In article <4rjhsk$f5c@newz.oit.unc.edu>, davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David
Whitt) wrote:
>Bestiality, unlike homosexuality, is not sex between two consenting adults.
Depends on how you define "adult." An adult animal can often act more
mature, both sexually and emotionally, than an adult human.
>If you agree with bestiality, you must also see sex between and adult
>and a child.
<blink> We "must" see this? We "must"?
Hold on there, good buddy. Since I most certainly _do not_ see this, I'm
living proof this particular generality (like nearly all generalities) is
dead wrong, and I do believe at least 95% of the readers of this newsgroup
agree with me. But we'll continue with your post....
>Neither an animal nor a child can really understand what sex means
And adults do? Watch daytime TV (or your neighbors) sometime: lack of
understanding of relationships (which are what the best sex is all about)
is not limited to youth or animal nature. Sex has a meaning all its own,
and it varies by individual. If some official authority has indeed come
out with a standard definition of what "sex" means, fine. I just hope it
makes more sense than the debates between "bestialist" and "zoophile" and
"zoosexual" and so on. :) Besides, to be honest with you, I'd be willing
to bet the average animal has a far better grip on the true meaning of sex
than any human on earth.
>so they cannot consent (legally or ethically).
Animals consent just as humans do: by actively asking for, or
participating in, sexual or other physical activity. When a dog starts
licking my face, I will often open my mouth to allow its tongue to enter.
More often than not, the dog will comply readily. No force is required,
although once the animal learns the joys of Frenching, it may require some
effort to get it to stop. :) Similarly, a hand on a dog's sheath is nearly
always accepted once the dog has known you for a few minutes, and I have
never had to "force" an animal to accept this activity: it either lets you
do it, or it moves away. In fact, one dog friend of mine is frequently
swollen and ready for action, without my having to provoke him. He has
come to see me as a sexual partner, and he not only doesn't resist, he
actively seeks out my affection. Frankly, I'm very flattered. :)
The fact that such consent may not be "legally" binding is irrelevant. Only
a human can sue on behalf of an animal, and you generally have to prove
"cruelty" charges. Besides, since when should legality be the prime
arbiter for what is considered "consent"? Homosexuality is illegal in many
areas of the world; the fact that two gays cannot legally "consent" there
is a sad commentary on our times. Let us not reinforce such times again.
And as for ethics, we whose lifestyles are alternative are not here in
order to adhere to public opinions of which lifestyles or practices are
ethical. We are who we are, and we will be grateful if the world would
store its ethics in its hearts rather than wearing it on its sleeves.
"There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy...."
Only a judge, jury or lawyer is authorized to judge another person
legally, and no one who hasn't been nailed to a cross a couple thousand
years ago is really qualified to judge another person ethically. I gave
both up long ago; shortly after accepting myself as a zoo, ironically
enough. Accept yourself, and you will learn to accept others. Deny others,
and you deny yourself. No, I don't really know what that means, either,
but it sounds cool, and it's too late to delete it. :)
>When children "do" [consent], it almost always leads to trouble in the
>form of teen pregnancies, emotional trauma, and possibly injury.
<nod> You'll get no argument from me there.
>But even a child can say "no". An animal cannot.
An animal says "no" in the most direct way possible. It fights back. It
can kick, bite, scratch, growl, whine, neigh, struggle, stomp the bejeezus
out of you, or simply run away. An animal feels no moral obligation to
say, "well, he's my master, I'll let him do whatever he wants, even if I
don't like it." If an animal is asked to do something it doesn't want to
do, it simply won't do it. End of story. Animals are singularly advantaged
in that they have no pride. They're not afraid to hurt people, for they
have nothing to prove. They don't see humans as being "better"; only as
being another kind of animal, and they will treat you as such. Only humans
worship other humans; animals are not so easily fooled by an assumed
authority. So if you make sexual advantages to an animal who isn't
interested, you'd better be very strong and be wearing chain mail, or
you'd better have your life insurance policy paid in full.
A child, on the other hand, (any human, really), can be appealed to on the
emotional level. "It's okay, Billy, I know you're scared. But if you love
me, you'll let me do this to you." "It'll be our secret; don't tell Mommy,
okay?" "All families do this; it's just a personal thing we don't talk
about in public." Yechhhh. Sound familiar? Brainwashing children is
literally "as easy as stealing candy from a baby." Where do you think that
phrase came from? Using emotions such as guilt to corrupt a child's mind
breaks down the child's ability to resist. With clever psychology, you
"convince" the child that he or she "wants" to do this, and since the
child has no frame of reference with which to judge you, he or she
concedes to your authority. After all, you're an adult, right? Adults
never lie, do they?
The difference is language. Animals don't have the developed language
skills humans do, so we have to appeal to them with body language and
physical behavior only. At that, animals excel: they've had millions of
years to develop complex behavior patterns. We humans stumble into this
and try to translate as best we can, but the world is still their stage,
and we are merely actors on it. (Hey, two Shakespeare references in one
post: I think that's a record for me. :)
>In gay relationships, as in straight ones, you have two consenting adults
>who have a relationship based on love, mutual respect, and common interests.
Well, if you're lucky you do. Sometimes it's a relationship of convenience
or finance, or because your parents said you should, or because you don't
think you can find anyone better, or you don't think _your partner_ can
find anyone better, or it's a head game or a power trip or a scam or an
insurance angle. Blech. Relationships based on love, mutual respect, and
common interests are indeed possible, and quite common (my parents are one
pleasant example), but to imply that you _always_ have that in human-human
relationships is naive at best. I think you were simply trying to make a
comparison between zoophilic relationships and "normal" ones, but I also
think you failed.
>Can the same be said of bestialists?
If you are asking if humans and their animal partners can "have a
relationship based on love, mutual respect, and common interests," my
answer is an absolutely, positively, unquestionably, indubitably,
confirmedly, enthusiastically, gloriously, affirmedly, thoroughly
unqualified "yes." :)
Can we love the animals? Yes.
Can the animals love us? Yes.
Can we respect the animals? Yes.
Can the animals respect us? Yes.
Do we have common interests? Yes, we have the finest common interest of all.
Each other. :)
>From your .sig:
> ** No one can make you feel inferior
> *** without your consent.
> **** -Eleanor Roosevelt
How a` propos. :) I hereby deny you my consent to make me feel inferior. I
already know I'm not, so you'll have to work _very_ hard to convince me
that I am. I look forward to your attempts. :)
Consentingly yours,
Actaeon