Animal Rights group takes over
djali
Some efnet ops in the zoo channels ran the Dal channels for a while but
dalnet is lacking in popularity and thus use so Isuspect that channel
ownership lapsed.
As for DefTOnez, Id have to see the user@host to know whether or not Ive
seen them before.
Scott Jenkins <NO_UCE...@ibm.net> wrote:
: I was a bit bored last night and decided to log into IRC. Like I've said I don't
: use IRC much and decided to hit DALNET since I hadn't been on it before.
: I joined #Horsesex and it was empty so I hit #zoosex to see if it was in use. I
: was banned when I entered the channel and a private message was sent to me from
: the single user/op (copied below). Basically four zoo channels were taken over
: by this user, actually a bot, as I discovered when I ran a whois on the nick.
: Does anyone know anything more detailed about this? Is it sanctioned by the
: IRCOPs? I think Dalnet is set up so that channels are registered to individuals
: so the OP status of the bot would suggest that it is. Anyone with any info on
: this please post it. Oh if anyone can get a of a copy of the magazine named in
: the message could you please post it when the article is published?
: Scott
: Message
: *** Log file opened: 3/27/98 12:41:14 AM
: <DefTOnez> this channel is moderated by the Animal rights coalition, and PeTS,
: animal abusers are NOT allowed on this channel, you are BANNED, your mask,
: simultaneous channels you are currently on have been logged for a freelance
: feature article on animal abuse in an upcoming issue of "The Animals' Agenda"
:
Anonymous
Least we now know where zoophool.org received their definitions from...
Copied without permission from The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number 6, pp 29-31
(November/December 1995, although the magazine isn't dated).
The Animals' Agenda is a publication of The Animal Rights Network Inc, a non-profit organization. Offices are
located at:
3201 Elliott Street
Baltimore, MD 21224
Editorial and advertising inquiries go to:
The Animals' Agenda
P.O. Box 25881
Baltimore, MD 21224
Tel: (410)675-4566
Fax: (410)675-0066
Email: 75543...@compuserve.com
Homepage: http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/aa/
Cover has byline including 'Bestiality'. Listed as the second feature in the contents page:
BESTIALITY: THE UNMENTIONED ABUSE In addition to exploiting animals for food, clothing,
entertainment, product testing, and biomedical research, some people put animals to a use so heinous that its
name is seldom mentioned. That name is bestiality. Author Carol J. Adams explores its frequency and varieties
and its implications for our society.
Four years ago someone broke into the Buttonwood Zoo in New Bedford, Massachusetts, sexually assaulted a
whitetailed deer, then bludgeoned her unmercifully. The deer, a two-year old female named Rachel, died two
days later at the Tufts University-New England Veterinary Medical Center in Grafton. Authorities said she had
been raped and beaten with a blunt object. "This is the saddest story I can remember," said Dana Souza, New
Bedford's parks superintendent, to the Associated Press. "There's just a tremendous about of outrage that an
individual could beat and sexually assault an animal."
Bestiality: The Unmentioned Abuse
The term bestiality actually tells us much more about cultural attitudes toward animals than it does about sex with
animals. Concern about bestiality generally focuses on human beings; thus experts tell us it is usually harmless
while debating its frequency. If we call it forced sex with animals, we reclaim the animal's perspective as a central
concern. It is more prevalent than we can measure and is not harmless; it is always animal abuse.
The American Heritage Dictionary, to cite just one example, defines bestiality as "the quality or condition of
being an animal or like an animal; conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality; or sexual relations
between a human being and an animal." Sex with an animal is the last definition of bestiality, while the first two
definitions remind us of our culture's general low regard for animals.
The multiple meanings for bestiality are part of the problem, implying that bestiality itself is animal behaviour. It
keeps the "beast" in bestiality. (See sidebar "Acting Like an Animal.") Animals do not have a distinction between
public versus private. Often, people read animals' sexuality as shamless (and inviting) because animals act sexually
in "public." They are then viewed as accessible because they have acted in a public manner.
Acting like an Animal
For many centuries negative attitudes toward sexuality have been registered by viewing sex as something that
resulted from one's base instincts, that is, as something that reduced a human being to an animal. During the
Middle Ages-- when capital punishment was prescribed for both the animals and the human involved in
bestiality-- many people thought that the serpent in the Garden of Eden had introduced Eve to sex.
This belief led to a debate about whether Eve and the serpent had actually had intercourse, and left the strong
impression that sexual intercourse itself was bestial. Acting sexually was thus considered acting like an animal.
This attitude is evident today when aggessive sexual behaviour is referred to as "bringing out the beast in one" or
"wolfish behaviour" or "animal passions." Indeed, it appears that one reason the missionary position was upheld
as the position for intercourse was because it was accomplished face to face rather than face to back, as most
animals did it.
C.J.A.
In its narrowest sense, bestiality involves intercourse, either vaginal or anal, with an animal; but bestiality can also
include oral-genital contact of any kind between humans and animals.
The animals who people have access to are the animals who will be sexually used: cats, dogs, sheep, cows, hens,
rabbits, goats, ducks, horses, bulls, fishes. Proximity allows for sexual access. This is the primary reason gorillas,
chimpanzees, and others are not prevalent sex objects: they are not animals to whom humans have regular access.
Many forms of sexual contact between humans and animals are physically destructive to the animals. Few
vaginas, especially those of young animals, are large enough to accommodate the penis of a male Homo sapiens.
Furthermore, small animals often experience torn rectums and internal bleeding after being sexually assaulted;
chickens and rabbits are often killed by the act itself. Sadistic sexual behavior against animals also occurs.
Chickens are frequently decapitated because this intensifies the convulsions of the sphincter, thereby increasing
the sexual pleasure of the man. Even when it does not involve sadism, bestiality is animal abuse because it is
forced sex.
Silence is a major problem. Unlike most forms of sexual contact, in which either partner can report the
experience, only one of the participants in bestiality can talk; and becuase of the stigma surrounding bestiality, that
party usually remains silent. Since bestiality is most often something that occurs in private, no one need ever learn
about it. So we do not know how widespread it is.
Several attempts have been made to uncover an accurate rate of human attempts to have forced sex with animals:
by the German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in the 1880s, in the U.S. bu Alfred Kinsey and his
colleagues in the late 1940s and, more recently, by sociologists at the University of Chicago in 1994. These
studies have variously estimated that the percentage of males who engage in bestiality is between one and 65
percent. This wide range probably reflects less about how often bestiality occurs than it does about how bestiality
is defined and measured as well as different levels of confidence in answers given by respondants when
interviewed either in person or in anonymous questionnaires. In short, we can say almost nothing about the
percentage of the population that engages in bestiality.
There are three kinds of sex that humans impose on animals: opportunistic or safety-valve sex, fixated sex, and
domineering sex. (See sidebar "Types of Sex with Animals".)
Types of Sex with Animals
1.Opportunistic or Safety-Valve Sex
"I need a sexual release ... they're available ... there are no human partners around ... I'll get it with an
animal."
2.Fixated Sex
Animals become love objects and are the exclusive sexual "partners" for a human.
3.Domineering Sex
When batterers, rapists and pornographers force sex between a human and an animal for purposes of
humiliation, sexual exploitation, dominance and control.
C.J.A.
Safety-valve sex is often seen as a casual act of the curious young, as sexual exploration rather than deviancy.
The notion of bestiality as a safety valve that operates until the (usually young) men are ready for women leads
one to ask whether the women to whom these young men graduate are not safety valves, too. Moreover, this
form of bestiality is not a harmless aberration. Animals are harmed in safety-valve bestiality, and humans learn that
it is okay to treat others as safety valves.
In the second kind of bestiality, fixated sex, an animal becomes the exclusive focus of a human's sexual desires.
Although many medical terms have been applied to a fixation on sex with animals, those who engage in this kind
of sex prefer to be known as "zoophiles," a word borrowed, ironically, from the animal protection community.
The zoophile's worldview is similar to the rapist's and child sexual abuser's. They all view the sex they have with
their victims as consensual, and they believe it benefits their sexual "partners" as well as themselves. Just as
pedophiles differentiate between those who abuse children and those who love children--placing themselves, of
course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal sexual abusers (bestialists) and those who love
animals (zoophiles). In each of these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications.
Whatever the frequency of bestiality, it has its own newsgroup on the Internet (alt.sex.bestiality), which provides
chilling examples of the bestialist's world. One person described having sex with stray dogs and then dropping
them off at animal shelters. Another reported episodes of bestiality that occurred while dog sitting for a friend. A
third described having sex with his half-Percheron horse.
One cannot talk very long about sex with animals without noticing the gender issues: Men are more likely to do it.
Women are more likely to be depicted--or to be forced into--doing it. This type of bestiality, domineering sex,
has long been used by batterers to degrade their partners. Battered women's shelters around the country receive
reports from women who were forced to have sex with animals. One woman reported that her husband would tie
her up and force her to have intercourse with their family dog. Then he would try to have intercourse with the dog
while he forced the dog inside his wife. Forced sex with trained dogs was a form of torturing Jewish women in
Nazi Germany; it was recently used against female political prisoners in Chile.
Bestiality involving women occupies an entire genre in pornography. Bears, snakes, dogs, and insects--to name
just a few species of animals--have been photographed or videotaped in a variety of sexual and sexualized
positions with women. Sex "clubs" around the globe offer live scenes of sex between women and animals. Some
towns along the U.S./Mexican border feature shows "starring" women and donkeys. Women of color are often
depicted with animals as a way of enforcing the racist notion that women of color are insatiable.
Through pornography, dogs, snakes, and other animals, help a man picture himself in the scene. What the
pornography consumer claims to be fantasy, we must regard as documentation of harm: a real woman must have
a real snake inside her for a photograph of a snake inside her to exist, a real woman must give oral sex to a real
bear in order for a photograph of a woman giving oral sex to a bear to exist.
In addition to being used as a means of degrading women, bestiality figures in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism,
and of course, attitudes toward animals. The imputation of bestilaity has been used to protray a specific group of
people as "others," to distance them from those making the charges. Sometimes miscegenation (the mixing of
races) is referred to as bestiality. One group of American white supremacists believes that Jews are descended
from Cain, himself the offspring of Eve's coupling with the snake, while Christians are descended from Abel, the
child of Eve and Adam. European colonizers and American slave owners believed that African women enjoyed
sexual intercourse with apes. European women charged with being witches were accused of sexual congress with
animals, and they--and their animal companions--were killed. During the Middle Ages, Christians viewed
intercourse with Jews as a form of bestiality. Earlier this year, an Israeli judicial official compared homosexuality
to bestiality. This comparison occurred, most probably, becuase homosexuality and bestiality are listed together in
Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16. Like masturbation, homosexuality and bestiality are forms of nonprocreative sex.
During a time when childbearing was central to a people's survival, all forms of nonprocreative sex would be
condemned. Bestiality also violated the order of creation by mixing categories--human and animal--that were
meant to be separate and distinct.
Recent views of bestiality as fairly benign have replaced these earlier reactions, but no matter what the prevailing
view of bestiality, it does not consider the animals' perspectives at all. It is always animal abuse. Relationships of
unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not
all--of the aspects of an animals' well being. Sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent
should be possible. Consent is when one can say no, and that no is accepted. Clearly animals cannot do that.
Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the
other.
Despite the omnipresence of animals in pornographic pictures and videos, the animal protection community has
yet to identify bestiality as an animal abuse issue. Bestiality has been studiously avoided by those who should be
discussing it--animal rights activists, veterinarians, anti-cruelty law enforcement agents, and feminists. It is time to
put away our circumspection.
Carol J. Adams
Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat , is the co-editor with Josephine Donovan of Beyond
Animals Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals (Continuum 1996) and Animals and
Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Duke 1995).
Copyright ©1995 by Carol J. Adams
The Animals' Agenda INVESTIGATIVE Reporting Fund
Reader's contributions to The Animals' Agenda Investigative Reporting Fund helped to make this exclusive article
possible.
Your Agenda
1.Help educate your veterinarian and local animal care agencies (animal control, humane society, SPCA,
shelters, etc.) to recognize bestiality by providing them with copies of this article.
2.Read Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin (Dutton) and The Pornography of
Representation by Susanne Kappeler (Minnesota).
kur...@hotmail.com
In article <351b51dc...@news3.ibm.net>, Scott Jenkins
<NO_UCE...@ibm.net> writes
>*** Log file opened: 3/27/98 12:41:14 AM
><DefTOnez> this channel is moderated by the Animal rights coalition, and PeTS,
>animal abusers are NOT allowed on this channel, you are BANNED, your mask,
>simultaneous channels you are currently on have been logged for a freelance
>feature article on animal abuse in an upcoming issue of "The Animals' Agenda"
First reaction : Pathetic bleeding-heart unreal comfy idealistic know-
nothing bunny-hugging Perrier-drinking save-the-whales failed liberal
granola-head muesli-pushing mentally-ill overpaid overfed self-righteous
middle-class wankers.
Second reaction : Cunts.
Don't you just hate people who are so fucked up that they can't
recognise an animal as a sexual being? Get help, people. Ask your
psychoanalist to stop prescribing Xanax and Prozac and start helping you
relate to the real world, instead of the comfortable Disney ignorance
you use to have a good old wank of the ego whilst beating on the immoral
perverts.
Animals FUCK. Humans FUCK. Get used to it.
--
Kurt G.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
One Time
Gee, when they put it that way, it doesn't seem like fun anymore.
Name withheld by request
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
> Least we now know where zoophool.org received their definitions from...
No doubt No doubt.
> Copied without permission from The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number
> 6, pp 29-31
<snip>
> The zoophile's worldview is similar to the rapist's and child sexual
> abuser's. They all view the sex they have with their victims as
> consensual, and they believe it benefits their sexual "partners" as well
> as themselves. Just as pedophiles differentiate between those who
> abuse children and those who love children--placing themselves, of
> course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal
> sexual abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles).
> In each of these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications.
So you see folks. With thinking like this we who truly love our animals
and know that our relationships with them are indeed consentual haven't a
chance. This person would group anyone involved in -any- kind of sex
outside of the christian viewpoint of missionary sex as being abuse and
punishable. The kind of person who thinks this way is a threat to zoos,
furries, gays, lesbians, men, jews, blacks, ect. ect.
> third described having sex with his half-Percheron horse.
Oh! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! How terrible. How could anyone have sex with a
half percheron horse. I wonder if she enjoyed reading about that!
> Women are more likely to be depicted--or to be forced into--doing it.
^^^^^
> In addition to being used as a means of degrading women,
^^^^^
> Carol J. Adams
> Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat , is the co-editor with Josephine Donovan of Beyond
> Animals Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals (Continuum 1996) and Animals and
^^^^^^^^
> Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Duke 1995).
^^^^^
Does this not explain it all?? Even heterosexual non zoo men are
threatened by this.
Bareback
Pristan Etallion
->Least we now know where zoophool.org received their definitions from...
Heh. The avi-nazis got it from the femi-nazis! It all falls together now!
Birdbrains of a feather nest together.
:)
->Copied without permission from The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number 6
->(November/December 1995, although the magazine isn't dated).
Much like the feminazis, err, I mean authors.
->The Animals' Agenda is a publication of The Animal Rights Network Inc,
->a non-profit organization. Offices are located at:
->3201 Elliott Street
->Baltimore, MD 21224
Maybe someday Doglover will do a Ted K. on them. :)
->A third described having sex with his half-Percheron horse.
I notice they have been conspicuously silent about men getting boinked
my male animals. I guess that scene doesn't fit their agenda.
They know they couldn't lie convincingly enough to explain that away
in the face of their dogma.
->Sex "clubs" around the globe offer live scenes of sex between women and
->animals. Some towns along the U.S./Mexican border feature shows "starring"
->women and donkeys.
You know, people have been talking, and wankers have been asking, about
those 'locations' for years. But noone has ever said where they really are
exactly. She would do a great service to many if she would post her
knowledge to those still reading ASB! Or to alt.urban.legends even!
->Consent is when one can say no, and that no is accepted.
I see she has heard of Equamour. :(
->Clearly animals cannot do that.
I see she has not heard of 'everyone' else.
The unrestrained mares that could kick you over the barn never entered
her 'mind'. To say nothing of the male animals. How can one bully
a male animal into a boner?
->Your Agenda
->
-> 2.Read Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin (Dutton)
Well, she got that right, Andrea writing, and obscene, go hand in hand.
I say we sponser a chapter and when they all come down for the
christening, have Camille Paglia for the guest speaker!
(Note to self, research the States' laws for wordings on riot and intent.)
PN
--
Folks never understand the folks they hate.
(James Russell Lowell)
PonyTrot
Stephen Kerr <st...@dutchess.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Scott Jenkins (NO_UCE...@ibm.net) wrote:
>
>: I joined #Horsesex and it was empty so I hit #zoosex to see if it was in use. I
>
>AutoOps is possible on #horsesex on Dalnet for interested parties. Memo the
>channel owner.
i would ask, but some sleeze has registered my nick on #dalnet
too....wonder who? hmmm... ;)
Name withheld by request
In alt.talk.bestiality Pristan Etallion <pri...@irs.com> wrote:
> I notice they have been conspicuously silent about men getting boinked
> my male animals. I guess that scene doesn't fit their agenda.
No how could it? A male animal getting a boner would imply consent. She
can't see things like what I just experienced with my dog this morning. He
was trying to dig me out from under the bed covers so he could fuck me. In
a situation like that how could she say I am abusing him? Is it not more
of a case of abuse to have a male dog for a pet and to never let it get
its rocks off ever? Then again that is why they invented neutering. I
would say that neutered and spayed animals are the ideal thing for women
such as the feminist philosopher who sparked these threads. The altered
animals become things without sexual identity. Most ideal for sexually
banal women.
> To say nothing of the male animals. How can one bully a male animal
> into a boner?
As she is a typical feminist she regards all males as intrinsically evil.
I view feminists as jealous because they don't have a penis of their
own. It's a good thing for them that they invented silicone rubber and
strapons.
Bareback
Oddball
Couldn't agree more. This woman obviously has been reading too many
'outdated' studies and dilapidated psychology books. She also panders to the
'moral majority' probably in the hope of winning some kind of 'recognition'
as being a champion for the animal rights cause, by being one of the few to
'speak up' on this subject, whether its wrong or right (wrong of course).
I really wish these kinds of people would speak to the people who
actually 'DO' have sex with animals! How can you get a true perspective
otherwise?
The problem is they know that to examine any positive aspects to the
subject they would be letting themselves in for a backlash from the 'moral
majority' and thus putting themselves in the line of fire.
This no brainer was looking for a shock angle while at the same time
condemning us instead of doing her homework.
Researchers are notorious for doing all their 'research' in dusty old
books and letting their own emotions get in the way of objectivity.
Just because someone who was highly regarded in the field of psychology
wrote a paper about animal/human sexual encounters 20 years ago, does not
mean they are/were right in this day and age.
Any studies of this field should be approached with a fresh open mind
and discussed openly with those involved 'currently' in having sexual
relations with other species.
I love the way she trys to use the 'self justification' angle and the
way we use the term 'zoophile' to 'distinguish' ourselves from the
'bestialists'. Descriptive terms are 'NOT' the be all and end all of what
makes a person what they are.
Language and its usage is a constantly evolving thing and to give the
term bestialist to a lover of animals may have applied years back but in my
opinion its now a defunct word. As for bestial meaning to act like an
animal? I'd take that as a compliment in some instances wouldn't you?
Maybe we should all mail her anonymously with our own perspectives of
what we feel about her article.
Someone send her a nice frisky great dane who just loves to fuck
anything that moves and see how she reacts *8)
kur...@hotmail.com wrote in message
Shuunka Tanka
Shuunka here,
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: Least we now know where zoophool.org received their definitions from...
You know--I really do wonder where they got their bestiality
definition.
: Copied without permission from The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number 6, pp 29-31
: (November/December 1995, although the magazine isn't dated).
Shame Shame. *smileS*
: The Animals' Agenda is a publication of The Animal Rights Network Inc, a non-profit organization. Offices are
: located at:
<SNIP contact info>
: Cover has byline including 'Bestiality'. Listed as the second feature
: in the contents page:
: BESTIALITY: THE UNMENTIONED ABUSE In addition to exploiting animals for
: food, clothing,
: entertainment, product testing, and biomedical research, some people
: put animals to a use so heinous that its
: name is seldom mentioned. That name is bestiality. Author Carol J.
: Adams explores its frequency and varieties
: and its implications for our society.
There's a difference between seldom mentioned and unmentioned--a
big one.
: Four years ago someone broke into the Buttonwood Zoo in New Bedford,
: Massachusetts, sexually assaulted a
: whitetailed deer, then bludgeoned her unmercifully.
Unless tranquilizers were used, things could not have happened in
the order listed above. How do I know? Simple--I have daily
intereactions with white-tailed deer. When our doe was only a few months
old, we tried trimming her hooves. Even then she was stronger than us
and her hooves were sharp enouh to slice up our clothing. If someone had
sex with that doe at the Buttonwood Zoo against that doe's will, he'd
have to bludgeon her to a pulp first.
: The deer, a two-year old female named Rachel, died two
: days later at the Tufts University-New England Veterinary Medical
:Center in Grafton. Authorities said she had
: been raped and beaten with a blunt object. "This is the saddest story I
: can remember," said Dana Souza, New
: Bedford's parks superintendent, to the Associated Press. "There's just
: a tremendous about of outrage that an
: individual could beat and sexually assault an animal."
And there'soutrage here too. Its interesting that what was done
to the deer was referred to as sex--I mean aren't feminists the first to
tell you that rape is not sex--that rape is violence? Now violence
agaisnt animals--there's a crime. Alas you can get more time in jail for
writing bad checks than you can for violence against animals.
: Bestiality: The Unmentioned Abuse
: The term bestiality actually tells us much more about cultural
: attitudes toward animals than it does about sex with
: animals. Concern about bestiality generally focuses on human beings;
: thus experts tell us it is usually harmless
: while debating its frequency. If we call it forced sex with animals, we
: reclaim the animal's perspective as a central
: concern.
You can learn a lot about this woman by how she views the
definitions. Bestiality is a word with its under pinnings in Victorian
ethics. Its about people acting like animals--and their lowest animal
drives. Of course it focuses on the human--the word was meant to
describe human behavior.
:It is more prevalent than we can measure and is not harmless;
: it is always animal abuse.
Not harmless--well true, I do have scars on my hips from sharp
animal claws. I do have a scar of the back of my skull from an amorous
pony trying to climb my back. I'm preeching to the choir though, I
know.
That poor lady has some confusion but she also has a point,
sorta. We know what we do isn't animal abuse because of how we do
it--but what about the problem of people who to things like bludgeon
deer? What about genuine, malicious violence?
: The American Heritage Dictionary, to cite just one example, defines
: bestiality as "the quality or condition of
: being an animal or like an animal; conduct or an action marked by
:depravity or brutality; or sexual relations
: between a human being and an animal." Sex with an animal is the last
: definition of bestiality, while the first two
: definitions remind us of our culture's general low regard for animals.
That word came into general use in time when biological and
economic sciences were showing man was not relaly all that special--that
there might not be anyother god than the laws of the universere. It
shows what they focused on to try and prove themselves different and
beter than animals. In the 90's, only sexual definition is focused on.
that show's what people in the US in the 90's fixate on.
: The multiple meanings for bestiality are part of the problem, implying
:that bestiality itself is animal behaviour.
You know--this is getting as bad as the Christian church trying
to dictate natural law. Bestiality is very much an animal behavior.
Even the higer priamtes do it--Jane Goodall has reported
chimpanzees copulating with baboons. I think the ultimate proof for all
of use though is the animals in our lives that have no problem iniating sex.
: It
: keeps the "beast" in bestiality. (See sidebar "Acting Like an Animal.")
: Animals do not have a distinction between
: public versus private. Often, people read animals' sexuality as
: shamless (and inviting) because animals act sexually
: in "public." They are then viewed as accessible because they have acted
: in a public manner.
Nope--had little to do with it for me. I think this woman needs
to realize that any creature, man or beast, has a brain. Whether the
behaviors in question are learned, or instinctual, they're both subject
to the workings of neural nets.
You see--mammals at least are not attracted to mammals of the
same species. They're not? No--they're attracted to sets of
characteristics that trigger a sexual response. They're sexual response
is a fucntion of neural nets--of nerves. It takes a certain amount of
traits to trigger a sexual response. That's inpart why humans find some
people sexy and some not. It just so happens that members of our same
species tend to have the proper traits to trigger the response.
Some of us are wired different, neurally, I think. That's why
animals are more attractive physically to us. Since sexual attraction is
based on a series of traits that raise a neural net ot the proper
threshold for a response, then with animals, other species can trigger
the sexual response. They just have to have the right traits. Species
is wholely irrelevant.
Wholely irrelevant? Well yeah., How often has one human said to
another just before sex, "You're human, aren't you?" Animals don't ask
what species you are. They act on appearances--smells--postures.
: Acting like an Animal
Here it comes...
: For many centuries negative attitudes toward sexuality have been
: registered by viewing sex as something that
: resulted from one's base instincts, that is, as something that reduced
: a human being to an animal. During the
: Middle Ages-- when capital punishment was prescribed for both the
: animals and the human involved in
: bestiality-- many people thought that the serpent in the Garden of
: Eden had introduced Eve to sex.
Gee--and I always though the penalty for bestiality was death
just for the same reason that penalty for being a withc was death--the
old testament says the penalty is death.
: This belief led to a debate about whether Eve and the serpent had
: actually had intercourse, and left the strong
: impression that sexual intercourse itself was bestial. Acting sexually
: was thus considered acting like an animal.
The birds do it. The bees do it. Even mestopheles do it? Why
shouldn't it be considered animal? I can see hwo some would object if
they consider to be called an animal to be pejorative.
In order for peroson to be a do-gooder, they need victims.
Judging by this woman's belief of how other people view animals, there
is a pattern of projection. She gives all animals a victim statuse,
enabling her to feel good about herself. She's a good example of why
works of sociological or psychological nature ought to have peer review.
If I recall correctly, Harriet Beecher Stowe hand't actually met any
slaves when she worte "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Somehow, I see a paralell.
As Above, So Below,
Shuunka Tanka
--
Name withheld by request
Shuunka Tanka <shu...@netcom.com> wrote:
> You know--this is getting as bad as the Christian church trying
> to dictate natural law.
This feminist preaches very much like the iron hard puritan evangellistic
christian moralists. Natural law means nothing to these people.
> If I recall correctly, Harriet Beecher Stowe hand't actually met any
> slaves when she worte "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Somehow, I see a paralell.
Good point. The problem is that she (the subject of this topic) and others
like her are so set in their beliefs and closed minded that trying to
qualify our position to them is a waste of time. The only thing we really
need to worry about is that when people that think as our feminist soap
boxer thinks get in to power people like us suffer. Like I pointed out in
an earlier post she homogonizes us into one group right along with the
rapists, abusers and murderers.
Bareback