All those people worrying about "Incels" could soothe their concerns; set up a charity to sponsor a goat for a person in need, make the world a better place. Alas, I doubt many incels would take advantage of such a program; it's not like they haven't got that alternative available now.
Before anyone chimes in with the "consent" argument, go meet some critters first, ok? You don't have to go find the pics of a police horse trying to violate a British bobby to find examples of enthusiastic animal interest in sex with humans. Consent can exist.
Why are conservatives so keen on wanting to shag animals? Can anyone enlighten me? What’s the allure here, people? All I’m going to think of when I see a link to unherd.com is ‘Horse shagger’ in the future.
In any case - yes, they do. There’s many reported cases of cross animal/human parasites, viruses and diseases, which can then be passed onto other humans. The more contact you have in this way with various species, the higher your risk.
The type of article like this is in the U.K. often at the moment - presented liberal with an awful lot of ‘here’s my wonderful argument that sounds liberal and intellectual but if you dig and think about it for about half a second you realise it’s a huge distraction.’
It happens a lot with comment pieces in the U.K (and when I say U.K. I really mean England here) in national magazines and newspapers. Like, never mind that he’s completely ignoring non-western modern philosophers and thinkers, not to mention left and human rights groups in those countries who are doing their own thing without having to do this kinda gross comparison, but this seems like it was also co-ordinated with the Spectator (which is a right wing magazine) which also had a weird animal sex article in it recently.
> never mind that he’s completely ignoring non-western modern philosophers and thinkers
Please, please respond with an article by a non-western philosopher on the subject of fucking animals. You will elevate this discussion by 1000%.
Actually, come to think of it, I have seen temple carvings depicting orgies involving both humans and animals. They were all depicted as having a good time. It was kind of a "make love, not war" message.
... Ok, I just googled (I'm gonna get great ads). This isn't the best example because there's no indication of how into-it the donkey is, but here's one:
I've seen better examples, though. One had a dude going at it with a shorter female figure, bent over, big grins on both their faces, while an enthusiastic dog licked her nipples. ... Don't blame me, I didn't make it up.
That's what's wrong with The West. Not enough of that old-time religion.
Buddy, the article was about moral relativism from different cultures and western grandstanding. If you want a good primer, go and read Edward Said/Franz Fanon/Huda Sha'arawi/Kim Tallbear like the rest of us.
Why are you so keen on fucking animals? Asking in good faith, assuming you’re not doing it in bad faith. You know the article is disingenuous and funded by Fox News style journalism, right?
Googling gives me one bestiality reference from Fanon:
"The effect consciously sought by colonialism was to drive into the natives' heads the idea that if the settlers were to leave, they would at once fall back into barbarism, degradation, and bestiality."(Fanon 211)
But here, opposition to bestiality is presented as a... tool of "moral superiority" constructed by Europeans for the purpose of advancing their colonial agenda.
Which is what all claims of moral superiority are, from the (deeply cynical) view of Fanon and Friends.
"So then why are you so keen to enforce norms against bestiality?", I might respond. "Because you derive sadistic pleasure from meting out punishment?"
That would be the tactic in line with that school.
Also, I can proudly say that I didn't even read the article.
And as someone just mentioned to me just now - Unherd is funded by the same people who do GBNews, who are trying to set up a Fox News style service in the U.K.
Also might be related to the Mumford who resigned from the Sons recently as well, it sounds like his Dad funds it.
The article asks a moral question, which to me is no different than asking "Is murder actually fine?"
If you go down the rabbit hole deep enough, the natural order has no rules - no laws.
So, asking this question is ridiculous. Yes, the taboos do make sense. For one, the animal doesn't want it. Also, it's probably a source of disease. Finally, what's wrong with you?
But sometimes they do. There've been dogs -- you think you've befriended the creature, then it gets the wrong idea, then you push it off, and you try to remain friendly, but that doesn't work exactly, because it gets all weird, exactly as though it's been spurned. Which I guess it has. "Sorry, you're just not my type."
I've accidentally done this to humans, too.
Though, look at it: If you were stuck inside a house all day with no friends and no opportunity to find a mate, you might get desperate too. I'm talking about the lonely dog.
But I suppose these coronavirus lockdowns have put people in a similar situation. I wonder how much more of this kind of unspeakable thing has gone on in the last year? Norms strongly influence what people admit to. Remember when everyone was straight?
> it's probably a source of disease
Since when has that been an acceptable argument against sexual expression, outside of the far-right?
14 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 11.9 ms ] threadBefore anyone chimes in with the "consent" argument, go meet some critters first, ok? You don't have to go find the pics of a police horse trying to violate a British bobby to find examples of enthusiastic animal interest in sex with humans. Consent can exist.
In any case - yes, they do. There’s many reported cases of cross animal/human parasites, viruses and diseases, which can then be passed onto other humans. The more contact you have in this way with various species, the higher your risk.
… are UK conservatives known for this? He reads as expressly Liberal.
It happens a lot with comment pieces in the U.K (and when I say U.K. I really mean England here) in national magazines and newspapers. Like, never mind that he’s completely ignoring non-western modern philosophers and thinkers, not to mention left and human rights groups in those countries who are doing their own thing without having to do this kinda gross comparison, but this seems like it was also co-ordinated with the Spectator (which is a right wing magazine) which also had a weird animal sex article in it recently.
Please, please respond with an article by a non-western philosopher on the subject of fucking animals. You will elevate this discussion by 1000%.
Actually, come to think of it, I have seen temple carvings depicting orgies involving both humans and animals. They were all depicted as having a good time. It was kind of a "make love, not war" message.
... Ok, I just googled (I'm gonna get great ads). This isn't the best example because there's no indication of how into-it the donkey is, but here's one:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Zoophilia_scen...
I've seen better examples, though. One had a dude going at it with a shorter female figure, bent over, big grins on both their faces, while an enthusiastic dog licked her nipples. ... Don't blame me, I didn't make it up.
That's what's wrong with The West. Not enough of that old-time religion.
Why are you so keen on fucking animals? Asking in good faith, assuming you’re not doing it in bad faith. You know the article is disingenuous and funded by Fox News style journalism, right?
"The effect consciously sought by colonialism was to drive into the natives' heads the idea that if the settlers were to leave, they would at once fall back into barbarism, degradation, and bestiality."(Fanon 211)
But here, opposition to bestiality is presented as a... tool of "moral superiority" constructed by Europeans for the purpose of advancing their colonial agenda.
Which is what all claims of moral superiority are, from the (deeply cynical) view of Fanon and Friends.
"So then why are you so keen to enforce norms against bestiality?", I might respond. "Because you derive sadistic pleasure from meting out punishment?"
That would be the tactic in line with that school.
Also, I can proudly say that I didn't even read the article.
Also might be related to the Mumford who resigned from the Sons recently as well, it sounds like his Dad funds it.
If you go down the rabbit hole deep enough, the natural order has no rules - no laws.
So, asking this question is ridiculous. Yes, the taboos do make sense. For one, the animal doesn't want it. Also, it's probably a source of disease. Finally, what's wrong with you?
But sometimes they do. There've been dogs -- you think you've befriended the creature, then it gets the wrong idea, then you push it off, and you try to remain friendly, but that doesn't work exactly, because it gets all weird, exactly as though it's been spurned. Which I guess it has. "Sorry, you're just not my type."
I've accidentally done this to humans, too.
Though, look at it: If you were stuck inside a house all day with no friends and no opportunity to find a mate, you might get desperate too. I'm talking about the lonely dog.
But I suppose these coronavirus lockdowns have put people in a similar situation. I wonder how much more of this kind of unspeakable thing has gone on in the last year? Norms strongly influence what people admit to. Remember when everyone was straight?
> it's probably a source of disease
Since when has that been an acceptable argument against sexual expression, outside of the far-right?