistent too. Short of ignoring that strong message, it's hard to say that consent doesn't exist; zoophiles see consent and lack of consent all the time, in every gesture and every moment. But usually because they want to give a good stable pleasing emotionally fulfilling home to a partner, they put in a lot of effort to do this right and they guauge their success and approach by the reaction they get. Social rules such as "don't annoy other dogs" exist, and humans as well as animals are bound by these social rules which must be learned when interacting with 3rd parties or the public. Beyond this they aren't interested in forcing an animal into subservience. They by and large want to encourage one to live the opposite of subservience, to secure for the animal its best, most fulfilling life, moment by moment, even at the cost of difficulty on their part. Most humans would about die for a partner who took such effort for their emotional wellbeing lifelong. Any animal owner can force an animal to undergo suffering at their hands. But it's alien in a zoophile context, simply because zoophiles as a group don't usually allow that context to arise in an animal's life, so for the animal, that perception never comes to exist. The animals enjoy the luxury people like you and I will never get, of being so able to take trust and their "voice" being heard for granted all their life, that they never get to perceive the concept it might not exist for others. In this context, a partner who provides such care and comfort, but is also conveniently willing to provide the intense and enjoyable physical sensation of orgasm on demand when an animal as an adult becomes aware of this too, is usually more appreciated than worried over. Worry is what humans do. Emotions, which animals show more than people and do not lie about, are clearly visible to all. In terms of consent, I suspect most animals would consider it more important *their* expressed feelings are what are primarily respected and followed by a human, not just "some random other humans" feelings, when it comes to their wishes for themselves and the activities they enjoy or don't. It's up to people to respect that or not.
DS, I love what you wrote. We are not so very different, after all. You've expressed everything I wish all animals could have.The kind of unconditional love you describe is something I think about all the time. The only difference between us is, I'm haunted by all the truly wretched things humans do to animals, and my knee-jerk reaction is to want to protect them, even if it means limiting our freedom. I can't seem to get past it, it feels me with sadness and bitterness. But you have changed my mind about the zoophile. And I'm glad that you can see (and live in) a different world. Steve's article, however, shares neither your compassionate tone nor your wide-ranging philosophy. Had I not read your feedback, I would not have changed my mind.
"Plenty of atheists are opposed to bestiality - don't make it out that everyone who thinks the practice is wrong is a religious nut or a prude. What is wrong is the power difference. The animal has none. Maybe oral sex between humans and animals could be consensual, but I don't think getting fucked up the ass could ever be - do you honestly think a chicken or a cat or a dog wants this? As has already been pointed out, which I notice NOONE commented on, some animals are fucked to death. How can this ever be justified?"
The problem is you make the (false) assumption *ALL* zoophiles are this way fucking animals to death. You think this, you think that, trying to enforce your own point of view based on your own belief. That's not way worse than the typical moron giving his 2 cents, feeling in a (safe and moral) position no one cannot argue/contest/dispute.
But let me tell you, not all husbands beats their spouses, not all parents do incest with their offsprings, not all priests fucks childrens. Same for zoophiles, not all of them threats animals this way. Do not just comdemne *ALL* people because a few violent people with 'molestion/incest/bestiality' background have made some nasty scores in the news reports after having attacked some old grand'ma. Switch off Fox News, get some fresh air !
The reality is that almost all zoophiles don't see animals just like the "family pet we can lay out with leisure", the enslaved inferior being. They mostly see them as a partner we can rely on, but also to take care of, like you would do with your own childrens. But whereas you will always take your "family pet" as the "last children of the family", zoophiles raise them from puppies to full grown adults, with their own sexual needs. This should have been first considered as valid for humankind, because soooo many people takes the most simple sexual act between a man and a woman for a raw reproductive behavior, even thinking for unknown reasons women cannot experience orgasm and/or take pleasure from the encounter (Catholics/Muslims/Jews/... don't recognize women as being mens counterpart). Thus the way is long before it would be considered similar from the animal perspective.
The world currently leaves little place for animal welfare. The main focus is profit, so if it needs meat/fur/pets/vivisection to achieve its goal, then everybody will find this absolutely normal, because they may gets benefits from this industry. The same people wouldn't also oppose any argument against capitalism, otherwise it would be fighting against the chance of becoming themselves a rich and successful self-made mam/woman. But as everybody threats zoophiles as sick people, they will not have any scruples to "fight" them, if that may also become their sole action for the animal welfare commodity. They will be then able to proudly speak in the name of "animals" they defended against "all sort of abuse".
In this world, lives spins from birth to death. Everyone gets up in the morning to go to its job, return at night, spend some time front of the TV, with wife and kids, get some entertainments, get the latest gadgets and clothes, listen to music, watch movies and play base-ball (to sum-up things vaguely). And same the next day, and the day after, ... In a world where people are getting increasingly individual, Zoophiles have empowered their mind by taking care of soul mates like animals without giving opinion on their intelligence, their appearance, their beliefs or their membership of any political group. Some other people get some fun while singing and praying together in a great fun, some else gets fun hunting zoophiles and showing disgusting pictures/movies of starving/ill animals, pretending them comes from zoophiles cases. So easy, especialy when zoophiles are not given the chance/freedom to express and explain themselves to a same wide audience... Seee how the Jerry Springer's show turned into a big calculated mess, then censored.
But all if this affair just faden what people should really take into consideration : are zoophiles behaving more predator-like to animals than 'normal' people with little care who made many species vanish from Earth's surface ? Who is the most to blame ? The one that kill for pleasure and eat meat for no survival reasons, or the one that gets a nice time with an animal, free from any moral/moron pressure. It's just a matter of taste and choice. But you cannot know the taste of the apple before having crunch one... Only the one who dared to try against society's pressure knows what it really feels like to love an animal.
Sometimes I get frustrated at this topic, not by the subject but by the way people react to it. We live in a society where our governments, hunters and trappers wage war on wildlife. We kill dogs (“mans best friend”) and cats faster then Hitler could kill humans in his death camps. We slaughter 9 billion animals for taste every year, and 95% of them come from concentration camp like conditions. None of this unnecessary violence and suffering is ever talked about in the media, much less the solutions or alternatives to it.
After I became interested in the philosophy of Animal Rights and did substantial research into the true level of animal suffering I learned to have a sense of priorities. Although I would much rather prefer to stop the Alaskan governor from supporting the slaughter of wolves from airplanes, others, such as farmed animals, suffer a much more horrible existence. I put time and effort into what I think is the right thing to do when I would rather be spending more time working on my own causes.
When I hear people on here dismiss larger more important issues about the well being and interest of animals over a trivial and emotionally charged issue such as how they are offended by the human animal having sex with a non human animal, it bothers me. Clearly most people have not read the research, that "forcing sex on an unwilling animal is rare among adult zoophiles" and that "sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity"... and that zoophiles have a higher empathy and lower need for power according to psychological testing, which makes them *less* likely to be abusive. I wonder, if this much outrage was focused onto major issues where it is clearly abuse and causing substantial suffering… wouldn’t it be a much more humane world?
Hi there! I wont say a lot, but I just want to tell you that you have a few things wrong. The true meaning of Bestiality is forcing sexual intercourse upon an animal, harming it or intending to harm it in the process. Your friend is, in fact closer to a zoophile. A zoophile is a human that is attracted to animals, sexually or simply emotionally, that has no intention of harming the animal they are "in love" with. Also, I am completely in agreement of most of your points, and i'm disappointed that zoophilia is frowned upon or illegal in most parts of the world, being a zoophile myself.
Too funny.
I used to enjoy periodic sexual encounters with my dog timber but now that has ceased since my divorce. I found it to be a bit strange at first but now I miss it a lot. If anyone out there shares my curious desire please contact me at
I'm a zoosexual, and I think this article is BS, I can't possibly listen to anyone who advocates sexual molestation of a non sexual being, children and baby animals are NOT sexual beings, you start this story off with the WORST possible example, what , do you think pedophiles touching children really aren't all that bad too?-that is fucked up even by my standards...
Respect to the author of original work. I am want to say thanks for funny post, and thanks to google and yahoo for perfect blog search.
hahahaha! That is classic point of view.
Each month, we get hundreds of questions from our readers
I might have found this article funny if it had included an attempt at wit, a clever turn of phrase, something; anything. Instead, what we get is an overlong piece of boring, sophomoric drivel. The orginal idea was pretty good, but the author writes without spirit or inspiration. It's almost like an assignment--he was given an idea, had to make a buck, and turned out this piece of crap. What amazes me is that he apparently got paid for it. Hooksexup must really be hard-up for filler.
I've never understood why people dig so deep into the bed rooms of others. If farmer Jack is screwing a cow then hell let him have at it. If some guy falls head over heels for a pitbull, let him have at it too. Long as the animal isn't harmed I think its all in good taste.
This article reminds me of one I read a while ago about how starving Irish farmers could grow children for food....so true.
Add a Comment