## Re: Wow! Intolerance from gays! (part 2)

Posted July 13, 1996

    In article <4ru7ir$op2@newz.oit.unc.edu>, davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David
    Whitt) wrote:

    >The problem with your thinking is you believe since "we" do something,

    It's impolite to start a message with "The problem with your thinking is...."

    >You cannot use human psychology as a template for animal psychology.

    <grin> Without that template, every animal-welfare organization on Earth
    would go out of business. :)

    >Because we feel pleasure in sex, that doesn't mean animals do too.

    The logic is sound ("because we...doesn't mean..."), but the end result is
    false. As you correctly state later on, lower animals such as
    invertebrates almost certainly derive little if any physical pleasure from
    sex, and are running almost entirely on instinct. Amphibians and reptiles
    also likely don't feel much, although animals with hemipenes (snakes, for
    example) may experience some physical stimulation: in photos I've seen,
    the hemipenes are often bright red, suggesting blood vessels (and hence
    likely nerves) close to the surface.

    >At what point do animals feel such pleasure?

    Um...when they ejaculate, perhaps? :) When their clitorises wink furiously
    and they emit a stream of urine mixed with, shall we say, some other fluid
    seen only at this time? :) I'd bet a stallion feels pleasure from the
    moment the glans enters the female, and the same would go for a male dog.
    People who artificially inseminate dogs will sometimes stimulate the
    female's clitoris manually after the pipette is inserted, in order for her
    to have her orgasm. These are scientists, so there is little doubt in the
    scientific world that higher mammals are capable of not only pleasure in
    general, but also some pretty earth-shattering orgasms. I won't go into
    the details of the mare, but suffice it to say you can't imagine it unless
    you've been there. :)

    >Do insects mate for pleasure?  Amphibians? Reptiles?  Or only birds and
    >mammals?  Along what point in the evolutionary process did this occur?

    I would agree that birds and mammals are most likely to derive pleasure
    from sexual activity, and that in the highest mammals of all (dolphins and
    primates), sexual activity is frequently done for fun, even between
    members of the same gender. The bonobo chimps of Africa are reknowned for
    their variety of sexual play: male-male, female-female, young-old,
    parent-offspring, sibling-sibling, etc. Dolphins are the same way: no
    rules except what feels good. So yes, at least these two genera do
    sometimes (often?) mate for reasons other than strictly reproductive.

    Also, many species (far more than most people would believe) masturbate in
    order to relieve sexual tension. Primates, dolphins, dogs, horses, cattle,
    cats, porcupines; the list goes on; I'll likely think of a dozen more
    after I send this off. I can provide you with references if you like. If
    the act of masturbation alleviates tension, the sensations generated by it
    would by definition constitute some form of pleasure.

    As for when in the evolutionary process this occurred, logic would suggest
    it developed concurrently with the animals themselves. Since the evolution
    of a species is intimately linked to reproductive processes, biological
    systems related to reproduction would be prioritized on a par with food
    intake and respiratory systems. (Sorry, I just watched Star Trek, and I
    have Spock on the brain. :)

    >The burden of proof is on you, not me.

    :/ Well, if we do this the scientific way (the only reasonable way, IMO),
    the burden of proof lies equally on both of us: after all, we're both
    trying to prove the other side wrong, right? :) And since you seem to have
    been proven wrong about bestiality on a number of easily researchable
    points, I'd have to say we're winning the argument. You really do need to
    learn a lot more about bestiality and zoophilia before you attempt to
    denounce these concepts in a scientific fashion. Sorry, just being
    realistic.

    >>> The fact remains that in the wild, animals
    >>>do not mate outside of their species.
    >>
    >Let me clarify this.  It is one thing to speak of different species of
    >dolphins mating with each other - they are still dolphins - and a man
    >screwing a horse.

    There are numerous instances of captive primates soliciting sexual
    activity from their keepers, including more than a few primates who became
    _very_ determined to get it, often in preference to their fellow primates.
    Another female gorilla tried to get a male dog to mate with her. I forget
    whether he succeeded. A female cetacean biologist was "passionately loved"
    (their words) by a captive male dolphin who would try every trick to get
    her to fall in the tank. She found that "his interests are hindering my
    research," and only when she held his penis and let himself jam against
    her was he sated for a while. Dolphins have also been known to use turtles
    and even sharks (!) as masturbatory aids. I could go on, but the point is
    that there are many examples of non-human animals solicting sexual
    activity from other genera, even different kingdoms. While the recipient
    is not always considered a "partner," it does at least demonstrate the
    fact that cross-species activity has a strong basis in nature: it is not
    solely a human trait.

    >If you are going to base your sexuality on the likes of a frog, that is
    >screwing anything that will stand still long enough, then say so.

    I'm afraid you're just being mean here. I doubt you actually believe it is
    our intention to portray ourselves as "screwing anything that will stand
    still long enough," although there are undoubtedly many millions of people
    who will never see human/animal interaction rise above that, just as many
    millions of people will never understand that two men could love each
    other for reasons other than "well, he just hasn't found the right girl
    yet." We all need to be more tolerant of each other, and learn about each
    other, so we don't resort to name-calling.

    >>>There is no evidence whatsoever that your sexual desire to be with animals
    >>>is genetic.  There is mounting evidence that homosexuality is.

    Current research indicates that sexual orientation is most often a
    combination of factors, from genetics to environment to (rarely)
    upbringing. "Recruiting" does not appear to play a role in it: lifestyles
    can't really be "converted."

    >Homosexuality has also been around since the dawn of man and in most cultures
    >was widely accepted.  Bestiality has never been common in any culture.

    Untrue. In most societies, both orientations have long been looked down
    upon, both historically as well as in modern times, but being gay was
    generally punished _more_ severely. While having sex with an animal was
    usually laughed off as an act of desperation, homosexuality indicated a
    seriously imbalanced and sinful mind and frequently carried the death
    penalty. Gays have never had an easy life (the ancient Greeks being one
    notable exception), and likely won't for decades to come.

    >>Bestiality was common among the druids, the arabs,
    >>and most other agrarian and herder societies.
    >
    >So was cannibalism and human sacrafice.  The point is in all civilized
    >cultures, it was looked down on.  It was not common or accepted.

    "Civilized"? :/ It is not for us to determine the civility of a society,
    past, present, or future, as much as it is tempting to do so. Besides,
    these same "civilized" cultures frequently killed gays without trial. As
    for bestiality not being accepted, one book on human sexuality goes into
    great detail about how many cultures _did_ accept bestiality, at least to
    the point of tolerance. According to an Alaskan Indian legend, white men
    arose as the result of a native woman copulating with a dog. :)

    I also am disappointed in your implied equation of bestiality with the
    taking and/or consuming of human lives. I feel that comparison is invalid
    and unwarranted, and am offended.

    >>Why do you think Rhiannon was depicted as a horse?  It was HOLY to have
    >>sex with a mare.
    >
    >Yes, and to the Aztecs it was holy to rip your still-beating heart out and
    >toss it into the flames.  Maybe I should have made the distinction between
    >barbarian societies (if one could call them such) and civilized societies.

    See previous responses. We had hoped this would be a reasonable discussion
    on tolerance of alternate lifestyles. I still hold out that hope, as well
    as the hand of friendship.

    >As for genetics, there IS a difference between instinct and genetics.

    Ah, but aren't all instincts by definition hard-wired in the genetic code?
    Instincts are not learned; they are innate. Hence, they _must_ be genetic.
    To use your own example, a cat falling from a tree and landing on its feet
    does so by instinct, as you say, but those instincts come from its DNA.

    >Can you see the difference or are you too narrow-minded and set in your views?

    Please be polite. Besides, the phrase "pot calling kettle" comes sadly to
    mind here.

    >The problem here is the burden of proof is on you to proove animals
    >engage in sex out of love.

    Well, unless you are my parents, my priest, or my police department, I'm
    not really obligated to "prove" anything to anybody. If I choose to do so,
    great; if I choose not to, well, you'll just have to trust me. :) After
    all, isn't that the way you'd reply to someone who asked you to "prove"
    that being gay wasn't a sign of mental illness? We both have alternate
    lifestyles; there's no progress in us denigrating one another.

    But to answer your question, we need to define love. We can't. It's
    impossible. I personally define it as when you are so happy to be with
    someone that to be away from that person feels like pain. But that
    definition isn't a standard, and I won't bother looking it up in the
    dictionary, for that one won't work, either. If we do go with the "pain"
    definition, the German Shepherd I write about whines when I have to take
    him home. He is so happy to be with me, he doesn't want to leave. Could
    that be love? You would argue it's just sexual desire. <shrug> Could be.
    But suppose all we do when we get together is cuddle? Another dog I know
    is a spayed female. When I walk by, she always comes up to greet me, but
    all we do is hug and maybe a little kissing. She's not interested in sex
    at all. You would argue she's just being friendly, and craving attention.
    Again, that could well be true. We may never be able to prove the animals
    love us in a way that would satisfy your (or any) definition of love, so
    why ask us to?

    >We know humans do.

    Sometimes. At least with animals, there are no head games. If an animal
    doesn't enjoy our company, he or she will leave. I think you're still
    concentrating on what most people call bestiality, but what we call
    "rape": using an animal for sexual purposes, against its will. I hope you
    understand at least a little by now than many, many people have intimate
    relations with animals with the intent of pleasing the animal as much as
    they themselves are pleased. It isn't always "tie the pig down and boink
    the bejeebers out of it." While we may not be able to prove the animals
    "love" us, we can and do love them, often with as much passion and
    devotion as for a human lover. I know many a zoo who has become very
    depressed at the loss of an animal, as depressed as you might be if your
    own lover passed away. The animals _become_ our lovers.

    There are far too many people in the world who believe that relationships
    between members of the same gender can be based only on sex; that gays and
    lesbians who claim love for their partners are only deluding themselves.
    You and I know that isn't true. You know it from personal experience. Is
    it too much a leap of logic to believe that humans and animals can truly
    be lovers as well; that cross-species relationships can be based on more
    than just sex? If it is, say so, and we'll just agree to disagree
    agreeably, move on with our lives, and leave these newsgroups in peace. :)

    >Whether or not one particular relationship is based on love is not the point.

    Actually, for the purposes of this thread, it would seem very much to be
    the point. If one relationship can be based on love, many relationships
    can be, and vice versa. It's quite germane.

    >human sexuality is influenced by love and not reproductive instict.

    Sometimes, in the best circumstances.

    >Can the same be said for animals?

    See above. Can it be disproven?

    >The burden of proof is not on me, but you.

    See previous responses to this philosophy.

    >No, but this debate is about sex.

    <blink> A minute ago, it was about love.

    >Loving an animal is not in question.  Sex is.

    I guess it's starting to boil down to the belief that humans cannot have
    both a sexual and an emotional bond with an animal; that all interaction
    is one-sided: the human may claim to love the animal, but the animal
    cannot return that love and instead is operating solely on instinct. Are
    we thinking along the same wavelength, or have I mis-summarized your
    point?

    >>Love, actually, IS an instinctive drive.  There is strong evidence
    >>that it has a survival benefit in convincing a male to stay near the
    >>female and provide for her and defend her while she is encumbered with
    >>a neotenic offspring.
    >
    >Is that love or instict?  Many animals do not do this.  Is this a measure
    >or love or is it simply in the nature of the male to do this (ie - his
    >insticts)?

    Ah, so if we define love as an instinct, the distinction between animals
    and humans where love is concerned falls away: we have the same instincts
    as animals, only we call them love. How romantic. :)

    >>Homosexuality has no obvious survival benefit,
    >
    >We do not know enough about homosexuality to rule this out.  With the
    >human population reaching 6,000,000,000 I feel we need more homosexuals.

    <blink><blink><blink><blink> Tell me I didn't read what I just read. :)

    While I'm no fan of overpopulation, and I agree that there should be _way_
    fewer people on this planet, you can't just go around saying "we need more
    homosexuals." It's not like you can go down to the 7-11 and say, "Yes, I'd
    like a dozen gays to go, and can you throw in a six-pack of lesbians?
    Thanks." :)

    Seriously, though, one of the reasons people are afraid of gays is the
    belief that they can somehow "recruit" straight people (especially
    children) and convert them to a gay lifestyle. ("Hello, would you accept
    this flower from the Church of Alternative Awareness?" :) To the best of
    my knowledge, sexual orientation can't be recruited. Fetishes can be
    experimented with (hey, put these cuffs on, you might like it), but as far
    as full lifestyle choices go, you're pretty much born the way you are.

    >You speak of human bigotry and then make a bigoted remark - implying that
    >Americans are largely illiterate.

    Webster's Ninth defines "bigot" as: "A person who is stubbornly or
    obstinately attached to his or her opinions or prejudices." You don't have
    to be racist, sexist, or any other ist to be a bigot. All you have to do
    is refuse to change your mind or take seriously any dissenting opinion.
    For example, if you believe Ford makes the best trucks, and disagree
    vehemently with anyone who even tries to suggest otherwise, you're a
    bigot. If you insist that Macs are better than PCs, and refuse to consider
    other opinions, you're a bigot. You're also absolutely right, but that's
    another thread entirely. :) <duck>

    What the speaker did was state that Americans are largely illiterate.
    That's just an opinion, or perhaps a generalization. Making one statement
    is not "technically" bigoted in and of itself, though the colloquial
    definition of bigotry includes most racist or sexist remarks. To be
    bigoted, he would have to stick to that opinion in the face of strong
    evidence to counter it, to the point where he begins to annoy people at
    his unreasonableness.

    >To imply that the majority of Americans are illiterate though is like saying
    >most blacks are criminals or most American Indians are alcoholics.

    Unfortunately, the main difference between those three generalizations is
    that two of them are definitely false, and the one that may very well be
    true is the scariest of them all. :/

    >You said "...all of the revolting public displays I've seen in clubs and
    >parking lots".  You said "I've seen".  Is the word "I" too big for you?
    >Sorry it doesn't get much smaller than that.  While you may claim you are
    >not looking for mates at clubs and parking lots, you must have at one time
    >otherwise why did you say what you said?

    You're being mean to him, and while I don't know him personally, I find
    there is value in rising to the defense of a good person, so I will defend
    him now. I read the multi-nested quotes to which the above is a reply, and
    from the context of both, it was fairly clear that he was merely a
    passer-by. Surely you've witnessed things in which you didn't yourself
    participate. You see him as you wish to see him, not as he is.

    >>sexual preference is no
    >>measure of an individual's worth, beliefs, or tolerance.
    >
    >At least we agree on one thing.

    I hope so. You seem to spend almost as much effort wearing down people who
    have relationships with other species as I do in defending them. Perhaps
    we both need to get a life, eh? :)

    >This debate is about zoophiles trying to attach themselves
    >to the gay civil rights movement.

    Whoa! Hold the phone! :) First it was about love, then it was about sex,
    now this? "Programs! Get your programs! Can't tell a thread from a spool
    without a program!" :)

    Seriously, though, the fate of gays in the public eye is inextricably
    linked to our own. I agree that an active tie between our two movements
    would only serve to hinder both at this time. But in the end, what happens
    to you happens to us. Decades from now, we may be having marches on
    Washington D.C. ourselves; who knows. We're no less deserving.

    >But don't come to us to fight for your rights for you.

    I wasn't aware that we were. I may have missed the very start of this
    thread; my ISP isn't very friendly with alt groups. But I doubt that many
    zoos would go for such an alliance, out of respect for you. While we
    ultimately want to be accepted in society as zoos, we also want you to
    succeed, and we acknowledge that having a bunch of zoos openly tagging
    along would draw unwanted publicity. The same philosophy applies to
    "riders," or small bills attached to larger political measures. They tag
    along, hoping to be passed with the main bill. I for one would rather wait
    for you to win; that will pave the road a little for us, and give us
    precedents to which we can refer. To quote a Pat Metheny album, "As
    Wichita Falls, So Falls Wichita Falls." At least I think it was Metheny,
    and I think it was an album, rather than a song title. Not much help, am
    I? But I digress. :)

    >You must get [tolerance] first before you start taking it for granted.  The
    >struggle [for acceptance of gays] is far from over.

    <nod> Agreed, sadly. I'm all for you getting there, and I find the
    tolerance for gays is stronger among zoos than almost anywhere else. I'll
    support you if you want it, but I'll also understand if you don't want to
    be connected with a group who is way behind you in the public eye.

    >So gays should fight for the rights of zoophiles, necrophiliacs, child
    >molesters, and anybody else who wants to hitch onto our movement?

    They don't have to "hitch on to your wagon" for you to pull them along.
    You can support them in silence if you wish, by voting for measures,
    writing letters to editors; there are many ways to help a cause without
    being known as a helper. Silent support is still support, and it will
    always be welcomed from any source, as long as it's genuine.

    For the record, I don't see necrophiliacs ever "coming out," not ever: it
    would take a _stunning_ change in human society to accept sex with the
    dead. And I don't really care what happens to child molesters. Well,
    actually, I do, I just don't want to discuss it on a newsgroup children
    might be illegally reading. :)

    >What makes zoophilia better than necrophillia?

    Well, it _was_ you who was talking about the consent issue. :)

    >But the gays aren't fighting you.

    Some of them are. As ironic as it sounds, having an alternate lifestyle
    doesn't automatically make you comfortable with people who have
    _alternate_ alternate lifestyles. Although I've seen a _lot_ more zoos
    come out to quell gay-bashers than vice versa. Perhaps being on the short
    end of the society stick makes us appreciate diversity all the more.

    >They just don't want to be associate with you.  There IS a difference.

    I understand, and respect that.

    >At the 1995 NC Annual Republican Convention, the notion was put forth to
    >make the Crimes Against Nature law a Capital Offense

    <sigh> Welcome to the Olympics: black entrants will be tripped. :/

    >I can see this debate is getting nowhere and it is time for this thread to
    >go into a killfile.  I know your side of the debate, you know mine.  We
    >don't agree and that's that.

    There's more to it. I firmly believe all debates can be solved if emotions
    are shelved. Like I say, I have Spock on my brain. :) If we can get past
    the emotions (except humor), there will be "some hope of a constitutional
    settlement," as they once said on a Monty Python episode. :)

    Ni! :)

visits since 8/9/97

Flames -- Updated Saturday, March 15, 1997 -- E-mail Actaeon