Re: zoosexual cave art?

Stephen Wray (
06 May 1995 08:01:28 GMT

> >Having actually *seen* pornographic images of bestiality, I must say that
> >the motivation and emotional state of the humans involved interest me.
> You have "actually *seen* pornographic images of bestiality", Steven?
> Goodness gracious me, how utterly dreadful! Tell us, did you look to
> check that the emotional state of the humans involved might have
> actually been one of sexual arousal, or did you suppose perhaps that
> they might have been kneeling at prayer and it astonished you that
> they were not? That they were in fact fucking an animal.

Well, the ecstacy of sex and that of intense prayer are not entirely

I didn't suppose anything. I was trying to figure out what was behind
various aspects of the phenomena.

> Excuse me asking, but did your interest in these images extend to
> achieving an erection of your own while you were looking at them,
> maybe?

Well, no.

> What is it that you want to be looking at in your study? Sex, or the
> portrayal of sex?

Nope. What has been described as "the human condition", I guess.
The place of bestiality in society is quite strange, I think.
It is looked upon very badly by a great many people.
I am led to wonder why -- historically, animal welfare has not been one of
humanities strong points, so the reason for the anathema is unlikely to be
concern for the animal.

People who are found to be practicing this sort of thing appear to be
regarded mostly as mad, bad or sad, I think.

> How would you compare these images with other images of wild animals
> shown with very large penises indeed, much larger proportionally than
> any human penis?

*that* is a myth -- humans have a very large penis in relation to their
body size. Whales, donkeys etc are in no competition. The overlooking of
this fact by various fertility cults (and anthropologists, it seems ;-) is

> >There were no obvious signs of discomfort on the part of the animals
> >involved, and the people involved didn't seem particularly demented or
> >insane. Of course, stills (or even movies) are not the ideal means of
> >assessing these things.
> Pardon me for suggesting that both animal and person involved might
> actually ENJOY the experience. What would prompt you to be looking
> for signs of discomfort in the animal, or indications of dementia or
> insanity in the human, before the fact?

Because I'm wondering at the reasons for the social ostracism associated
with bestiality.

If the animals are not into sexual contact with a human -- assuming that
this contact dosn't lead to tissue damage to the animal -- then this
discounts "animal welfare" as a reason for the ostracism.

The "socially accepted" story is that the humans who do this are in need of
psychological treatment -- whether mad, bad or just sad.

> What would be the "ideal means" of assessing such things?

I'm not a professional anthropologist (is there such a thing?) or
psychologist, so I don't claim to have any good ideas on that one.

This is one of the reasons for my enquiry here.

> I'm going to get annoyed with you, fellow, if you don't start dealing
> with this issue, assuming your anthropological interest, in the manner
> you have been trained to deal with research data. Or perhaps you are
> working for some mob of Christian fundies, are you?

I am not an anthropologist. I am a philosopher. I am studying philosophy of
mind (among other things).

People have all sorts of ideas about what they are, and what they have that
animals don't have.

Acts of sex with animals would seem to contribute to the breakdown of
certain barriers raised between ourselves and animals -- barriers that we
may have erected (excuse the pun) ourselves (the animals don't seem to have
raised them).

It could be that the extremely negative reaction evinced by many people --
yourself included -- is a reaction against the breakdown of those barriers.

Just a thought --
Side-effects of those barriers could be the way that animals are treated in
farming and in medical research -- the more different we can make ourselves
out to be from animals, the more justification there is for not worrying
too much about how they think or feel.

The sexual act is pretty emotionally fundamental to people. If such strong
emotive ties are formed between humans and animals, and if this phenomena
were widespread and socially acceptable, the place of animals in society
could change dramatically.

Ok, so people keep pets, and have done so for millenia. But the sexual act
could mean a whole order of magnitude of difference.

> I'm going to get annoyed with you, fellow, if you don't start dealing

Please -- spare me.

> working for some mob of Christian fundies, are you?

God forbid! Didn't you even think about my .sig?

> >I'm *not* going to be any more explicit than this on a public newsgroup.
> Excuse me that I find this particular piece of prudery amusing.

Considering the bad press the internet is getting in NZ with respect to
porn, I felt it best not to enter into graphic details about the specific
sexual acts I might have seen images of.

I'm glad you are amused -- we all need a good laugh from time to time.

> For that matter, Steven, you might well care to regard the images at
> your disposal as graffiti.

Please expand on this...

I imagine a lot of cave-art fits into the "graffiti" category, if I
understand you right.

> For all that, believe me, we don't need your crud wowserism

Sorry -- whats "wowerism"?

> don't need your censorship on matters of human sexuality.

Man oh man -- I am not into censorship, and I can do without harassment
from people who are also not into censorship.

> Again, if you want us to help you, you will have to be far more clear
> as to your purpose in proposing this type of study.

I hope I've made myself clearer.

You obviously have a lot of interesting things to say, but I wish you would
keep your tone more positive. If you keep on like this, I'm not gonna
bother posting again in reply to your replies... which would be a shame.

BTW -- this is still being crossposted to;

Presumably you are reading this on sci.anthropology.
If so, next post, I'd like to change that crossposting to just
sci.anthropology, if thats ok with you.