Sexual choices, or simply... dysfunction

[infoterror]

The following interview, although it shows no sex acts, is an interview with people who like to have sex with animals.

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/52154/Animal_Passion.html

It seems to me that we are either "tolerant" or "intolerant" regarding such things, and the category picked is a matter of interpretation.

A. If we are tolerant, do we allow everything, including child, animal and corpse sex? Obviously no one would say yes, so we become intolerant.

B. If we are intolerant, at some point we become NO FUN and have to reconsider. Once we endorse, for example, anal sex between heterosexual couples, why not group anal among gays... and from there, if a horse wanders in, why not that? Thus we become tolerant.

It seems to me there is no way out here: every society will draw some line and all lines are about equal, except that it seems from history that the best societies were the least kinky without being uptight and repressive (e.g. Christianity).

 

[MURAI]

B. If we are intolerant, at some point we become NO FUN and have to reconsider. Once we endorse, for example, anal sex between heterosexual couples, why not group anal among gays... and from there, if a horse wanders in, why not that? Thus we become tolerant.

 

[Norsemaiden]

This whole issue contains a number of unsolved, or unsolvable, questions don't you think?

Perhaps no society has ever conclusively categorised what kind of behaviours constitute sexual dysfunction and which ones don't. Certainly there are extremes which have been agreed on ie. heterosexual intercourse with one's spouse in the missionary position (if the man is on top) is "normal" and getting one's kicks from genital mutilation would be dysfunctional.
The reasoning is that one results in successful reproduction (if all goes well) and the other prevents such and is thus unnatural and harmful as a practice for the species. So this is where we can get some bearings on what is or is not healthy behaviour. But then there is a whole spectrum of sexual behaviours to consider and drawing a line is very difficult.

To many people, even an open discussion about sex is in itself shocking - partly for religious reasons and partly because sex is a private thing and it is best done privately, so open discussion of it can be uncomfortable. But could being repressed about discussing sex be dysfunctional in itself or is that healthy? I suppose it must depend on the deeper motives of those discussing it? Not sure about that.

Sex is an essential part of life and something that Judeo Christian and Islamic religions generally see as sinful. Other criteria than those of religions need to be applied to figure out a non-hypocritical view.

Essentially, society's rules on sex make sense if they are based on what helps society run smoothly, as opposed to causing disruption. Social mores develop out of this.

Other related observations
a) Pagan ancient Germanics took a harsh view on adultery (somewhat eugenic)
b) pagan celts were a lot more liberal. Tacitus noted that whereas Roman women would sleep with the worst men in secret (dysgenic), Celtic women would sleep with the best men without any secrecy about it (very eugenic).
c) Spartan women were allowed by their husbands to get pregnant by other men (so they would have chosen men of quality - very eugenic).
d) There are biological differences in the preferred behaviour of certain ethnic groups. Eg. Nordics are easily satisfied long term with one partner, whereas Meditteranids have a strong tendency to be inclined to have more partners. Prostitution has never been popular in Scandinavia.

But one thing seems sure. Very mature (dying?) civilisations contain many more sexual deviances than they did at their earlier stage. These are likely to be symptoms of the degeneracy and collapse of the civilisation.

 

[Seditious]

well one thing that separates the issue from other sexual morality is that it isn't just between rational adult human sexual activity, (and since I think even assisted suicide should be legal I can't suggest any consenting activity not be tolerated out of our sight). we have no proof the animal is 'consenting' any more than the human rape victim whose vagina gets wet is consenting to rape. But since we cage and kill animals, which surely if they could give or reject consent most non-pets wouldn't give consent, why should we consider such behavior with animals in one respect and not others giving them the benefit of the doubt over sex but not life itself

It leads into the animal cruelty issue which I've been interested in lately in considering that pain isn't merely sensory.

I think if no one can prove it's harming the animals there is no ground on which to say it should be stopped.

 

[Sacred Profane]

It's sick -_- I don't need to clarify it anymore.

 

[Norsemaiden]

well one thing that separates the issue from other sexual morality is that it isn't just between rational adult human sexual activity, (and since I think even assisted suicide should be legal I can't suggest any consenting activity not be tolerated out of our sight). we have no proof the animal is 'consenting' any more than the human rape victim whose vagina gets wet is consenting to rape. But since we cage and kill animals, which surely if they could give or reject consent most non-pets wouldn't give consent, why should we consider such behavior with animals in one respect and not others giving them the benefit of the doubt over sex but not life itself

It leads into the animal cruelty issue which I've been interested in lately in considering that pain isn't merely sensory.

I think if no one can prove it's harming the animals there is no ground on which to say it should be stopped.

The disease factor is one good reason why it should be stopped. It is possible AIDs first came to humans by a practice of intercourse with monkeys and many diseases, such as TB originated in animals and passed to humans one way or another. The scope for worse STDs than ever must increase if bestiality becomes more widespread. Maybe it is the origin of all STDs - I think chlamydia came from sheep.

While prostitution, porn, and tolerance of sexual deviancy in general causes disorder for small societies, once there is a large population these things actually help to keep the order. This is because where there is dense population there is increased risk of sexual energies being diverted into violent and destructive behaviour. In Japan this is recognised by the state and porn has become an important part of their modern culture. This developed over the past decade or so. They have such a liberal attitude towards it that it seems very odd to other cultures. I don't think it can be removed as long as people live in these sort of artificial circumstances.

It looks like we could end up with an Orwellian highly regulated police state but while Orwell (in his novel 1984) thought Big Brother would outlaw eroticism, instead it will be widespread and used to keep order. Well we're nearly there now.

 

[Seditious]

The disease factor is one good reason why it should be stopped. It is possible AIDs first came to humans by a practice of intercourse with monkeys and many diseases, such as TB originated in animals and passed to humans one way or another. The scope for worse STDs than ever must increase if bestiality becomes more widespread. Maybe it is the origin of all STDs - I think chlamydia came from sheep.

who cares if animal fuckers get STDs? *Shrug*

hell smokers get cancer but I don't care to the extent it only harms them.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

who cares if animal fuckers get STDs? *Shrug*

hell smokers get cancer but I don't care to the extent it only harms them.

Because they then pass those diseases onto other people who then pass them to other people and sooner or latter normal people have those diseases as well.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I am wrong in saying that the sexually permissive Japanese society is a relatively new phenomenon. Although there was a sexually repressed stage ending just over a decade ago, they have a tradition of being really open about erotica, like Indian culture was prior to the Victiorian British influence (erotic statues and Karma sutra,etc).

There has been a history of homosexual relationships within the Japanese Buddhist institutions and this has had a big effect on Japanes attitudes towards sex generally. Japanese Penis Festival
http://www.keiskitchen.com.au/news-views/

http://www.amazon.com/Shunga-Erotic-Japan-Marco-Fagioli/dp/0789302454

 

[Cythraul]

Japanese culture is strange. Since they're so permissive regarding sexuality it seems kind of weird that they still have to censor the genitalia in their porn videos. I uhhhh...heard that from a friend.

 

[infoterror]

Denmark's animal bordellos reportedly draw Norwegian clients, but both countries have loopholes that make such establishments legal.

Neither Denmark nor Norway has a prohibition on sex with animals, as long as the animals do not suffer.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1458080.ece

 

[speed]

Since Im on a Foucault kick, I presume he may have something to offer in his History of Sexuality series. However, I have not read it, and I assume he takes a very pro-everything stance on sex (as he was a very active homosexual, and of course, spent his career pointing out the flaws of society's morals and ethics).

Personally I take a libertine approach on sex. I dont care what one screws as long as it isnt an undeveloped child, or ones son/daugther. But even that will happen, and many times without the knowledge of authorities. honestly, I think someone has probably had sex with, or gotten off on pretty much everything.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I have always thought that sexual dysfunction was the result of repression of natural sexual urges by such things as religion and societal norms. Sex is very natural and it is even seen in animals who are in zoos, that they masturbate when in a context that isn't natural.

It definately should be dysfuntional to have sex with other species, but within your own species, as long as it is consenting there really should be no problem with it. People ultimately will do what they want when no one is watching and this is the way it always has been and probablly will be as long as no one is watching.

 

[Anvil]

I agree with Silver Incubus, that its some sort of repression of natural sexual urges. A male's sex drive is an interesting subject, seeing as how its rare you hear about a female doing indecent things with animals, children, etc., although it has happened.

The male's use of sex and masturation can be for an easy stress reliever, as well as for sexual enlightenment. Seeing things like sex with animals, children, etc., is nothing new I think, but just blown apart by the media. Although media has changed our ways of thinking on such things, I don't think the male sex drive has changed that much in the last thousand years to have only recently become interested in sexual exploration in different species.

The more recent christianity in politics, society and media requires it to be frowned apon, and hence why it's so indecent in today's society. That, and the fact that women are becoming more and more of teases. Thanks female-driven media!


EDIT: However I don't condone such actions taken with animals or children.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

The following interview, although it shows no sex acts, is an interview with people who like to have sex with animals.http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/52154/Animal_Passion.html
first i gotta say i enjoyed the video, it showed the animal-sex people as real human beings as opposed to making fun of them

It seems to me that we are either "tolerant" or "intolerant" regarding such things, and the category picked is a matter of interpretation. i really don't agree with this assesment, maybe it's this way for some people, but surely not the overwhelming majority

A. If we are tolerant, do we allow everything, including child, animal and corpse sex? Obviously no one would say yes, so we become intolerant.
these are 3 completely seperate issues and i think an inteligent person would be able 3 seperate opinions on these 3 seperate things
B. If we are intolerant, at some point we become NO FUN and have to reconsider. Once we endorse, for example, anal sex between heterosexual couples, why not group anal among gays... and from there, if a horse wanders in, why not that? Thus we become tolerant.
why would anyone ever have a problem with anal between hetero couples? if a wife fucks her husband's ass with a strap-on, that's a totally seperate issue from the gay guys that do anal instead of blowjobs, and there are a few females that actually enjoy recieving anal
It seems to me there is no way out here: every society will draw some line and all lines are about equal, except that it seems from history that the best societies were the least kinky without being uptight and repressive (e.g. Christianity).

this last peice just didn't make any sense, sex is supposed to be fun, if it isn't fun then you're getting raped, and as long as all of the participants are having fun, then i don't see any problem with any type of sexual act that anyone could ever think of, and as for the specific video, i don't have a problem with these people because it's the animals that are reaching orgasm, so i don't see a problem with zoophilia unless you're flat-out raping the animals, then that's really just the same as raping a person

 

[Norsemaiden]

You do have to consider the disease aspect. If all sexual activities (not involving coercion) are allowed then there will be an increasing spread of diseases in the population. And then people will begin to require (as many do now) that their sexual partner must have a legally binding certificate showing that they are clear of disease before the other person wants to get close to them. Ironically, this could result in a more prudish society than in a society that just stuck to safer practices.

In fact, if there are many dangerous sexual diseases it can result in natural selection where those that do gay sex or do it with animals go extinct as a type and are replaced by the extreme of "no sex before marriage".
This could even have happened in the past, but not recorded in history.

 

[10293847]

It seems to me there is no way out here: every society will draw some line and all lines are about equal, except that it seems from history that the best societies were the least kinky without being uptight and repressive (e.g. Christianity).

I think that is the key in all this. While I think these people are mentally disturbed individuals, their way of life works for them, as long as it's far away from me and my people.

An adaptable society to me is one where I can agree on basic terms of life: Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not invade one's property, Do not stick a horse's cock in your mouth. Now I know that one can say that this isn't a basic value of life, but that is absolutely wrong. If we all live in the same community, and have children going to the same school, they will eventually reach a conversation where one of them tells my kids that they suck a donkey's cock (for example), and that they should try it. They then come home to me asking me if we can get a donkey that they can suck on. When I obviously say no, they end up studying at their friends house, then eventually cock-swap with the donkey.

You can't allow those very different to you to freely roam without expecting some adverse effects. They invade the values of my society, and our values are highly opposed to having sex with animals. I wouldn't be comfortable knowing that my daughter has been swallowing gallons of donkey spooge.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Those of us that find sex with animals to be abhorrent may well have a biological instinct against it that has been bred into us through natural selection. We may not be able to justify our feelings on the basis of logic (because we feel it is wrong regardless of the disease consideration) but it has become a part of our genotype to be strongly repulsed by the idea of such behaviour.

A society that is Babylonian in its sexual excess is naturally superceded by a puritanical regime, eg. Islam or Christianity. Puritanical people with strong family values breed more successfully and their type comes to predominate. They are like this not merely through conformity to their religion, but also (particularly?) because they have an instinct against what is seen as depravity.

If the objections were merely based on the disease aspect, then there would be a good argument to equate zoophilia with farming of animals for food. Many diseases have come to humankind through this: TB and Mad Cow Disease from cows; cold, flu and chicken pox from chickens; leprosy from pigs.

 

[Anvil]

I think it mostly lies on the fact that our attraction to our own species is reproduction. There is no instinctual attraction to a female of another species, because there is no means of survival in having such attraction; It must be a psychologoical abnormality.

 

[MURAI]

There has been a history of homosexual relationships within the Japanese Buddhist institutions and this has had a big effect on Japanes attitudes towards sex generally. Japanese Penis Festival
http://www.keiskitchen.com.au/news-views/

http://www.amazon.com/Shunga-Erotic-Japan-Marco-Fagioli/dp/0789302454

Yes Buddhist schools practiced homosexuality but I doubt it had too much of an effect on their population. Yeah, the samurai also practiced homosexuality and it was acceptable to practice it even on young boys.