Zoophilia and Pedophilia

This is another topic I touched on in another post, a long time ago, but given the amount of discussion I've had on it recently I feel I ought to talk more about it.

Almost invariably, like some sort of sexual Godwin's Law, when debating with someone about the morality of zoosexuality my opponent will claim that zooerasty (or "be(a)stiality" as it is far more often termed, which as far as I'm concerned is like calling anal sex "assrape") is just the same as pederasty because animals, like children, have no concept of sex and are too uneducated to appropriately respond to it.

There are many arguments against this.  Most shouldn't be necessary: any ethologist, comparative psychologist, or animal breeder will know from study or observation that animals frequently proposition others for sex, have sex, react favourably towards sex, and eventually come back again for more sex.  Sex can even be used as a reward stimulus in Pavlovian conditioning.  Humans too.  And anyone with any knowledge of natural selection would surmise that if every animal on the planet apart from humans was not capable of showing sexual readiness, propositioning others for sex, and enjoying sex, then biodiversity would be very slim indeed.  And this enjoyment of sex is definitely not limited to same-species intercourse.

But let's assume correctly that these assertions are not enough for many people, who believe that the reason children should not have sex with adults, and therefore the reason animals should not have sex with humans, is because children do not have the mental capacity to understand it.  This is true, but what these individuals do not realize is that this truth does not extend to mature animals, and that this fact is readily observable.  The easiest way to find the onset of sexual interest is to examine sex hormone levels.  These hormones are necessary not just directly to the sex drive but also to the development of various somatic and neurological structures.  We can actually see a child's brain readying itself for sexual intercourse, and this does not take place until puberty.  The same goes for any mammal, and the chemicals (mainly estrogen and testosterone) and brain structures (especially the hypothalamus and other subcortical structures in the forebrain, such as the pituitary gland, nucleus accumbens, and caudate nucleus) involved are universal, with only slight changes to relevant structures and none suggesting any human exceptionalism.



There have been organizations of pedophiles who have suggested otherwise.  Perhaps most famous is the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit) in the Netherlands, in existence from 2006-2010.  It advocated initially for a drastic reduction of age-of-consent and eventually its elimination, and it and other organizations have released pamphlets, for adults and children, with the suggestion that pre-pubescent youth can desire and even frequently proposition adults for sex.  Is this any different from what zoosexuals say about animals?

I would naturally argue that it is.  Active pedophiles tend to view entirely innocuous gestures as sexual proposition: an eight-year-old girl does a headstand and inadvertently shows her panties, or a six-year-old boy urinates at a campground, unaware or uncaring of his visibility.  Children themselves, of course, don't respond sexually when they see one another's undergarments, and even were adults to perform them, these gestures would never be recognized as sexual overtures.  The assumption would then have to be that not only are children capable of making such overtures, but have a far more complex social and sexual mind than do their post-pubescent counterparts that belies the fact that they may not get why peeing in public should be embarrassing.

It is sometimes suggested that prepubescent children masturbate or even engage in sexual conduct with one another, but this is a misrepresentation: while children may touch themselves, or touch one another in what is called "sex play" by developmental psychologists, these never result in orgasm, nor do they ever result in consistent sexual attention.  It is best regarded as exploratory, in the same fashion that a seven-year-old child who plays around with the terminal of a Linux box is not intending to learn to superdo his way into becoming a hacking sensation.  He's just curious about what's going on.

Animals are entirely different: the signals they give off, whether they be humping, displaying of genitalia, or other relevant actions, are unmistakably sexual in nature and could not conceivably be perceived to mean anything else.  As expected, animals respond sexually to one another when presented with these signals.  And unlike children, and like adult humans, they seem to benefit from consensual sexual intercourse physically and psychologically, whether their partner is of their own species or not.  It should be noted that there are many long-term physical and psychological consequences for victims of child sex abuse; indeed, the majority of individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder are victims of child sex abuse.

Finally, there is the question of authority.  This, I think, is best answered with observation and common sense: while a child, even if he or she really does not want to do something, such as going to school, washing the dishes, or eating their broccoli, they will usually do so when told to by an adult, especially one with authority, such as a parent or a teacher.  This is because we as humans have a very developed social intelligence; we have language, we have culture as a result, and we have very complex social norms that often even supercede basic needs and conditioning: that child will eat his broccoli even if it makes him vomit later, because his mother told him to.

Anyone with an animal, on the other hand, even an animal traditionally regarded as very loyal, like a dog, will know that there are many things they will simply not do without a fight no matter how much they seem to dote on you otherwise.  Whether it be going to the vet, going outside when it's cold out, or swallowing a pill, their resistance is clear even if they eventually give in.  With animals such as cats or horses, this resistance is even more clear, and more likely to result in injury to your person.  While there may be a social hierarchy in the mind of your animal, then, the importance of that power you have over them is not nearly as important as their basic needs to not be ill, not be cold, or indeed, not be used or abused sexually.  Any animal, particularly a female, will make it incredibly clear that she is not in the mood for sexual intercourse, regardless of how much she loves you: as an adult, she knows what it is, and knows that now is not the time, and that knowledge is more important than any thought that you might take away her walk privileges.

Which brings up the notion that an animal will jump to these conclusions in the first place: we don't tend to punish our animals for resisting when we want them to go outside, or take a pill.  We just make them go outside, or take the pill.  This is of course different for children: "If you don't stop whining and eat your greens, you won't have TV for a week," isn't that uncommon of a statement.  Children are trained early on to do everything their parents, and other authority figures, want, for fear of punishment.  We are far more lenient on our animals, so why should an animal ever even imagine that should they not consent to sex with us that something bad will happen?  If anything, this is much more likely to happen with our (adult!) human partners, who have been educated socially to believe that sex is necessary for a stable relationship.  To imagine that animals have any such concept is, frankly, to afford them some very hefty intuition about how our modern human culture is organized.  This is not to say that we do not have some level of control over the lives of our animals, and therefore responsibility particularly to take care of them and to ensure they act appropriately in the public space, it is not to all the same extents as children with developing biology and views of the world.

That's the end of my argument.  This took a lot of time out of a day that maybe should have been focused on something that will be productive in my career or for my family, given the time of year (Happy Holidays, zetas & friends!) but given the discussion that has been happening recently, I really felt I needed to update the blog again.

I would just like to finish on one note: despite the abuse and lunacy propagated by the most visible of pedophiles, I believe the average pedophile is someone to be pitied.  The PNVD actually advocated for a ban of zooerasty in the Netherlands, interestingly enough, all the while proclaiming that they should be allowed to have sex with prepubescent children; however, the large majority of pedophiles are not only fully aware that pederasty is grievous abuse, but are indeed terrified and often traumatized by the idea that they may someday lose control and be perpetrators of such abuse.  They have nowhere to turn in our current social system, and even mental health professionals that are willing and capable of assisting pedophiles are few and far between.  So while it has nothing at all to do with zoosexuality, I would like to appeal to the readers of this blog to empathize more with those sad individuals who are cursed with a sexual attraction to prepubescent youth.  It is only through this empathy, and the resulting support, that these individuals can be helped, and thus child sex abuse prevented for the future.  Thank you.

ZETA Responds to Anti-Zoosexuality Law

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/germany-plans-to-outlaw-sex-with-animals-a-869402.html

Many of you may be familiar with the law that is being tossed around German parliament at the moment, intending to re-criminalize sex with animals.  I personally know little about what is going on there, which I suppose helps anyone intent on discovering who I am as they now know that I am either not German or else I am very sneaky.

In any case, though, while this news is absolutely terrible for any zoos in Germany -- and really, eventually, all of Europe -- it does come with a hefty silver lining: zoo rights group ZETA is showing its face and opposing the movement.

A month or two prior to today, I had contact with a member of ZETA via email.  We had an excellent discussion about some sensitive topics, and particularly how best to achieve greater tolerance from the public.  Now, I am thrilled to hear that, at least to some extent, they are putting themselves into action when they are most needed.

Unfortunately, it seems sometimes their message is being taken the wrong way by people.  This article spends much of its time relating the group to people running sex farms and painting their dogs' claws with nail polish.  Another logical fallacy comes in when they quote a vet who notes that it is abusive for dogs to have sex outside of their heat cycles, purely because they are heat cycles (to which we, as enlightened individuals, respond, "So women can only have sex for a few days per month?")

So it seems there is a ways to go: what needs to be done is for a solid line to be drawn.  We can't be viewed as people who just think sex with animals is great and let's all be free and use the critters however we please.  We need to let the public know that we hate sex farms and abusers, if anything, even more than they do.  A common enemy is the best way to forge an alliance; the public just needs to be shown that this enemy exists, and it's not us.

I also think that more than one person -- as it is now -- need to get their face out there.  Write to news stations or to relevant politicians who are likely to be sympathetic.  Tell people your story.  It's mentioned again and again in these articles just how common zoosexuality is, but it's also implied again and again that all or almost all of these individuals are delusional and selfish animal abusers.  People don't go looking for the truth in this incredibly taboo area; they want to stay as far from it as possible and continue hating it, so we really do need to get up in their faces ourselves at this crucial time.

ZETA's website.

Dec 9, 2012: A fantastic interview by Mr Kiok.

A Tale of Forbidden Love

This video, with a whopping ~1,000 views, has got a bit of attention within the zoo community.  So in an effort to break semi-permanently from my hiatus, I am going to talk about it.

A brief synopsis: A man, in a voice-over, talks about his romantic love for his dog, who looks to be a golden lab for you canine aficionados out there.  It's all very sweet, quite melancholy with a bit of humour to it, and though the kissing scene has been noted even by several dog lovers I know/read as really weird and awkward, its heart seems to be in the right place as this couple reclines in simple enjoyment of their secret romance.  In the end, though, come the police and misguided animal welfare activists to take away the pooch, before a woman walking her dog proclaims the man a "dog fucker" followed by a cut to the credits.  The film isn't long, though, so I still recommend you watch it so you can understand what I'm about to say about it.

I know I'm kind of an inflammatory guy; my harsh remarks against COMING SOON (which, by the way, does turn out to be a total hoax; the website for EFA was built after the video and the organization itself does not exist originally, so there) got me my first external links.  But I'm not going to completely tear apart Forbidden Love.  It does paint a picture of a scene not significantly departed from reality.  It shows a mutual, loving relationship that, if a little, almost imperceptibly strange sometimes, seems legitimate enough.  Most importantly, it depicts a story of romance that is inherently tragic right from the beginning: something that is misunderstood, forcibly covert, and inevitably doomed, and tries to tug at the heartstrings of the viewers and gain their sympathy.  Overall, for the majority of the film, it at least resembles a piece I might show a visually-oriented and empathetic person who is critical of zoophilia.

But then there is the ending.  The ending that makes you realize that this is not a film made to actually break new barriers, or challenge mindsets or educate or whatever the above might imply.  It was made entirely for the sake of art, and in this case, the genre is a very dry and hollow comedy that adores its own internal irony: after all the amour, the suspense, the pleading and the heartbreak, there comes an old lady scowling and accusing with the utmost exaggerated blatancy, "Dog fucker!" while her tiny puppy hides behind her legs, and the credits roll to a strange peppy tune.  The intent is to make fun of the rest of the film, and to make fun of the audience in doing so: to say, "Hey, you weren't just feeling sorry for an animal abuser, were you?  Sick!" To emphasize this profanity, there are the variety of archaic images depicting zooerasty flashing on the screen as the credits roll, which nearly everyone expressing themselves in the comments noticed.  As far as the irony goes, I feel that it for the most part went over the heads of the audience, although a few do catch it and even the publisher on YouTube (who was not involved in the creation of the film) places it in the category of "Comedy".

So personally, I feel that this video is not the big break that some have seen it as.  Yes, it puts zoophilia on the table, but at its core, even if it goes unnoticed, it still approaches it in the same way it always is: as the butt of a joke.  Between that and documentaries with nothing but lies, or the wrong sorts of people represented, we have a long way to go before zoos are ever given anything that can be called a fair chance in mass media.  But that's just my opinion.

The Importance of Telling

Sometimes, in my posts in the past, I've liked to note first of all who is the target audience of that particular post.  This one is for zoos; this one, for people wondering what's up with this crazy blog; this one, for animal lovers of all sexualities, etc.  This particular post does have a target audience, but to be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure who makes it up: zoophiles, most definitely, but also members of other alternative sexualities and related phenomena, be they growing in social acceptability, ie homosexuality, transgender, or not so much, such as necrophilia or potentially even pedophilia if one can relate to what's said here.  The extent to which the advice in this post should be taken will vary depending on what group the reader falls into, so I'll just say this: the more taboo your sexuality, paraphilia, gender affiliation, etc. is, the more careful you should be.  I'll be speaking from the perspective of a zoosexual, obviously, which I would incidentally rate just behind pedophilia in terms of how much the general population wants to lynch you.

A little background first: a number of conversations I've had online in the last few months since I've really got my face out there have involved the idea of people knowing.  And, more often, the idea of people knowing and being OK with it.  This often takes the form of, "I really wish I could find even one other zoophile in my area so I wouldn't feel so alone." For the sake of trying not to imply a limitation here to zoophiles only, though, I'll call this "one other" the sympathetic deviant.

Rarely, though, do these lamentations of zoophiles take the form of, "I wish I could find a non-zoo who would still be my friend and be OK with my sexuality." This, I think, is because, to many, the idea of finding such a person, let alone within one's own group of friends, seems ridiculous.  On knotty.me (I sure talk about that place a lot, don't I?) I mentioned something along those lines and the first response I got was that such people are just so very rare that it's downright dangerous to hope for one.

However, the need to find a sympathetic deviant seems to be synonymous with the need to find someone who just understands.  The need for support.  I say this for two reasons: firstly, in my own experience, having non-members who are OK with your membership is more grounding and heartening than is having members.  Secondly, the drive to find fellow members in other groups seems to often be for the sake of a community of practice, which may include support but is usually preoccupied with the focal point of the practice: in this case, sex.  This is just my pulling things out of what I've seen and nothing else, but though I've heard of zoos getting support from non-zoos, I never hear of zoos supporting zoos in the real world.  For forming communities beyond the internet, we're too rare, too closeted, and too often confused with bestialists who are, put bluntly, too crazy to care about social implications.

Perhaps more importantly, though, one major common thing about sexuality and gender, beyond the taboo often against even the slightest deviation from the norm, is that people tend to hold it as a very crucial thing to their own identity in western culture, which most of us have a drive to express in a fashion that is at least in part public.  Today, sex is everywhere, and so is sexual self-assignment: I'm straight, I'm gay, I'm bi; I identify as masculine, I identify as female, I identify as something in between or nothing at all; I like a little light bondage, I'm a romantic, I'm attracted to these sorts of people... these are at least frequent topics of conversation and at most, things that people feel are very important for others to know when they are interacting with them.  In context, this means that we can make as many new sympathetic deviant friends as we like, but the fact that our current, and likely future, close friends are not aware of who we feel we are often bothers us.  We notice our discomfort with our friends who do not understand and, not recognizing the nuances discussed, simply say, "I need to find someone who understands," and because it seems so terrifying to even hint to our best friend that we deviate so strongly from this monolithic norm, that becomes, "I need to find someone else who will understand," to which the most obvious solution is a sympathetic deviant.

If we recognize this trap as one we have fallen into, though, it becomes clear that rather than searching vainly for this sympathetic deviant, we need to find a way to solve this problem of our oblivious current social group.  People who recognize this, at least implicitly, often fall into the second, much steeper trap of just standing up one day and going, "I have X taboo sexual orientation and if you don't like it well you were never my friend anyway," or something that leads to a similar conclusion.  This is bad for two reasons.  Well, probably more than two reasons, but two reasons we're interested in: first, not all our friends are really close friends to whom we are more important than taboo.  Chances are, particularly if we have a large and open social group, most members are too unattached and frankly too dense to do the right thing for you.  Secondly, there is something of an art to breaking something to someone, and it always amazes me how few people seem to understand this.

So here, on a very basic level, is our solution: Firstly, you actually only need to tell your very closest, most indispensable friend that you have known for years and with whom you would trust your life.  If they know, and even better if they are willing to discuss it, it won't matter that no one else does.  For many people, only one root is needed for that feeling of stability; just having that person with you when the rest of the group starts making jokes unknowingly targeting your proclivities will give a great deal of solace.  Secondly, we need to learn how to tell someone the untellable.

Chances are, if they are a very close friend, they will already have an idea.  I once told someone after five years of kinship, as a younger fellow and still trembling from the stress of doing so, and the response I got was, "Er, yeah?  I kind of figured that out, like, ages ago.  Up for a game?" So rather than actually telling someone, you may just need to hint it strongly.  The issue, in my mind, that people have with just standing up and saying something very taboo is that it seems like the speaker is not even particularly aware of the nature of the taboo: that the point is, you don't treat it the same way you treat, "I kissed Jenny Jenkins on the Twelfth of November" or, "I had HPV last year". These things are taboo, sure, but they can be discussed without people being disgusted, at least not in the long-term.  So instead (and again, I will speak from a zoo's perspective) you might talk about in context how gorgeous X animal is, or make known your views on animal rights and welfare, or make jokes that, should the person know about your sexuality, would seem self-mocking.  Whatever fits your personality.

Whether the hinting works or not, it's important that before you get to the point where you are both on the same level of understanding that your confidant understands just how much trust you are placing in them.  Make sure they know they can't tell another soul.  Really, this is serious, I need to get this off my chest and you're the only one I can turn to.  If you don't think you can make that promise, I understand.  That sort of thing.  You can't just spring this on someone: you have to give them the option of saying that this might be too heavy for them and just backing off.

Finally, you want to reassure your friend that you're still the same person.  You don't fit all those horrible stereotypes and ideas people may have of individuals of your tastes or orientation.  In the specific case of zoophilia: You're not interested in Jason's dog, you don't go romping around in fields at night chasing sheep; you're just living with this attraction, coming to terms with it and taking it a day at a time.  You might be thinking, "Well, what happens if he asks me about my own animals?" and though it may seem counter-intuitive, if you are active with them, and your friend knows them, sees how well you treat them, etc. you should say so.  If this individual is worth your trust, they will realize that although they may have thought of sex with animals as animal abuse, it's pretty clear that you're not abusive.  And reiterate that: say something like, "We're both happy; it's on his/her dime; he/she means the world to me, etc." You need to be truthful, and you need your friend to understand from the very day they first hear the word you've been dreading come out of your mouth.

In closing, I'd like to just once again state that this is dangerous, particularly if your proclivity is active and not entirely legal in your region.  You shouldn't be telling anyone that you don't trust completely.  We zoos, at least, though, are very empathetic people, and I think it would be reaching only in the slightest amount to say that we often have a sense for who is trustworthy and who is not.  And taking that step towards bringing your very best friend into your world can not only get you that support and grounding that you've been looking for, but also really solidify your friendship.  You might find that they start telling you things about their life that they never tell anyone else.  You'll be able to talk about anything without boundaries.  Friends like these are not found, they're made, and in that process of development there will always be some pain and sacrifice.  That's how life works.  It's how anything grows.  And you may find, as I did, that individuals who will not only listen but support you are not really so rare after all.

Good luck to you and yours.


Also, landmark: 10 000 hits!  Despite my absence, the average daily views of this blog has continued to increase.

Cambridge: Animals as Conscious as Humans

I'm about a month late to the show; summer is the season of the slowest transmission of academic information for reasons that are probably obvious, but:

"...the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Link.

What else is there really to say but, "It's about damn time"?  This is less of a scientific breakthrough and more of a political one: the stuff brought up in this conference has been basic knowledge for quite a long time.  That's a good thing: it means that it's actually going to get around to public knowledge rather than get holed up in some journal somewhere that no layman will ever hear of let alone read - especially since Stephen Hawking attended the signing, and it was also featured on 60 Minutes.

So, it's a little early now, but what can we expect to get from this?  First of all, probably a slower rate of advancement in neuroscience and medicine in general.  This sounds like a bad thing, and it may be, but it will be as a result of more stringent regulations on animal testing.

Then again, it may also more strongly suggest that animal testing is more valid, meaning you will get the same level of advancement for fewer tests.  Wherever you go there are always people saying that you can't go off of just a few animal trials because animals aren't the same as humans.  This is obviously still true, but when it comes to psych and some areas of neurosci that don't explicitly involve the neocortex, we may start being able to get more for less.

Most importantly, we'll get public acknowledgment of the worth of animals as individuals.  It's unfortunate how many people you can come across today who don't believe animals really have thoughts and feelings; these tend to be people who either were never close at all to their pets or didn't have pets at all, in my experience, which is a growing percentage of the population with continued urbanization.

As I noted before, this conference is geared primarily as a social and philosophical change rather than a scientific one, so this, I think, is where we'll start to see the most change.  It will come slowly, and perhaps I'm jumping the gun just a little here, but I would hazard that the global and inevitably successful anti-anthrocentrist movement has already begun.  As it progresses, we'll see not only changes in the way people see animals, but the way we see the natural world at large: suddenly our non-human neighbors become far more important, and conservation becomes an issue.  Environmental decline could slow as a result.  Social things too, of course: with the acknowledgment of animal consciousness, animal intelligence is only a couple steps away, and with that the rights of zoophiles.

All this from one conference?  No.  But it's a start.  I like to be optimistic, because in my experience if you publicly assume that something is going to happen, people around you believe so as well and change their behaviour accordingly, so as far as I'm concerned this is just a big step towards all of these big transformations of society and academia.  Spread the word; save the world.

I don't know when my next post will be, but the moral of the story is that if you have some news or something otherwise fascinating for me to write about, I will drop everything to do so.  Good work, "lovingpegasister".