Food For Thought #20: A Zoophile Or Not? I Think You’ve Lost The Plot!

Warning: If you are of religious zealotry persuasion, have a moral code based on religious dogma, believe that we are not animals, are intolerant of word usage that is not politically correct, or are someone unable to overcome feelings of repulsion or revulsion swamping your capacity to think, question and critique go no further!

In an almost futile search of Sunday’s Sun-Herald in an attempt to find anything that wasn’t negative about the current government, associated with sport, or about people with far too much money exhibiting silly, futile, egotistical behaviour, this little piece tucked in the right hand corner of page 25 caught my eye.  Pray read on;

 Sex With Animals

 As a child of the final year of World War II (the vanguard of the Baby Boomers), brought up through the 50’s and 60’s, you could say that my worldliness in things sexual was somewhat parochial and firmly rooted (sorry) in Victoriana.  This was rectified somewhat by a sojourn at University during the 70’s and 80’s (thanks Gough, and others) and by living life.  That’s not to say that in the world of rumpy pumpy my experience extends much beyond semi-conservative white male hetero, with curiosity leanings.

Enough of the ‘where I’m coming from backgrounder’ and back to the article.  I think that I can say with a high degree of confidence that I am most definitely not a ‘zoophile’ in the context used.  I do however like animals from having studied things biological.  I’m particularly fond of sheep (righto! I can see the innuendo forming in your mind) in that they were the primary subject of post graduate research in ruminant anaerobic microbiology.  But as a sexual object?  You can’t be serious?  Well, no! Some people quite obviously are.  And that’s curious once I passed the initial ‘Ewww’ factor (um! Sorry) left over from my conditioning as a youth.

I was particularly intrigued by the argument put forward by the zoophiles that their relationships with their animal ‘partners’ was mutual, and that animals were ‘perfectly capable of expressing whether or not they desired sex’.  I’ve read a little bit about anthropomorphising and can accept that people can quite easily attribute behaviours shown by their animals as indicating humanistic behaviour and potentially a mutual relationship.  A tail wag, a friendly bleat, could readily be construed as a mutual relationship between person and animal I guess.  We have a dog (inherited) and he certainly indicates that he wants a relationship – ‘feed me, pat me, take me for a walk and I’ll love you forever and wag my tail a lot’!  ‘I’ll even fart while I’m lying on the rug and look suitably embarrassed when the pong is detected’.  I suspect that the mutuality is highly dependent on my capacity as a provider (food, warmth, exercise) and instinctual pack behaviour a la canine.  But animals indicating in a homo sapiens/animal mutual relationship that they want sex?  Wow! Now that’s some stretch!  I’m yet to see an animal look coy, adopt a sexual pose, and flutter eyelids with a ‘come hither, you light my fire’ look!  And, to be honest, an animal has never propositioned me for a bit of hanky panky!  A biscuit yes, but hanky panky? No!

It would seem that the only animal who is primed for sexual activity without procreation as the primary driver is little old homo sapiens, abehaviour trait whichextends somewhat into our ape cousins.  But in the apes this seems to be more about sociality and dominance behaviour as I understand it.  With homo sapiens it seems to be associated with bonding, pair relationships and well, just sex and socialising really.  The religious, control freak moralisers will tell you different and stipulate a set of rules (chastity, abstinence, avoidance of self-abuse, etc), but I stopped listening to their zealotry and fanaticism many years ago.  Self abuse? An interesting concept!  So masturbation is ‘self abuse’ but flagellation isn’t?  I’ve obviously missed the finer points of the argument.

Unless all that research was wrong the stuff that was taught to us as undergraduates clearly indicated that in pretty much the rest of the animalia sex was a cyclical thing driven by procreative forces and highly dependent on hormonal indicators, seasonal factors, odour, etc.  If the bitch isn’t in oestrous then the dog, post the cursory bum sniff, isn’t much interested.  Walk a stallion past an unreceptive mare – zilch, nada! But try walking the stallion past one who is receptive.  I suspect you may have some difficulty preventing the horsing around that follows!!

So, if this is the case, how does an animal, outside of its procreative cycle, who doesn’t usually engage in sex, except in that breeding cycle, firstly have an interest in having sex, and secondly, indicate that they are sexually receptive?  Sorry folks but I think that you have taken anthropomorphising beyond the realms of credibility!  So basically, you are engaging in sex with an animal without its consent and ‘sensu stricto’ that could be regarded as rape, could it not?  For that matter is sexual intercourse with a non-consenting animal rape?  Is that taking anthromorphising too far?

The next question that arose was related to sex in general and with animals in particular and that was; ‘Is there a difference between sex undertaken by manual stimulation, with some prosthetic assistance, with a partner (female or male) or with an animal of another species?  It would seem, that at least in homo sapiens, that the difference is entirely a preferential one in such circumstances, depending on the person.  However, the proviso is that you’ll never really know whether the animal is consenting unless you can talk to the animals.  And I’m yet to see any evidence of that!  So this line of argument would suggest that sex with animals ist verboten (sorry) based on a lack of clear knowledge of consent!  Which raises another question: ‘How do you know whether a prosthetic is consenting? Hmmmm? Maybe that’s taking anthropomorphising a prosthetic too far!

I must admit I was particularly taken by the ‘good friend’, ‘celibate Dalmatian’ bit in the article.  Get your Dalmatian in heat, and a male dog within close proximity and I suspect that celibacy will fly out the window in the urge to satiate the canine biological imperative!

So, is the German law a ‘good thing’ based on animal welfare?  Or is this the moralising wowsers (under the guise of animal welfare) endeavouring to foist more restrictions on those who wish to believe that human sexuality has no boundaries and that individuals should be able to express their sexuality according to their desires?  And that’s food for thought!

 And don’t forget on Saturday September 14, 2013;

No to NO Coalition 




About deknarf

Australian born and bred who has spent most of his working life in R&D and IP management with earlier forays in the newspaper industry and martial arts. Fortunate enough to be living in one of the best countries in the World, even though I might get grumpy with it from time to time.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Food For Thought #20: A Zoophile Or Not? I Think You’ve Lost The Plot!

  1. MB says:

    Very interesting!
    Mr. Cottrell didn’t write about the world’s first zoophile-rights demonstration which took place right in the heart of Berlin the following day. You can read about it here:


  2. hangar17 says:

    Reblogged this on Time for Action.


Comments are closed.