Zoophilia: Last Taboo to Fall

Culture war

A university plans to speak on bestiality at the Australia Ideas Festival next month. This perversion

will continue to be normalized despite consent.

A group of German freaks that have had sex with dogs held a demonstration to demand recognition. Wilfred Riley says: “Look at the poor dog.

“You might say, “Oh Rod! You’re nutpicking!” Well, in 1969, Germany decriminalized sex with animals, only recriminalizing it in 2012 (hence, I suppose, the protest above). There is an alleged significant zoophile population in this country.

Well, the movement to remove the taboo on sex with animals advances now in Australia (hat tip to reader Jennifer for the article). The Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney will feature Joanna Burke (a professor) who will talk about the ethics of humans loving animals. She won’t be touching Spot after she has given him Scooby snacks.

From the article:

The historian plans to present a modern history of sex between humans and animals and will invite audience members to look at the ‘changing meanings’ of bestiality and zoophilia and the ethics of ‘animal loving’.

‘It’s only recently that some people have started to undermine the absolute ban on zoosexuality. The speaker can be cited on the website. Are their arguments perverted, dangerous or just plain wrongheaded? ‘

Angered Australians used social media to criticize festival organizers for their permission to present a lecture they claimed intellectualized animal abuse.

More:

‘Intellectualising about the abuse of animals isn’t edgy or cool. This is a horrible act and any person who goes to it is a criminal.

Others used Twitter to voice their opinions to the author and organizers of the event.

‘ This isn’t about “loving animals.” Be honest if you are going to do something heinous. It’s about animal abuse. One said, “Should on everyone involved in this session.”

‘ They are confusing having sex and loving animals. They tweeted that the first was not only illegal but unethical.

This protest’s language is very telling. The article doesn’t state that having sexual relations with animals is wrong. It’s not illegal because an animal can’t consent. They would not object if the animal consented. The zoophile would be able to claim that animals are capable of consenting to being sexually violated. The argument might be at most plausible if a zoophile was the passive participant in such a pairing.

This is what liberals in the late stage of the Sexual Revolution believe: bestiality can only be opposed on consent grounds. These people have never asked if it is possible to kill animals for food. According to their thinking, Uter of Dusseldorf cannot poke a dairy cow as she doesn’t consent but can eat hamburgers. This makes no sense.

Also, Germany is back! about twenty years ago, a gay cannibal, Arwin Meiwes, found via the Internet a sex partner who agreed to be killed and eaten by Meiwes. It was clear that the victim gave permission to Meiwes to execute the depraved act which led to his death. The four hour tape also recorded Meiwes trying to feed the victim his severed penis. Meiwes was nonetheless convicted and is now a vegetarian in prison.

What do “consenting” people think about this situation? The victim could not legally agree to his murder. Then, what do you call “euthanasia”?

Consent isn’t enough to stop sexual depravity. The depraved will try every trick to get around it. There are laws that allow minors to consent to permanent body alteration in certain American states. Parents can’t do anything to stop it. Transgender activists and those who support them in institutional power are the ones that justify this. (Relatedly: Libs of TikTok was just banned by Facebook because it draws unwanted attention to Boston Children’s Hospital’s practice of transgender surgery on minors. The depraved are friends at the top of the tech industry. Tell me, how is society going to stop perverts trying to make sex more normal with children? It cannot keep back perverts who allow children to permanent mutilate their bodies for sexual purposes that left-wingers approve. This is not possible. This is impossible. It is amazing to see how fast taboos around sexuality are changing and how quickly children are sexualized via social media and media. Libs of TikTok records elementary school teachers and kindergarten teachers bragging about gender fluidity. This is called grooming.

See also  UK University Posts Hand Selected by Communist China According to Political Allegiance: Report

I should also point out that Sydney Festival isn’t a fringe event. Here’s the program. Steven Pinker will be speaking at the festival, among other things. There are also many interesting sessions. Notably, the festival does not permit dangerous ideas to be discussed in the “dangerous idea” curation. This includes the white supremacy case. I’m glad! That dangerous idea and other ideas should not be considered taboo. They’re just tiptoeing to the edge, which left-wingers consider taboo but are still openly discussing. They are moving the Overton Window. In the coming years, expect to see efforts to normalize the practice of zoophilia through the progressives who “just ask questions”.

Another example of the paper thin protections against depravity. Here Prof. Stuart Ritchie documents and condemns both the inmorality and the complicity of fellow academics. Ritchie published an academic paper that contained illustrations of child pornography. Ritchie also wrote about the lessons he had learned. Ritchie also condemned the leftist academics that defended Ritchie’s paper, citing a Tory politician who opposed it. It’s not easy to show how horrible this stuff is, so I will have to quote disturbing material. From Prof. Ritchie’s outraged essay:

The recently-single researcher–a PhD student named Karl Andersson at the University of Manchester–describes an “experiment” where, for a period of three months, he masturbated only to shota magazines. His diary was kept, which he updated every time he masturbated. It included details about the material he used, how it was done, when and why.

It is difficult to decide which sections of this paper I should quote. It’s also hard to know what to say about the “autoethnography”, which studies where the researcher describes their personal experiences and attempts to learn lessons from society. But here’s one quotation (note the “very young”):

The examples above, with stories from a past childhood, were believable to me, as in ‘that could have happened’… If a cock presented itself, a very young boy character would jump on it. It worked for me too, but it was different. This worked for me too, but it was different.

And here’s a quotation from one of Karlsson’s diaries (I have to re-emphasize that this was published in a peer-reviewed academic paper):

I continued in bed, arranged the pillows until I was in a comfortable position, a bit ceremonial. … Now, the boy looks out from the veranda at Tokio-kun, while moving slowly. He falls on the snow, and is found. Tokio-kun is angry but excited, even though he continues to repeat “I’m not homo!” Tokio-kun, who is now open to all possibilities, starts to sniff Tokio’s cock, lick his smooth hands, and waits for his shot.

I am sorry that these images were brought up, but they are necessary. It is difficult for normal people to believe just how degenerate academics can seem. Many of their evil is hidden behind clever euphemisms. Professor Ritchie stresses that this was not published in an illegal journal of perverse and slang; rather, it was published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. This creep’s research was also approved by major British universities. More Ritchie:

A masturbation diary isn’t “research”. It is not research. We only gain a disturbing glimpse into the thoughts of the author. And that mind is very twisted. The writer Ben Sixsmith dug into Andersson’s background and found that he used to run a magazine with eroticised pictures of boys “as young as 13”, and gave a terrifying interview to Vice magazine in 2012 which has to be read to be believed. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t want to push this, but if you look at the relevant UK law, I don’t see how the shota materials he has in his possession are legal (but as I say: not a lawyer). What I am most interested in are the reactions of Karlsson’s academic colleagues. Happily, there were many academics who were repulsed by the paper and said so loudly – and good for them. It was too much when other academics noticed a Conservative MP tweeting about this study. They sprang into action – and also blundered straight into what was–deliberately-set or otherwise–a trap.

You need to read the whole thing to see what Ritchie is talking about. This group of academics, including major ones, is so ignorant that they’ll defend any attack by conservatives.

See also  ‘I Am Here Today To Talk About The Flood’: McConnell Dodges Question On Trump Raid

I bring this up to highlight that consent is a thin tissue wall of protection. If you’ve been around long enough, most of us will know how ideas once restricted to certain faculties of universities (e.g. gender fluidity), quickly took control of our society. They first conquered the minds of elites who then mainstreamed these ideas in a wider society with the aid of sympathetic media. Because we have seen this type of thing in the past, we are aware where it is heading: towards totalitarianism. As I write in Live Not By Lies:

The post-World War I generation of writers and artists were marked by their embrace and celebration of anti-cultural philosophies and acts as a way of demonstrating contempt for established hierarchies, institutions, and ways of thinking. Arendt stated that some writers glorified the will of power: “They readnot Darwin, but the Marquis de Sade ” Her point was that they didn’t use respectable intellectual theories as a justification for their inhumanity. These authors immersed themselves into the worst aspects of human nature, and considered it acts of liberation. Arendt’s judgement of postwar elites that snubbed respectability can easily be applied to today’s liberal principles such as fair play, race neutrality and freedom of speech. Arendt wrote:

The members of the elite did not object at all to paying a price, the destruction of civilization, for the fun of seeing how those who had been excluded unjustly in the past forced their way into it.

Regarding transgressive sexuality as a social good was not an innovation of the sexual revolution. Late imperial Russia, like the West today, was also full of what James Billington described as a “preoccupation with sexuality that was quite unlike anything in Russian culture.” Sexual adventurism and celebrations of perversion were common among the intellectual and social elite. Not just the elites, but also the working masses. Without a church to guilten them or gossips from the villages to shame their souls, they found solace in sex alone.

The end of official censorship after the 1905 uprising opened the floodgates to erotic literature, which found renewal in sexual passion. Billington describes how Satan was a Romantic hero to musicians and artists. “The sensualism that characterized the age was, in a very close sense, demonic.” They were impressed by the diabolic will to do whatever it took to fulfill one’s needs and exercise one’s will.

Thirty-years ago, Desmond is Amazing was a child drag artist who performed sexually explicit dances. This would have been shockingly taboo. Today, though, he is presented on national morning television as an icon of courage, and someone worth celebrating and emulating. It is clear that this involves sexualizing prepubescent children. The next step is easy to see: he will be asked to have sex with other children, or some such sophistry.

See also  Photographer can't be forced to shoot same-sex weddings, federal judge rules

The bourgeoisification and demonetization of zoophilia are on the horizon. The ideals of our civilization have been imposed upon it. While the institutional elites in our ruling class continue to suppress voices that protest the brutalization of children through these Mengele-like operations and chemical treatments, they are preparing to normalize what was previously unimaginable. Why? Why? Because Western progressivism is centered on violating sexual taboos (and you thought that the Left was primarily about economic inequality and exploitation).

This cannot continue forever. They’re destroying civilized society’s foundations. History is a good guide. However, cough cough, HITLER ) the backlash, should it come, may be more civilized. The United States is already in a situation where the Left has taken control of many major institutions, including media, education, science and medicine as well as law, military intelligence, business and sports. Many millions of Americans have made these institutions insecure. They do not care. They will liberate all of us from old-fashioned prejudices. In fifteen years, Pride will also include members of the zoophile group. It’s not fair. Why not?

I’m not trying to equate homosexual desire and bestiality. I don’t believe that legitimizing homosexuality implies legitimizing betiality. But, I’m referring to the core norms of modern society regarding sex: radical nonjudgmentalism and considering sexual desire as an integral part of your identity (and thus a human rights), etc. We have very few options to stop the depraved. The principles that underpin the movement to normalize sexual desires, and previously taboo practices can be easily applied to other types of sexual desire. Liberalism as we know it in the Sexual Revolution isn’t enough to stop the perversion tide forever. Remember, Germany post-1960s also had a pedophile movement that was supported by those in institutional power.

It doesn’t, thanks to God. This gives us hope for a society that can be brought back to its senses. It is hard to believe that sanity can still prevail in this environment of almost immediate collapse of other taboos about sex. Sociologist Frank Furedi has a short piece about how Germany is now in a rapid state of moral collapse around gender identity, including the gender identity of minors.

Seriously, how can you end legalizing zoophilia in popular cultures in which the internal barriers between people have been broken by hardcore pornography and thereby lowering their morale? What does the habit of my neighbor being cornholed and walked by his German shepherd have with me? The nitwit libertarians disagree. “Animals can’t consent!” You can squeal at the liberal nitwits. I just hope that they don’t say it with their teeth full of ham.

UPDATE: I mean, look:

This is 100% pseudoscience, and it has captured all of our scientific and medical institutions. It is very alarming. This must be fixed. https://t.co/IBeaGAEkux

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) August 18, 2022

And:

UPDATE.2: It occurs to me that this is a reprise of the old Rick Santorum “man on dog” controversy. Almost 20 years ago, the Pennsylvania senator was widely mocked and condemned for saying that if we allow same-sex marriage, what’s to stop us from legitimizing bestiality? He was so offended that no one bothered to respond. He didn’t mean to equate homosexuality with bestiality. If he did, I would find that insulting. It is possible that he was actually doing this, although I have doubts. I believe he was engaging in a reductio absurdum exercise. In which case, he used the same logic many SSM advocates used to justify gay marriage, namely individual rights and privacy, as well as the legalization of non-normative homosexual desire. Fair enough — but again, how do you draw the line? Because animals can’t consent to their being killed or eaten, but few outsiders object, consent is weak. However, consent is all that a liberal and advanced society has against sexual depravity. The zoophile might legitimately ask, “Why?” If you simply assert that betiality is bad. They could also say “It’s disgusting” to indicate that disgust is an insufficient principle for banning someone from freely exercising their personal desires.

So what, then? As a Christian traditionalist, I believe homosexuality to be sinful and disordered. It is also not like bestiality. My religious system offers a solid anthropology that is rooted in natural law and divine revelation. It is true that our society has become post-Christian, and that this anthropology is less binding. But, not enough people are aware of the consequences of abandoning Judeo-Christian social order. While it is all very well to state that laws regarding sexual behaviour can be liberalized, this would only make sense in an era when animals were still considered legitimate. The Sen. Santorum comparison is easy to see why people are offended. Twenty years later, same-sex marriage is constitutionally valid and popular. Even the majority of Republicans supports gay marriage rights. We have swiftly abandoned the gender binary that has been in place since the beginning of time, for the sake of our sovereignty and individual sexual rights. We are now abandoning monogamy in favor of polyamory, polygamy. In 2022, many things that were beyond the pale of common consideration when Rick Santorum was in office are not only in play, but in some cases mandated by law.

In 2003, when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. He did not oppose the law. His dissent was based more on the belief that the state is entitled to regulate the sexual conduct of such persons. His argument was that he wouldn’t require the state to abolish sodomy laws any more than he would for it to institute them. He argued that the law was clear on state regulation of morals (to use an old term). He wrote

if we forget that.

One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. People may decide that disapproval of homosexual behavior is sufficient to ban homosexual marriage but not enough to make private homosexual acts illegal. They may then legislate in this manner. Today, the Court pretends it has a similar freedom to act, so we don’t need to fear that judicial imposition of gay marriage is possible, such as in Canada recently (in a decision which was not appealed by Canada). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App. ); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple’s Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. It is absurd. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? It is not encouraging procreation since only the old and the sterile are permitted to get married. The case does not “involve” homosexual marriage if the Court’s decisions are based on logic and principle. The Court assures that this Court is true.

Subscribe Today

Get weekly emails in your inbox

Scalia accurately predicted that the court would rule in favor of gay marriage. Although he was mocked widely for his fear-mongering dinosaur nature, he proved to be a true believer. Also, he said that

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers‘ validation of laws based on moral choices. Today’s ruling calls into question every one of these laws. The Court does not attempt to limit the Court’s holding to them.

I used to be against the Texas Anti-Sodomy Law. However, I believed the state was entitled to enforce it and it should be repealed by the legislature. Scalia’s decision in this case is correct, and it will ultimately lead to the invalidation of all moral laws. I can’t understand how Scalia could be wrong. Here is my point.

Read More

Previous post Goodbye to the Cheneys
Next post The American Way of Growth Part I