Enough of Kiwis and gumboots.

A difficult discussion... made more so since there is no way of knowing the liaison wasn't consensual unless one partner bleats about it.

A strange choice of vehicle with which to state the bleedin' obvious.

"Animals are much easier to understand than women."

Those Germans. What a sense of humour.

Well, when I think of some goose of a politician I wonder if they shouldn't be put into that category.

...Some poor deluded folk still confuse the advanced cerebral cortex brain function with the ancient reptilian core: Pathetic really!

< Animals are much easier to understand than women >

Never a truer word!! ( :>|

.

.

Oh damn, Pericles beat me to it!

Welll… great minds do think alike!

No, sorry, I just don’t find zoophilia or bestiality disturbing.

Like any form of sexual relations, there is a complete spectrum from light and benign to very nasty. I would denounce the nasty stuff, but human/animal sexual relations per se; no problem.

Humans get up to all sorts of disgusting behaviours.

All manner of crimes, environmental destruction, antisustainability… and on into a very long list of things that are all much worse than cross-species sex.

How can an animal consent?

Zoophilia must be one of the most bizarre and selfish of human behaviours.

How do animals consent to sex with other animals of their species?

Only the god botherers have problems with sex.
Or anything that is enjoyable.

Don't let them get political power or we will all suffer.

secular humanisn bereft of any moral base leads to having sex with animals as just another choice. Any thinking person with a conscience knows it is sick like many other behaviours that the moral relativists promote and condone (usually in the guise of being open minded when in fact it is sick minds).

I long for the day when animals need to give their consent to being used in farming - made to carry loads, pull a plough, have their eggs, milk and wool taken away, race, guard, hunt, guide, entertain, be experimented on and ultimately end up as chops on man's table.

Some meat-eaters justify their behaviour claiming that there's no greater merit for an animal than to end up in man's stomach and shoes, that it may even guarantee a higher incarnation next time around:

If man indeed is so superior that even the touch of his teeth and feet brings salvation, how much more grace would it attract to actually have physical intimacy with the superior ultimate species, man... it's usually not even as hard or painful!

runner

Why only humanism?

Perhaps animals may gain pleasure, solace and religious fulfilment from the act?

Call it the paedophile priest's defence?

Evelyn,

This has drawn an interesting mixed bag of responses, some deep and some humorous.

The inner workings of human mind and the resultant desires seem destined to remain a mystery for many decades to come, perhaps even millennia.

You article is brave, thought provoking and challenging. Brave because whilst we live in a human period where almost anything can be discussed openly however, the word “almost” remains a limiting factor. Thought provoking because in spite of the times in which we live, we remain reluctant to examine ourselves in relation to such topics and challenging because I doubt that few of us actually feel comfortable with such a self examination. We don’t know what we might find. It’s much easier to just joke about it.

In the end we are dealing with things most would consider as deviations or outside the social norm. The problem comes when we try to define the “norm”.

We don’t know if such desires are part of our evolutionary pre-history, a remnant of medieval conditioning or the “liberation” of choices in a free society where various societies express themselves outside our norms. What is acceptable in Middle Eastern, African or Asian societies might not be accepted in our so called developed societies.

Perhaps some of the deviations are a product of only developed societies and don’t manifest in others? I guess by discussing these issues openly we might develop an understanding and perhaps an effective mitigation.

Thanks for the article.

Well, it's amazing just how deeply some academics can become involved with their 'subjects', and philosophize ad infinitum about the vagaries of the 'human condition', and yet not see the wood for the trees.

Irrespective of what Peter Singer may 'philosophize', or what the Romans or the Barbarians may or may not have done, we humans are a sentient and intellectual species 'apart', and what lower species may or may not do cannot give us 'carte blanche' to behave like mere anthropoids, or to enact delusional 'fantasies' in good conscience. Of course we have idiots, psychopaths, delusional misfits and 'touched' individuals (possibly even 'sects' or 'movements'), but let's not try to construe them as some 'guide' to 'alternative' possibilities for 'experimenting', or as justification for 'bestial' sexual gratification. What's 'low' is just that, and no amount of 'rationalization' can make it otherwise.

As for zoophilia: Most of us love animals (or think kindly of them), but we do not 'love' our animals. We have an RSPCA, WWF and others doing their bit to preserve and maintain the rights of animals. People of integrity look after the well-being or their pets and stock (horse, cow, sheep, goat), which is their direct responsibility - and have care for the environment and the 'natural world', in all that this encompasses, which is, or should be, also the direct responsibility of all of humanity. If these are all 'zoophiles', then count me amongst them. Those who don't care about the rights of animals, or about the environment and the preservation of nature, must be either, in part, extraordinarily selfish, or missing a gene fundamental to 'conscience'. Either way, they should be considered 'defective'.

Bestiality, in any of its forms, should therefore not be confused with zoophilia, and 'ZETA' ought be condemned as a criminal outlaw 'cult'. (And, those involved with dog fighting should be castrated.)

What a suck-up you are to be sure, spindoc.

>>You article is brave, thought provoking and challenging<<

Yarblockos, as Alex would say.

This is a green eyeshade job, conjured up by a bored journalist after a period of intense meditation along the lines of "what can I shock their poor little minds with, this week".

The topic has infinitesimal interest to anyone, beyond the frisson of wickedness-by-proxy it might elicit from your great-aunt Ethel. It says nothing of the remotest interest, tells you nothing, provides no insight, and altogether takes itself far too seriously.

Here's the key:

"In fact, out of more than 400 papers at the Minding Animals conference, there were only two that dealt with zoophilia."

Quelle surprise énorme.

The author would have you believe that this is because we are all too shy or ashamed to discuss it, rather than the simple fact that it is of interest to such a tiny minority of people. Most of them academics, of course, looking for a more exciting topic than this one...

"An app for smartphones to scan barcodes of products with meat, eggs and dairy scores on animal welfare, biodiversity, climate change and
emissions"

I kid you not. This was the paper delivered by one Hans Baaij, of Pigs in Peril, at 2p.m. on 4th July.

http://www.uu.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/GW/GW_Congres/Minding_Animals/programme%20MAC.pdf

Let's keep this in perspective, people.

I am sure runner is having a bit of a giggle at me being labelled a godbotherer.

Abuse of animals is nothing to do with religion or consensual sex.

It is in fact religion that has helped promulgate the idea that man has dominion over all things in nature by some self-appointed sense of superiority.

If we do indeed have a superior brain and are capable of higher thought surely the idea of coercing an animal into sex is a no-brainer. What two consenting adults (human beings) choose to do in the bedroom is between them.

There is one thing that humans are very good at. Hiding or avoiding the truth about themselves is one of them.

I guess in a society that is engaged in trying to legalize marriage between two people of the same sex, to find out that bestiality exists hardly comes as any surprise.

Humans are deviant creatures. Their minds are capable of contemplating the highest idealism and, two minutes later, envisaging and carrying out the most deviant acts.

The truth is that we really don't know just how deviant humans can be. Things are covered up constantly, perhaps occasionally hinted at. The news constantly reveals new depths of human sickness but the really bizarre things are left unsaid and unreported.

Even in the religious institutions, there are people who preach nobility and respect and caring for others while they damage young people for life.

Could humans really handle being confronted by what they really are? I think not. Telling lies to ourselves is commonplace.

Can humans change, become more noble? Perhaps with some genetic tinkering!

P.S. All right, a lot of genetic tinkering!

Interesting Pericles,

I think the point I was making was about those most reluctant to broach subjects such as this. One way to avoid the subject is to “joke” about it. The other, which I failed to mention, was to shoot the messenger. Enter stage left the incredible Pericles!

The topic is challenging and it is one that many are not capable of addressing. It does not matter who introduced it or “why” some are reluctant to go near it, just that they are. Pericles has given us one of those reasons however, there is no intent to address the issue, just to try to demolish those who launch the topic. “Quelle surprise énorme “.

This is OLO, so why Pericles, have you taken to giving your cat such strange looks and why has your cat left the room? Perhaps your cat has realised you are a “dead cat bounce” specialist and does not wish to participate in your fantasies.

Is your reluctance to address the question based on the fact that it is brave, thought provoking or challenging? Which bit do you find the most uncomfortable? You are not brave? Your thoughts can’t be provoked or you don’t wish to be challenged?

Could it be that in your view, it is only of interest to “a minority” and therefore not worth discussion? Ah Pericles, democracy at work, at least your version of it, when you don’t like the topic or the author, close the topic down.

Pericles, the expression disease came from “dis ease” or “ill at ease”. So what is YOUR problem? You can tell us, we won’t dob you in.

What out for that pesky cat! Meeyow!

You are kidding, of course, spindoc.

>>The topic is challenging and it is one that many are not capable of addressing<<

What exactly is "challenging" about it for you? In what way do you feel "challenged"? Why do you find yourself incapable of addressing it?

The topic is of absolute zero interest to the majority of healthy, well-balanced individuals, whether or not they fancy snuggling up to their favourite goat.

It may be that Aunt Ethel has never given it a passing thought in her eighty years on the planet, has a nervous giggle at the thought of her dog's wet tongue, then goes off to the kitchen to make the tea. But I suspect, from the comments that kicked off this thread, that most of us view it with mild amusement, no more.

Although it is just possible that there may be some folk who are secretly horrified at the thought of such depravity, and wonder to themselves, why should this be? What is it about sex with animals that revolts me so much? No doubt they would find an article such as this usefully thought-provoking. Just as, it would appear, do you.

But even you would have to admit, when you look back through the offerings from this particular ex-journalist, that their theme is pretty obvious and consistent. She selects as her topic something either mildly salacious (Natalie Portman "flicking the bean"; the history of vibrators) or mildly controversial (St Kilda Schoolgirl; employing nannies), and presents them under the guise of being "edgy", when in fact their sheer pointlessness indicates little more than some mild exploitation of her readership.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course, it is practically the entire job description of a feature journalist.

Especially when she can provoke exactly the reaction from you that she clearly has.

A mayor was showing some guests around his village. He takes them to the top of the local lookout. "See that bridge over there?", he points. "I built that bridge, but do they call me Andre the Bridge Builder? No."

"See that shipyard over there? I was the foreman of that shipyard for 15 years, but do they call me Andre the Boat Builder? No.

"See that town hall? I was mayor of this village for 20 years, but do they call me Andre the Mayor? No.

"But just shag ONE goat...."

Yep Pericles, you got it in one,

<< The topic is of absolute zero interest to the majority of healthy, well-balanced individuals>>

Says who precisely? Oh I forgot, you do. I think I’ll think for myself if that’s OK with you.

So the majority (says who and by what measure?) have absolutely zero interest, (says who and by what measure?) and anyone who has an interest is what? Oh yes, not well balanced!

I think we get it. It is the criteria of Pericles the Great that determines what is or is not of interest! Thanks, I’ll remember that when I vote for you.

The rest of your hissy fit is about who? Oh yes I forgot. It’s about denigration of the person who wrote the article. No need to read this article or respond to it because Pericles says so.

That brings us back to your cat I think? Or at least with your relationship with non sentient life forms. There are currently 4.2M biological life forms on our planet, you are in for a very busy time.

What is it about you that makes you “Pericles the Magnificent” who speaks for the entire planet?

I was thinking that you were just another self opinionated toady, then I thought no, he’s just another self opinionated toady.

Many thanks for directives on what we should or should not read or think, now where have I heard that before? Please advise Kim Young Pericles that we prefer to think for ourselves.

How’s the cat doing? Do you feed it first or do you tease it with the prospect of food before you go for the “encounter”

"How can an animal consent? "

Well, if you want to run with the consent argument, what pet has given consent ? let alone the cow in the burger pattie in a Big Mac.

To me the more egregious "crimes against animals" I can think of is locking an animal up so it can't roam, imagine, if you will a bird. What a thing ... being born with wings to be able to fly the skies and being confined to some small cage in someone's house/backyard ?

Then lets discuss peoples pet Cats killing billions of other small animals and animal species being decimated by human activity, entire species ! and yet people are worried about some farmer having intercourse with a cow ?

What a strange World we live in.

It is probably a reflection of the breakdown in human relationships in our society.Some people have more trust and love for their pets than their own families.

I think that this is a sign of our total social decay.

Gosh, isn't it tres 'Progressive' to be so accepting, encouraging even, of 'love' with animals? Next, "Why shouldn't a woman marry her lesbian Labradoodle". "If you don't want to marry your dog you don't have to, so shut your face".

If only Jerry Springer knew what opportunities for shows diversity and a spin of Greens/Labor government have brought in Australia. Australia is now so very 'evolved'.

One can only wonder what new pathogens will jump species to become serious zoonotic diseases in humans. It doesn't have to be an obvious one, close relationship between animals and then to a human as a result of the most intimate relationship imaginable. Is bird flu so easily forgotten? Like other bugs that become so dangerous in humans, bird flu is still about and like the others, it does evolve.

Sex with animals is immoral and illegal. It should stay that way. Next article.

I think Spindoc is showing his growing attraction to some 'cat' within his realm that he has failed to identify.

Obviously being a washing machine repair man he would have plenty of opportunity to take advantage of the odd pet incarcerated in a client’s laundry as he rummages through his 'bag of tools' to repair such malfeasant machinery........just thinking of course!

Geoff

Got it in one there Arjay.

There's no need to be embarrassed, spindoc, that you took the article so much to heart.

You have taken your stance on the topic, and you should be applauded for your courage. Now is not the time to think "ooo-err, I wonder whether I went just a little bit over the top".

This is, after all, an opinion forum, and it is perfectly permissible that you and I have diverging views.

Vital, in fact. It would be a very dull place indeed if we all agreed with you that the article is "brave, thought provoking and challenging".

You still haven't explained why you find it so challenging, but I guess it is a little late for that.

My cat sends her regards, by the way. She says you look magnificent when you are angry.

...Bestiality is a subject of “surreal” importance and best addressed by “Montey Pythons Flying Circus”. But I do believe the Russian army were renowned for their collective attachment to the regimental goat; (that is until it contracted VD).

...And the young country boy who, without the slightest pang of conscience failed I believe to address the moral question when satisfying a dare to engage in “love making” (wink wink), with the hospital flat cow in broad daylight under the watchful gaze of the nursing staff; this act required the “prop” of a five gallon drum for height adjustment. The pictures as proof are on file at the local police station! (“The joys of Mr Plod”, would make a lovely children’s book).

...And which is the best time to vacate a “Bikies” party, before or after the interval between the “gang-bang” and the second act of bestiality involving the local stray dog?

...In reading the above posts, this article appears to raise more questions than it answers!

A shout out to Tiddles from my two, Soot and Princess.

"Yep Pericles, you got it in one,
<< The topic is of absolute zero interest to the majority of healthy, well-balanced individuals>>"

Simple explanations are usually accurate... spindoc is more interested in bestiality than the rest of us.

Or, given, "You[r] article is brave, thought provoking and challenging" and " I guess by discussing these issues openly we might develop an understanding and perhaps an effective mitigation."

I surmise this is more likely:

'Get yer coat Evelyn, you've pulled.'

Thank you, Pericles, and Spindoc,

Consent ? When I was a kid, I had a couple of friends - brothers - who used to masturbate their dog. He used to sidle up to you, moaning. Of course, by the time I was twelve or so, I grew a bit uneasy about all this, coming from a very upright family. And yet it was out in Sydney's western suburbs - go figure.

My grandad had been a drover back around 1900 and - so I found out much later - used to talk about visiting other drovers, who were very watchful about particular sheep which hung around their camps, and which were known to others as the 'drover's wife'. Sixty years later, my grandad used to recall one with beautiful eyes - well, so my mum says.

Yes, it may be true that most animal-lovers migrated to New Zealand rather than Australia, but I think we had our fair share, out there in the sticks. It's about time they had a statue erected to them. Both.

Happy memories,

Joe