William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

If We Are What We Sexually Desire, How About These Curious People?

Say, baby.

Say, baby.

Welcome BigPulpit people! Please join in the discussion.

Gender theory in brief says we are what we sexually desire. It’s not that we have desires, but that we are these desires. They are the core of our being. They make and form us. They are our orientation.

That’s why Yours Truly is not what he appears and what his biology made him, i.e. a man, a male human being, but is instead a “heterosexual” or, in slang, “a straight.” I cannot escape from this prison or these desires even if I wanted to, which I don’t. And since this state is forced upon me without my consent, and because anyway I like it, you must respect and even celebrate this fact. I must wear my orientation as a badge. You may not judge me.

We all know the other categorizations of desire and of their increasing prominence, so we needn’t cover them. But what do we make of these people, a group with very specific sexual desires?

Denmark already has a handful of animal brothels which, according to Ice News, a site specialized in Nordic reporting, charge between $85 and $170 depending on the animal of choice.

…24 percent of the population would like freedom of movement when it comes to pursuing beasts for pleasure. In a Vice Video aptly called “Animal [Edited]” one unnamed man explains what turns him on in the animal kingdom. “I’m into human females. I’m into horse females,” he says. “I’m asexual towards rats. I’m a bit voyeuristic about dogs and women.”

…People who literally love their animals have been tied to a series of side crimes. In August, a woman in New Mexico tried to kill her roommates after they witnessed her having sex with a dog and admitting to having sex “multiple times” with both roommates’ dogs. In September, a priest who was convicted of 24 counts of pedophila against Inuit people in Nanavut, Canada, had a bestiality record as well.

It’s little known, but bestiality is legal is several countries, mostly in Europe. Some animal “rights” groups are seeking to change these laws because they are concerned that animals are not giving “consent” to these odd encounters. Well, the animal that turned into my breakfast sausage probably wasn’t consulted about that, either. But let that pass. What matters is that the acts, legal or not, are somewhat common, in the sense that this kind of desire has been known across the centuries.

What to call these folks? Zoophilia is the technical term for the desire, but “zoophiliacs” is unwieldy. How about woofies? That has a pleasant, nonjudgemental, evocative tone.

Since gender theory insists we are our desires, then people who lust after aardvarks and wombats and the like are not people but woofies.

Do woofies have certain gifts and qualities to offer society? Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often woofies wish to encounter a culture that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation?

Good questions, those. The reader should answer them.

Now I know that some of you will have a “yuck” response and will say that woofie desires are “unnatural.” But I’m afraid that won’t do. Because to say something is “unnatural” is to logically imply there is such a thing as human nature. It is to admit that those critics who decry “sexual orientations” as so much farcical academic tootling and who say that instead natural law should be our guide to behavior are right. Do we really want that? Accept natural law and what happens to all those other “orientations” which are also unnatural? Some deep kimchee there, brother.

You might try insisting that woofie behavior is “disgusting”. That doesn’t fly, either. The acts of many orientations are disgusting, too, and are often crippling to health. And isn’t “disgusting” a matter of personal taste?

Can you say that woofies are “perverted”? No. That is to draw an artificial line, a line which cannot be discovered by natural law but only by reference to a vote, and votes are malleable. Today we say “perverted” and next week we all walk past the pet shop window with a gleam in our eyes, only to see us come back in time to “perverted.” People are fickle.

How about man-beast “marriages”? Several people have already walked down that aisle. “Marriage” is whatever we say it is anyway, so all woofies need to recognize their civil unions is a good judge.

Zoophobes, the bigots, haven’t a leg to stand on, morally speaking. Let’s ostracize them.

20 Comments

  1. Briggs

    October 29, 2014 at 9:27 am

    All,

    Since comments seem to be scarce, here coincidentally is an article from today’s Daily Mail.

    Couple arrested for bestiality ‘after husband uploaded video from his phone of their pet boxer performing a sex act on his wife’.

    Well, Oklahoma is filled with old-fashioned people.

  2. You may not get a lot of comments (I’m late, I know—overslept! 🙂 )

    Bottom line, we always arrive at people saying anything “they”approve of is okay and everything else is not. A tangle web of loose excuses are presented for why what “they” want is okay is presented —no consent, it’s not natural, harms no one—all which are easily countered and the discussions goes downhill from there.

    The reality is once you drop the male/female only designation (for the moment, we’ll not argue about the age thereof), there is no possible way to exclude any sexual behaviour as other than “natural” and “born with it”. None. Then if you decide some acts should be illegal because “we don’t like them”, everything to the right of the male/female line becomes a matter of same-sex, polygamy, “woofies”, necrophilia is defined by the speaker. This means the beloved homosexuality gets challenged, so we cannot go there. There is no rational discourse of acceptance of the reality of sexuality. Much like global warming, this is all politics.

    Another frightening idea: From some of the forums I have seen, people honestly think the dog or the duck or the cat is their child. Pet food companies advertise that way. How long before the dog, cat, duck, chicken, whatever, legally becomes a child? You can already get health insurance on your pets. How long before life insurance, tax credit, etc appear. Don’t laugh. Unless a miracle occurs and someone stops the insanity, it will come.

  3. Briggs

    I knew you were not speaking out of your hat.

    I knew this post was not a parody of the Synod post from last week.

    It’s just too painful to try to consider commenting on.

    Sheri did a bang up job – I’ll just ditto

    Well maybe I’ll add: Obama Care for the critters?

  4. Sander van der Wal

    October 29, 2014 at 11:31 am

    This is nothing new. There is this saying in Holland about a farmer and a female pig. And almost all of them are still happily married.

    That gender theory is a load of rubbish, BTW. If people were their desires, nobody would ever need to buy a car, for instance.

  5. Sander van der Wal

    October 29, 2014 at 11:34 am

    Mmmm. That post is not quite specific enough. Dutch farmers are still marrying women, in case people are wondering. Except the women farmers, they are marrying men.

  6. My memory goes back around 35 years, or so… I was working as a security guard to go to school.

    Just about every security guard is either putting themselves through school or they are wanna be cops.

    One of my supervisors was on his way to be a cop in Houston. He took a lie detector test and one of the questions was on beastiality (we think he would have flunked out with a yes – who knows today).

  7. Sheri, “Unless a miracle occurs and someone stops the insanity, it will come.” I am not following you at all. You don’t think that valuable animals should be insured (thoroughbred race horses or show dogs for example)? Would you deny the elderly of their one remaining comfort, an affectionate lapdog or cat and subject them to some sort of psychological test? What does “legally becomes a child” mean?

    This reminds me of an old newspaper cartoon series called “There oughta be a law”:

    http://miamiarchives.blogspot.ca/2012/04/there-oughta-be-law-comic-strip-1948.html

  8. Hey, here’s an old joke that’s apropos. A sheepherder comes into a Western bar, and says,” well I’m going out on the range”. Bartender says,” after a couple months those sheep will begin to look pretty good to you”…The sheepherder says nah…”that’s awful…I’d never do that”. …A couple months pass and he walks back into the bar leading a very pretty ewe…. as he comes in, the bartender ducks behind the bar and everybody scatters for the exits… the sheepherder asks, “what’s the matter?..you said everybody did this around here.” The bartender answers from behind the bar “That’s the sheriff’s gal you got there, sonny!”

  9. I was not referring to horses or show dogs—I am referring to the mutt or cat you can now buy “health” insurance for to cover the cover of vaccinations, surgeries and office visits, exactly like it does for human beings. Actually, though I think that insuring race horses or show dogs will vanish since that makes the horse or show dog a “possession” and not a real, living being with rights. Racing and showing will end. PETA already has that belief and will continue to push for legislation on this.

    I have no idea what you mean about the elderly—they can have a PET if they want. It’s calling that pet a child that I object to. It frightens me that human beings have lost the ability to tell the difference between a two year old human child and a dog.

    Legally becomes a child means tax deductions, “human rights” that include charging people with child abuse if they discipline their dog or cat incorrectly, calling the dog a human child and applying the same rules to the dog as the kid. Simply put, your dog is now equivalent to your child and all the same laws that apply to your child apply to your dog. Health care, vaccinations, maybe even doggy schools. There’s already doggy day care and cat fat farms. It’s coming.

  10. As I’ve opined before, we are now on the slippery slope and there’s no going back.
    This is what happens when courts decide the issue. It’s a matter of privacy, or preference, or civil right. Who’s to say what is right or wrong?

    Next up is polygamy. After that we’ll have bestiality.

    I predict here that parent + child will be harder to crack, as there are very good reasons to challenge it. And I don’t see NAMBL ever gaining ground.

  11. Sheri, I assume that your comments represent parody or satire. It would frighten me if I thought you were serious. 🙂

  12. Scotian: Be afraid. Be very afraid. 🙂

  13. Yawrate,

    I predict here that parent + child will be harder to crack, as there are very good reasons to challenge it.

    While the child is still a minor I fully agree. After that point the case gets weaker. Here’s something to think about: which is more potentially damaging, same-sex or opposite-sex sibling marriage? What about both combinations of half-sibling marriage? Same for step-sibling matrimony? Step-parent and adult step-child unions?

    As for polygamy, polygyny is the most common form. Neither it nor its opposite, polyandry, is sustainable in practice. The only thing that might work is polyamory, and indeed from a genetic diversity standpoint it makes sense in small, cloistered breeding populations.

  14. While the child is still a minor I fully agree. After that point the case gets weaker.

    The case is non-existent given the thinness of the conception Matt is mocking in this post.

    Here’s something to think about: which is more potentially damaging, same-sex or opposite-sex sibling marriage? What about both combinations of half-sibling marriage? Same for step-sibling matrimony? Step-parent and adult step-child unions?

    They are all equally damaging because they undermine the intimacy and chastity we expect in relations between parents and their siblings, between siblings, and between other close relations.

    As for polygamy, polygyny is the most common form. Neither it nor its opposite, polyandry, is sustainable in practice.

    They are certainly more ‘sustainable’ than same-sex relationships.

  15. “Well, the animal that turned into my breakfast sausage probably wasn’t consulted about that, either. But let that pass. ”

    … and “pass” it will … nice double entendre there….

    On a [somewhat] serious concept, one ought be careful not to jump to conclusions about every case of bestiality or similar human/animal “relationship” — something else might be afoot entirely. Example; the famous Roman poet, Virgil, had a funeral (43 BC) for a beloved pet, a housefly, which was ceremoniously buried on the premises, thereby rendering his home a tomb that was thus tax-exempt (or exempt from being confiscated in a then-Roman version of eminent domain, or something like that).

  16. Animal Trials: In the medieval ages secular & ecclesiastical courts put animals on trial for various offenses, complete with juries, witnesses, defense & prosecuting attorneys–all at the community’s expense (the hangman, when death was the verdict, was paid as for a human convict).
    References:

    http://www.medievalists.net/2013/09/08/medieval-animal-trials/

    https://www.animallaw.info/article/historical-and-contemporary-prosecution-and-punishment-animals

    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2013/02/medieval_animal_trials_why_they_re_not_quite_as_crazy_as_they_sound.2.html

    http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Media/CourtTrialsofAnimals.htm

    http://animalsmattertogod.com/category/medieval-europe-civil-trials-of-animals/

    Bible; e.g. Exodus 21:28: “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit [acquitted].”, and, Genesis 9:6 (generic–applicable to both other humans or animals should a human [at least a male human] be victimized).

    One cannot help but wonder what it is wrong with beef when the only distinguishing characteristic is that the animal it formerly was had been convicted of the vile deed of goring a human…sure seems like the Divine Inspirer was applying flawed cannibal philosophy whereby the eater attains characteristics of the eaten; so a person eating a killer ox would, apparently, incorporate murderous tendencies as a result [we know that some behavior inducing some attribute to the meat reflects flawed philosophy thanks to science, not philosophical superstition, by the way — even though that philosophy is, facts aside, logically self-consistent!].

  17. Ken: Stoning an ox is not kosher.

  18. dover_beach,

    The case is non-existent given the thinness of the conception Matt is mocking in this post.

    Yeah, well, he’s up to his usual trick of rooting out the unusual cases — which isn’t difficult since outliers are the most newsworthy by definition — and then sliding down every slippery slope his vivid imagination can conceive of.

    They are all equally damaging because they undermine the intimacy and chastity we expect in relations between parents and their siblings, between siblings, and between other close relations.

    Sure, but how much of that expectation is strictly societal? It would “feel” wrong to me for two step-siblings who had been raised under the same roof to fall in love as adults and get married, but two step-siblings raised in separate households doing the same thing as adults “feels” qualitatively different to me — as in not wrong. Eyebrow-raising? Yes. Wrong, no. Full siblings in a procreative relationship always “feels” wrong to me, but there are objective biological reasons for that.

    I suspect that part of the reason “pseudo-incest” feels wrong to us is that actual incest is so often (usually?) not consensual.

    They are certainly more ‘sustainable’ than same-sex relationships.

    Tell that to fundamentalist Mormon polygamist men who leave their communities because there aren’t enough women for them to marry. It gets unsustainable in a hurry, and not just because of the inherent reduction in genetic diversity. OTOH same sex female couples can still get pregnant via artificial insemination. I don’t think the day is too far off that the nucleus of one human egg will be used to fertilize another one on a routine basis, rendering human males biologically redundant from their perspective. Two men getting married is pretty much the last thing on my list of unsustainable non-procreative practices. Heck, one in five opposite-sex couples in the US don’t have kids and intend to remain that way — should we revoke their marriage licenses?

    Besides, with 7 billion of us worldwide, and still ticking upward, low birthrate is probably the least of our existential threats.

  19. I find your proposed label offensive!

  20. What’s a pleasant, nonjudgemental, evocative term for sadists? masochists? coprophagists? pedophiles?

    How about a pleasant, nonjudgemental, evocative term for people whose sexual fetish it is to hurt, torture, mutilate, or murder other people? Does the name depend on how far you go?

    Most people who have such a fetish have a favorite target age, sex, nationality, race, or religion (sometimes more than one). Does the name depend on the favorite-target group(s)?

    What if you can’t tell if the obvious pleasure taken is specifically sexual?

    Sorry for the stupid questions. I can’t lay hand to my Newspeak dictionary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑