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!