Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Human Exceptionalism. Homo Sapiens Über Alles. Hoist the multicultural, bipedal, opposable thumbed swastika, warm up the bulldozers and pave the planet. As far as "master race" idealogues go, they're king of the hill.

So there was little surprise when I stumbled upon this bigoted little article -

Bestiality Denigrates Human Exceptionalism - by Wesley J. Smith

A man has been given three years in jail for having sex with a horse. I feel somewhat sorry for the defendant in this case, who is clearly disturbed. But I do think it is a sufficiently important issue of human exceptionalism that sex with animals should be punished as a crime. First, it is abuse. But beyond that obvious point, by definition, bestiality denigrates human dignity

No. No, no, no. "Performance reviews" with supervisors you detest denigrates human dignity. Karaoke denigrates human dignity. Workplace "sensitivity training" denigrates human dignity. But unloading your sac in a barn somewhere does not denigrate human dignity (unless you get caught).

Wesley rails hard and drips with sincerity, citing, and glibly dismissing both philospher Peter Singer and bioethicist Jacob Appel's contrary musings in a tirade that impresses only the choir -

Bestiality is so very wrong not only because using animals sexually is abusive, but because such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as “human exceptionalism.”…

This grandstanding may sound impressive, but it is grossly ill-informed and lazy. At no point has Wesley even bothered to consult with the true connoisseurs such as the enigmatic BeastBoy of usenet fame from the 90's. A regular and prolific poster of all things zoophilic, BeastBoy established quite a reputation as an absolute authority on the subject. Sadly, BeastBoy faded from public view and is now a figure of such obscurity, he no longer even exists in google caches. People are wondering if perhaps he was the fatality mentioned in the article - but this is unlikely as he was strictly hetero.

Wherever BeastBoy is, one thing is certain - he would find Wesley's frequent assertions of beast love as "abusive" to be deeply hurtful and offensive. If there is one constant theme BeastBoy's dissertations it is that consent and respect are everything. An abusive relationship is not a relationship. BeastBoy truly loved his animals, and it was evident in his writings. It can really be seen where he states how much sheep like being rolled over on their backs for love making, because that way, he can kiss them at the same time. To call it "abusive" is both shameful and ignorant.

It is sad that folks like BeastBoy have been driven underground now that the common man has arrived and overwhelmed the greater internet. The world is drabber for it, and bigots like Wesley ought to be ashamed. Here is a surving document from BeastBoy's legacy. The man was a lover first and foremost, as only he himself can explain -

A Guide to Selecting a Female Animal for Fun and Friendship

Tags: beastboy, bestiality, bigotry, exceptionalism, fnord, some idiot will take this seriously, worstiality

Views: 261

Replies to This Discussion

Yes - this perplexes me. If we have an alleged right to exploit everything non-human on the planet, why is sexual exploitation taboo ? Fucking puritans.
If we have an alleged right to exploit everything non-human on the planet, why is sexual exploitation taboo?

I had never looked at it that way before. You can use animals to perform labor and you can eat them and wear their skins, but you can't "use" them sexually. Regardless of one's personal opinion on the desirability of the practice, that's not logical.
I can see someone being against it if they DON'T eat and otherwise use animals, but if they do and they are still against this, they have their priorities wrong.
Well, they can always claim they kill animals (for meat or leather) out of necessity, while sexual exploitation of animals is, at best, entertainment. But then the same people should ban recreational hunting or fishing too.
What is rodeo if not sexual exploitation?
It's OK in islamic countries.
Btw, it was OK in Madhya Pradesh too. (See 8th picture)
While not my cup Oolong, if the beast in question is not being abused, this issue comes way down on the "Who Gives a Shit" list. If you need ewe to keep the urges at bay - so be it.
As a bonus you don't have to shell out for dinner and drinks. (how much can a pound of alfalfa and water cost?)
This is moral outrage in search of a target.
Zackly. In fact, if you read the BeastBoy thesis, the majority of it is about how to make your animal comfortable and happy, and proper courtship procedure so as to not accidentally do the thing with the unwilling. He's even caring enough to detail foreplay...
I was thinking it's a pretty expensive relationship. Horses need food and land and a stable, and you're probably not going to have a dual income!
And all this time I've been engaging in mediocriality. Wait, that's still legal, right?
PZ Myers daughter Skatje wrote a blogpost in defence of zoophilia back in 2007. It was quite a good read, but sadly she seems to have deleted the post.

Of course the Christofascists read her argument as just another proof of the evils of Darwinism.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service