Rod Dreher

Rod Dreher


“Neigh” doesn’t always mean no, darling

posted by Rod Dreher

From — believe it or not — Scientific American, research psychologist Jesse Bering’s charming reflections on how science is paving the way for an even wider celebration of diversity. Excerpt:

In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding–and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective–that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.

What would we do without scientific researchers? More:

Still, just as you probably do, I have a slew of unanswered questions that have yet to be addressed by researchers.

Actually, I have no questions at all. None. Well, maybe a couple, like “Does this get funded through the NIH or the National Endowment for the Arts?” and “Where’s my shotgun?”
UPDATE: A case of posso-necrophilia? Hell, I think I might be related to that there feller.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(19)
post a comment
Your Name

posted March 26, 2010 at 11:17 pm


This might be surprising to many, but in about half of the states in the US (including Texas), bestiality is not a crime. Also, about half of the states allow first cousins to marry, but not the same states that are lax on bestiality. In neither case are these… permissive states restricted to a particular part of the country or political orientation. Somehow Western Civilization has survived, and the people of those liberal hellholes like Montana, Florida, Alabama, and Arkansas are free to practice bestiality without activist judges stomping on their states’ rights.
I am a bit curious as to why some of these states have not chosen to fight nonconsensual horse rape but chose to rewrite their constitutions to criminalize certain consensual adult relationships.



report abuse
 

Irenicum

posted March 27, 2010 at 12:10 am


Wow, so many possumbilities, so little time. But I’ll stop horsing around and get to my mane point. It seems that a whole new designation for sexual preference now may need to be included: zoophilia. I had herd of pan-philia or pan-sexuality but this is catastrophic and it may dog us to our dying day! On a strangely serious note (for me), the OT prophets actually spoke about this, if in rather sarcastic terms. It may refer to more than mere rhetoric in light of recent research.



report abuse
 

Jan Hus

posted March 27, 2010 at 12:16 am


I don’t think I appreciate your tone mister.  This is who these beastialists are.  “It’s their identity… what right do you have….judge not lest…blah…blah…blah….”



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted March 27, 2010 at 12:36 am


“Neigh” is the only proper response when someone says, “Frau Blucher”.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 27, 2010 at 1:55 am


Remember the point about science being wholly insufficient as lens to determine values, in an earlier post today? Well this is Exhibit A of such.



report abuse
 

Lord Karth

posted March 27, 2010 at 2:17 am


Humans are the supreme rationalizing creatures; the perpetrators can always justify their actions.
Your servant,
Lord Karth



report abuse
 

stari_momak

posted March 27, 2010 at 4:31 am


Two words: Mr. Hands.



report abuse
 

MWorrell

posted March 27, 2010 at 7:55 am


Horrifying. As I understand it, some of the worst STDs to infest the human population come from this kind of activity. Can’t quite figure out why activities with demonstrable bad consequences have so many defenders. Live and let die, I guess.



report abuse
 

Cindy Marsch

posted March 27, 2010 at 9:03 am


One of the closing chapters of Bradford’s *Of Plymouth Plantation* has a sober account of how the community had to deal with bestiality among them. I was very moved by the people’s clear-eyed recognition that sin extends in many directions, and that it is extremely serious. Quite a contrast to Hawthorne’s harpies at the Town Pump.



report abuse
 

JS

posted March 27, 2010 at 9:29 am


I’m going to link to an article “On Being Normal” that I think might be helpful to this discussion as it explains normalcy in an evolutionary light. http://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-being-normal.html



report abuse
 

celticdragonchick

posted March 27, 2010 at 9:59 am


Uh…ewww!
That being said, science isn’t so much interested in cultural mores or religious dogma as in empiricism. All the same, I don’t particularly want to celebrate ‘hot monkey love’.



report abuse
 

Mont D. Law

posted March 27, 2010 at 12:15 pm


Feel free to pillory this minuscule end of the bell curve all you want but please stop making stuff up. STD’s don’t spread cross species.



report abuse
 

Dan Berger

posted March 27, 2010 at 12:57 pm


STD’s don’t spread cross species.
Why not? A number of other diseases do: influenza, cowpox/smallpox, malaria and trichonosis which require more than one species for its life cycle, and so on.
You’re talking through your hat, Mr. Law. HIV’s reservoir is African monkeys, though people probably don’t usually get it from them as an STD. (They probably get it by butchering them for food.)



report abuse
 

BobSF

posted March 27, 2010 at 2:36 pm


I think Rod’s little dig at diversity and Jan Hus’ bit of parody deserve some expansion.
Maybe one of them, both perhaps, could explain exactly what they mean. Civilly, of course, if there’s a civil way to say that two humans in love is like a man copulating with a horse.



report abuse
 

Mont D. Law

posted March 27, 2010 at 3:59 pm


You’re talking through your hat, Mr. Law. HIV’s reservoir is African monkeys, though people probably don’t usually get it from them as an STD. (They probably get it by butchering them for food.)
So then I’m not talking through my hat as much as I’m providing accurate information. HIV didn’t come from having sex with animals and neither any other STD you can name. So the original claim
As I understand it, some of the worst STDs to infest the human population come from this kind of activity.
is made up.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 27, 2010 at 4:25 pm


Like pedophilia, if it is an ingrained orientation, it doesn’t matter legally as the object of attraction is a sentient being who is unable to give legal consent.
However, knowing how these attractions work (are they inborn, are the learned, are they simply people using a less attractive to them but more available “outlet) can help those who want to stop abusing children and animals.



report abuse
 

Baaaaaa!

posted March 27, 2010 at 9:08 pm


Your Name writes:
“Like pedophilia, if it is an ingrained orientation, it doesn’t matter legally as the object of attraction is a sentient being who is unable to give legal consent.”
Ah…neigh.  First, who says the donkey or sheep does not give consent?  And secondly, who cares?  We slaughter sheep without their consent. We geld horses without their consent.  What’s the problem with a little love between species?  It’s a lot kinder than using them for food isn’t it?
Lastly, love and sex..in our context…is a product of our desires, no?
Who are we to deny these people their right to sexual self expression…no matter how…er…transgressive it may seem to the rest of us, with our hopelessly repressive specisism.  I say…bring it on!!  Let’s celebrate diversity.  Yeah.  Right.



report abuse
 

MH

posted March 28, 2010 at 7:47 pm


What about the people who’s kink is that they like to clean other people’s houses*? I’d prefer to read about them then somebody who likes animals as a special friend.
* I’m really not making this up. But I’m unsure if they’re more or less weird than the people who like our furry friends.



report abuse
 

the cat

posted March 29, 2010 at 9:14 am


MH
March 28, 2010 7:47 PM
“What about the people who’s kink is that they like to clean other people’s houses*? ”
MH, if you know of any please send them to my house.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Rod Dreher. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Most Recent Scientology Story on Beliefnet! Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:25:02pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Mommy explains her plastic surgery
In Dallas (naturally), a parenting magazine discusses how easy it is for mommies who don't like their post-child bodies to get surgery -- and to have it financed! -- to reverse the effects of time and childbirth. Don't like what nursing has done to your na-nas? Doc has just the solution: Doctors say

posted 10:00:56pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Why I became Orthodox
Wrapping up my four Beliefnet years, I was thinking about the posts that attracted the most attention and comment in that time. Without a doubt the most popular (in terms of attracting attention, not all of it admiring, to be sure) was the October 12, 2006, entry in which I revealed and explained wh

posted 9:46:58pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Modern Calvinists
Wow, they don't make Presbyterians like they used to!

posted 8:47:01pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

'Rape by deception'? Huh?
The BBC this morning reported on a bizarre case in Israel of an Arab man convicted of "rape by deception," because he'd led the Jewish woman with whom he'd had consensual sex to believe he was Jewish. Ha'aretz has the story here. Plainly it's a racist verdict, and a bizarre one -- but there's more t

posted 7:51:28pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.