Re: zoosexual cave art?
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Thu, 04 May 1995 07:06:25 GMT
In article <STEVEW.95May3164132@debretts.comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Stephen Wray (stevew@debretts.comp.vuw.ac.nz) writes:
>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.
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? Did you think perhaps that the artistic portrayal of such
arousal drawing such a response from you, might have been far more
relevant to your research than the human "bestiality" as such?
What is it that you want to be looking at in your study? Sex, or the
portrayal of sex? If you want to know about sex, surely you can go
visit a prostitute, or maybe catch one of those nice ewes down there
in the front paddock, and you'll find out soon enough that's a fact.
Are you looking on the other hand to understand more about sexual
auras, about fantasy and artistic imagery maybe something akin to
the *mana* of a particular work. Or perhaps you want to propose a
theory on human power over animals having domesticated them to the
point where they are so readily available for this jiggy-jig of
yours?
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? Or perhaps of half-human half-beast ancestors with a
penis so large it drags along the ground when they walk.
For that matter, of female ancestors with huge breasts and big fat
bellies, or with vaginas so cavernous that . . .
Nah! I'm just doing it all for you.
Let me say to you that you need to be far more clear to us on your
study goals if you want assistance with achieving them. What further
light do you wish to shed on the human conditin which might attract
the interest of anthropologists to helping you?
>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?
What would be the "ideal means" of assessing such things? Do you want
us to refer you to real-life test subjects so you can get a better
"feel" (pardon the pun) for what they are doing in the pictures you
have, or do you want to try it for yourself?
Maybe we can get you issued with a pass into the local nut-house, eh?
So you can see whether the demented and the insane are rooters of
sheep and chickens or not. Would you like us to herd a mob of sheep
in there too, so you can see what the inmates want to do with them?
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'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.
We find these same odd sorts of double standard here in Australia too,
where "commercial"; ie, "public", broadcasting imposes strict taboos
on what we are allowed to watch on TV, I can only suppose arising from
their close affiliations with American television.
The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), on the other hand, is only
"special" in the sense that it brings programs in from all over the
world without any embarrassment whatsoever. It is there in fact that
we have seen quite a few films about teenage farm boys rooting chooks
and donkeys (and often their own sisters and younger brothers) with
respect to their isolated, poverty stricken circumstances, broadcast
as freely (free-to-air) as all of that sanitised and totally witless
commercial crud.
Their situation, I must add, is quite sad really and by no means
confined to the remote hill country of Sicily or some OTHER horrible
such place. It has been happening all over, right here in Australia
and no doubt over there in New Zealand, Canade, the US as well. All
the jokes did NOT arise from among saints, although as we now know a
lot of them did originate among the priests and brothers.
For that matter, Steven, you might well care to regard the images at
your disposal as graffiti. As today teenagers act out their sexual and
other fantasies arising from impoverished and/or abused circumstances
with a public display, albiet usually on the walls and doors of public
toilets.
For all that, believe me, we don't need your crud wowserism and we
don't need your censorship on matters of human sexuality. Rather
those you seem to fear might go seek help somewhere; they are the
ones with the dirty minds, not us.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|