Re: zoosexual cave art?
Richard Price (firstname.lastname@example.org)
19 May 1995 10:31:42 GMT
Stephen Wray (email@example.com) wrote:
: > >The way that people in society view their relationship with animals is
: > >relevent to my research interests.
: > Well, now that you explain what it is you want to know more fully,
: > perhaps we can help after all.
: > Why did you limit your enquiry to sexual relationships only? Surely
: > that is the very least interest humans have in animals.
: I happened to have noticed a reference which claimed that such cave art was
: actually quite common, and that archaeologists are ("naturally") quite
: reluctant to discuss it.
: Having never seen or heard of any other references to this topic, I was
: naturally curious.
: Having actually *seen* pornographic images of bestiality, I must say that
: the motivation and emotional state of the humans involved interest me.
: 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.
: I'm *not* going to be any more explicit than this on a public newsgroup.
: The boundaries that people draw up between themselves and animals are
: more or less flexible, depending on the people under consideration.
: As for the people who participate in thses activities, I really wonder how
: they feel about the animals involved. What sort of emotive response they
: have towards them, and especially, what sorts of relations do they have
: with people.
I realise that this doesn't relate specifically (or at all ) to cave art
but "zoosexual" activities are mentioned in references to the
enthronement of Irish High Kings (I think at Tara) when the new high
king was supposed to copulate with a mare,the horse presumably being
some form of totem and taboo animal.There are<i asume,other rites of
this type to be found around the worls and one might assume their
antiquity to be substantial.