March 26, 2010

"Are zoophiles attracted only to sexually mature animals — and if not, does this make them 'zoopedophiles'?"

"Do zoophiles find particular members of their preferred species more 'attractive' than other individuals from those species, and, if so, are they seduced by standard beauty cues, such as facial symmetry in horses? What is the percentage of homosexual zoophiles (those who prefer animal partners of the same sex) over heterosexual zoophiles?"

Questions, questions. I must say I've never thought about any of those questions before.

60 comments:

ironrailsironweights said...

Do they like shaved female animals?

Peter

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Geoff Matthews said...

You could take the POV that actions that delay adulthood (ie, the characteristics of delayed gratification, functioning member of society, whatnot) is bad. Does bestiality interfere with someone becoming a functioning adult?

My inclination is yes, but that's because I'm a hater.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skyler said...

I never thought about it either. Kind of sick to even ask the questions. A more appropriate question us, how quickly can we eliminate such people from the gene pool?

Methadras said...

Rule 36.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I've heard dumber. One of my friends took a class in college where he was told that sex between animals is invariable rape of the female by the male. This really bothered him.

Speaking for myself, I'm totally comfortable with condemning zoophilia, along with consensual incest between adults, because it is gross. I'm not a rationalist and I don't need a Euclidean system of deductive reasoning from moral premises to tell me what's right and and waht's wrong.

And I am completely uninterested in making any distinctions between sex with sexually mature animals and sex with immature ones.

Class factotum said...

how quickly can we eliminate such people from the gene pool?

And that is a problem that solves itself with this little hobby.

michaele said...

So, maybe that baby squirrel in the previous post was being molested.

Trooper York said...

Well there is a very easy way to answer this question.

Just ask Matthew Broderick!

traditionalguy said...

The intellectuals who waste their time and their readers spouting this stuff about sex with animals are mentally ill per se. And these are usually the same slime that want to assert that the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible doesn't exist. Well He sure undestood the truth behind human depravity a lot better than these blind fools do.

Nora said...

What does it matter? It only LOVE that matters, right?

Lem said...

The writer of this article mentioned that he has a "partner".. I think we owe him to read on courageously ;)

mRed said...

You know the Lone Ranger AND Tonto loved their horses some. Maybe that Hi Ho was code.

Lem said...

BTW - has anybody heard a commercial while reading the Scientific American article?

Trooper York said...

This really old news anyway.

Don't you guys remember the story of Wilbur and Mr. Ed!

garage mahal said...

Paging Neal Horsley.

garage mahal said...

Or should I say Neal Horsely.

HKatz said...

One of my friends took a class in college where he was told that sex between animals is invariable rape of the female by the male.

The female praying mantis feels the injustice of this. That is why she has been known to rip the male's head off afterwards (or during...)

Eric said...

I have a pretty high tolerance of icky, but... ewwwww.

Eric said...

The female praying mantis feels the injustice of this. That is why she has been known to rip the male's head off afterwards (or during...)

That's not so bad. What really gets me is the way she and the black widow get together and complain about it over tea.

NewHam said...

They should be allowed to marry and become full-fledged members of the Democrat Party along with all the other pedophiles.

mesquito said...

Nobody ever told them that neigh means neigh.

William said...

This post comes just after one showing a baby squirrel being relentlessly fondled. Hint of mint?...... Dogs are my favorite carbon based life forms. They say your dog is the only creature besides your mother who will love you more than you deserve. At any rate my only successful relationships have been with dogs. The affairs were strictly platonic on my part, but people grow as they move through time. Quite frankly I wouldn't know how, and my libido is not so active as that of Jesse James. But these obstacles are not insurmountable. Perhaps Cesar Millan could offer a few shows to demonstrate the animal husbandry involved in such couplings. Bestiality would make for an interesting and relatively inexpensive hobby and perversion. Still I would draw the line at baby squirrels. I don't mean to be judgemental but that's really sick.

NewHam said...

"Nobody ever told them that neigh means neigh."

And, we have a WINNER!

NewHam said...

"They say your dog is the only creature besides your mother who will love you more than you deserve."

Not counting ex-wives, of course.

Fred4Pres said...

Not being sexually attracted to animals, I cannot answer your question. Sorry, I prefer my own species and those of the adult female gender.

However, we can all judge the appearance of an anmial without it being sexual. I am not an expert on horses, but I can tell racehorse from a nag. I can watch the Westminster Dog Show and be impressed by the various dogs there and get an idea why the judges chose one dog over an other (although at times it is not clear to me why, both dogs looking pretty good). Most of us can tell the relative health of any species at a glance.

traditionalguy said...

If we cannot judge animal screwing perverts, then frankly we have no society left worth protecting.

bagoh20 said...

When you lose respect for respect, there is very little left to base most of our rules on.

garage mahal said...

If we cannot judge animal screwing perverts, then frankly we have no society left worth protecting.

Or perverts in position of power that perform and coverup crimes against defenseless children.

Fred4Pres said...

Funny how sexual orientation is so fluid, in about 1-4% of the population.

And I do not consider same sex adult attraction the same as attraction to animals. I do not know the cause of homosexuality, but I suspect it is very complex. Partially genetic, in uetero, hormonal, environmental and behavioral (easy answer huh?).

I suspect these esoteric off shoots of sexuality (sex with animals, fetishes, etc.) are mostly behavioral and from environmental factors. I doubt people are born that way. I am not surprised a female chimp raised with humans would identify humans as sexual partners. Why wouldn't she? That is from environmental conditioning.

Fred4Pres said...

Do they like shaved female animals?

Only in Playboy for Animals. And only from the late 70s on. They have other magazines for men who perfer their animals unshaved.

Or so I have been told.

Fred4Pres said...

This particular show was very funny.

bagoh20 said...

I don't see how we can logically endorse gay marriage and not marriage to animals or polygamy, or any marriage between other consenting adults including family. What is the defining line?

As far as animals go, endorsing gay marriage nullifies the procreation argument, and animals have virtually no rights, so marrying them can't step on any rights.

Personally I think anybody should be able to marry the same species, just get the government out of it first.

Youngblood said...

"I don't see how we can logically endorse gay marriage and not marriage to animals or polygamy, or any marriage between other consenting adults including family. What is the defining line?"

If you genuinely think it's logical to enter into legally binding contracts with animals, you might consider visiting a psychiatrist in the near future.

NewHam said...

Let's not leave out the ladies: Getchur transparent inflatable dolphin to frolic with:

http://www.balloondirectory.com/transparent-inflatable-dolphin.html

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Dogs are my favorite carbon based life forms. They say your dog is the only creature besides your mother who will love you more than you deserve.

Man's best friends with benefits.

NewHam said...

"If you genuinely think it's logical to enter into legally binding contracts with animals, you might consider visiting a psychiatrist in the near future."

Leona Helmsley would disagree, as would the people of Switzerland, who only narrowly defeated a recent ballot proposal to provide lawyers for animals so they could sue people.

traditionalguy said...

Gay people may be mixed up but they are mostly good people with civil rights of people. How they have sex is not the end of the world for the heteros in society. But practitioners of beastiality forfeit any right to participate in a human society.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"If you genuinely think it's logical to enter into legally binding contracts with animals, you might consider visiting a psychiatrist in the near future."

I'm just saying nobody's rights are violated. The argument is always about rights. And my psychiatrist is a Border Collie mix; quite reasonable rates and flexible hours.

Frankly, most human marriages I've witnessed were pretty illogical contracts, at least for the man.

Fred4Pres said...

Okay, I have to admit I found Dr. Zera attractive...I am so ashamed.

NewHam said...

"Okay, I have to admit I found Dr. Zera attractive...I am so ashamed."

You should be. She was a damned dirty ape.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@bagoh20:

I don't see how we can logically endorse gay marriage and not marriage to animals or polygamy, or any marriage between other consenting adults including family. What is the defining line?


That's the problem with rationalism, isn't it?

You have no reason to favor your own offspring over other people's children, no reason to spend your money on yourself rather than other people, no reason to be loyal to this country or any other, no reason to prefer animal meat to human.

Logic is not the problem here; the problem is your premises, that everything you have to do has to follow from premises.

Only people like Thomas Aquinas and Spinoza have the time to work all that out.

As David Hume said in a different context, "Carelessness and in-attention alone can afford us any remedy."

Youngblood said...

"Leona Helmsley would disagree,"

Who gives a shit? She was a sociopathic sadist. (Also, she never left any kind of contract with an animal.)

"who only narrowly defeated a recent ballot proposal to provide lawyers for animals so they could sue people."

No. The proposal was to create official positions for prosecutors who would focus on criminal (not civil) animal rights abuse cases.

Animals weren't being given the right to sue anybody. And animals wouldn't be entering into legally binding contracts, either.

Also, the proposal was rejected by 70% of voters, which cannot produce a margin that can be described as "narrow" in any meaningful way.

kentuckyliz said...

Neigh means neigh.

Mesquito wins the thread.

Man's best friends with benefits.

Ignorance is Bliss gets the Honorable Mention.

I think my tomcat would like to practice a little animal husbandry but I had him neutered before he could get specific ideas.

jag said...

I think this is why Calvinism is making a comeback. As the world appears more depraved, and proclaims its depravity with such confidence, the temptation is to conclude that some souls are simply in this world to be damned.

Youngblood said...

"I'm just saying nobody's rights are violated. The argument is always about rights."

I disagree. Extending to animals the right to enter into legally binding contracts would violate the basic right to consent by devaluing it to the point that it no longer has any meaning. It would make a mockery of the capacity that more or less free human beings have to make decisions for themselves.

bagoh20 said...

"Logic is not the problem here; the problem is your premises, that everything you have to do has to follow from premises."

Well, logic is the problem, but it's not the only one.

The big problem with logic is that reason is a powerful argument and when abandoned, you still are left with a double edged sword. Try being on the losing end when reason is abandoned. It's a lonely place. Ask the witches of Salem.

It's not that hard really: you just imagine your world with people and and animals married, or with 12 people married or with gays married. Do we want to live there? OK, now vote on it. Of course the witches may still get hanged, but we'll get right next time.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@bagoh20:

The big problem with logic is that reason is a powerful argument and when abandoned, you still are left with a double edged sword. Try being on the losing end when reason is abandoned. It's a lonely place. Ask the witches of Salem.


Who advocates abandoning reason altogether? It's not RATIONALITY I criticize, it's RATIONALISM. The WORSHIP of reason, the putting-of-reason-into-places-it-does-not-belong-merely-because-it-is-reason.

Use reason when a reasonable person would, and don't when a reasonable person wouldn't. Really very simple.

Seriously, gay marriage or witch-burning? How reasonable is it to maintain those are the alternatives?

RLB_IV said...

If you have ever been in a hospital emergency room when a man enters with his member clamped in a female dog you will have witnessed human depravity. The world is bloated with evil and it knows no end. Time to wake up, gang.

NewHam said...

"I think this is why Calvinism is making a comeback."

My God, where do you see this?

The President of the United States is murdering people using robots flown from Florida.

The Pope is defending his pedophile minions.

Where do you see any good in the world?

The Earth could be consumed in a supernova tomorrow and it would probably be a good thing, in the grand scheme of things.

bagoh20 said...

"Use reason when a reasonable person would, and don't when a reasonable person wouldn't.".

And use what? or should I say who's?

Seven Machos said...

Guy goes out west to make his fortune mining gold. There are no women on the frontier and he gets lonely, so asks at the saloon speculator what people around the area do for sex.

"Oh, we all just find ourselves a good sheep," explains a man at the bar.

The guy is deeply appalled but, after a few more months, he is truly desperate and decides to find a sheep for sexual pleasure.

The sheep he finds is the best sex he's ever had. He goes back the next night and the next. He finds himself in a passionate affair and decides he has to tell the other miners.

Grabbing the sheep, he heads to the saloon and bursts through the doors.

"I love this sheep!" he yells. Best sex I ever had."

There is a stunned silence and the people in the bar look at him like he's from another planet.

"What?" asks the guy. "I was told everyone does this."

Finally, some speaks up, saying. "That's the sheriff's girl!"

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Or perverts in position of power that perform and coverup crimes against defenseless children.


Oh you mean the ones that passed 'Health care reform' legislation?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@bagoh20:

And use what? or should I say who's?

Tradition, instinct, revelation, emotion, aesthetics, to name a few... and use your own. You will anyway, whatever I or anyone else tells you. Because everyone does. Even people who claim to be following someone else's, or God's, are still following their own.


Hans Reichenbach had a good discussion of this in "The Rise of Scientific Philosophy" and you might check Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies". A large part of THAT book is dedicated to showing "Who decides" is totally the wrong question to ask. You decide, whether or not you want to.

Doesn't mean you get your way, or deserve to.

bagoh20 said...

"Tradition, instinct, revelation, emotion, aesthetics, to name a few... and use your own. "

Sounds nice, until as I said at the beginning, you are on the wrong end of that. There is little we despise in our history as much as when reason lost out to those things when deciding the legal status of people. For example: slavery was the tradition, and the natural instinct of the white man,, but it made no rational sense, to enslave others if you prise your own liberty.

I don't see reason as the bogeyman when people use it honestly. It has resulted in it's own horrors, but they were always the result of letting it take second place to those other things and calling it reason anyway.

Trooper York said...

Kevin and his father Hugh took a nostalgic trip back to Hugh’s old village of Innisfree when they visited the old sod. Which is what they called Kevin’s grandfather.

Anyway they visited the old one room school house and the lovely village church and of course Cohan’s pub where young Hugh had first hoisted a pint and toasted the rebels. It was a real trip down memory lane.

The last day they walked up the road to the hill that looked over the town where they stood in a lush verdant meadow. Hugh turned to his son “Ah the shame of it, this brings back such memories boyo. This is the exact spot where I first made love….and with her mother standing right over there under that tree.” “Really Da” said Kevin “My lord, what did she say when she saw you making love to her daughter?”

“Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!”

Gabriel Hanna said...

@bagoh20:

For example: slavery was the tradition, and the natural instinct of the white man,, but it made no rational sense, to enslave others if you prise your own liberty.

1: Nobody but you is saying that the alternatives are rationalism and slavery. OBVIOUSLY not every traditional practice is good.

2: Slavery was perfectly rational--but by the 1500s it was not traditional, not in Western Europe anyway. Cotton and sugar plantations needed labor. No one wished to do this labor. Powerful people could not be made to do it. Thus powerless people were forced to do this labor. Indians first, then whites, then blacks.

A slaveholder prizes his own liberty but not some other people's, just like you don't buy groceries and make the car payments for every family on your block. Is it irrational for you to refuse to equally share your paycheck with everyone you know? You prize your own purposes more than some other people's, and so a slaveholder prizes his own liberty above some other people's.

The reason you say slavery is "irrational" is because you do not share the moral postulates of a slaveholder. But slavery is perfectly rational. Reason manipulates postulates, but cannot justify postulates. That's what "postulate" means.

Where do your postulates come from? They cannot come from reason, BY DEFINITION. They come from somewhere else. Reason manipulates good postulates as well as evil ones, and produces ironclad arguments for both.

Do you really not know this? Do you really think it is possible to start with "A or not A" and derive the evil of slavery and witch-burning? Do you think that the laws of thermodynamics and mechanics will tell you, if you explore the consequences?

Nonsense. A moral statement is an expression of your will, of the world you want to live in. What you want you choose for your own reasons, but some people pretend that their morals are the equivalent of natural law.

Yackums said...

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but I can't resist:

This kinda gives "puppy love" a whole new meaning!

*rimshot