Why isn't bestiality more accepted today?

[saddlebum66]

That's absolutely retarded.
Only mentally instable people call their pets "fur babies" unironically. I have never met a pet owner that really vies their pet as their child.
But that might be because I'm not in 'murrica.


The fuck does feminism have to do with this?
You're just completely ignoring the massive male population this forum has.

How many dudes take a knot up their ass? Or even a horse's dick?

You're completely missing the mark on both of those...

Just for kicks....Feminism has a bearing on much of the Pornography post about 1970, and virulently opposed a lot of it in the late seventies. People like Andrea Dworkin, and some of the other influential Feminist Authors were often sought for interviews by the Bluenoses of the Day.

A few of them would have shut down ANY untoward depiction of female humans, and of much of the material In "Men's Magazines" generally. The printed word was not at risk, in most countries, but Pictures, Videos, some statuary was indeed threatened by them.

It appears to have been reaction to the So-called Sexual Revolution that started in the Days when condoms and the pill became generally legal and available in most places. THE PILL and Lighter Divorce Laws meant Freedom for the Ladies...a very non-Biblical sort of thing.

By ten years or so later, some of the Feministas who had celebrated that freedom earlier, had come to consider that BBWs, Ugly People, and all the other refugees from our accepted "Beauty Standard" were STILL not getting laid....And reaction set in. Never discount the power of unresolved horniness. It leads to some surprisingly stupid ideas

Late Edit: Late thought. Every civilized person in the World was horrified more recently, watching ISIS blowing apart things that cannot be replaced easily. The destructive impulses of humanity are not new, not restricted to this or that Sex. But there is power in numbers. That actually has somewhat to do with where Feminism came from in the first place.

 

[Wombat_intl]

Just for kicks....Feminism has a bearing on much of the Pornography post about 1970, and virulently opposed a lot of it in the late seventies. People like Andrea Dworkin, and some of the other influential Feminist Authors were often sought for interviews by the Bluenoses of the Day.

A few of them would have shut down ANY untoward depiction of female humans, and of much of the material In "Men's Magazines" generally. The printed word was not at risk, in most countries, but Pictures, Videos, some statuary was indeed threatened by them.

It appears to have been reaction to the So-called Sexual Revolution that started in the Days when condoms and the pill became generally legal and available in most places. THE PILL and Lighter Divorce Laws meant Freedom for the Ladies...a very non-Biblical sort of thing.

By ten years or so later, some of the Feministas who had celebrated that freedom earlier, had come to consider that BBWs, Ugly People, and all the other refugees from our accepted "Beauty Standard" were STILL not getting laid....And reaction set in. Never discount the power of unresolved horniness. It leads to some surprisingly stupid ideas

Late Edit: Late thought. Every civilized person in the World was horrified more recently, watching ISIS blowing apart things that cannot be replaced easily. The destructive impulses of humanity are not new, not restricted to this or that Sex. But there is power in numbers. That actually has somewhat to do with where Feminism came from in the first place.

People think Minneapolis is messed up today, you should have been around back when they hired Andre Dworkin to clean it up. FUBAR!

 

[Puhp]

It does not produce Farmers ... to paddle Society along.

Point of clarification (and humor), it might **indirectly** produce a few more farmers... or, at least, provide some behind-the-scenes impetus to keep working with horses and livestock.

 

[Puhp]

Great question, and one that can be asked about anything taboo - everything from porking the poodle to not directly talking about salary. Ain't nothin more than culture, and an anthropology degree would help in answering it. Religious and legal proscriptions are a way to codify culture, reflecting acceptable behavior (and outlining not only what's "unacceptable," but also HOW unacceptable it is to said culture). Gets really interesting in near-unrelated subjects, too - like, why is it generally okay to describe/show absolutely explicit violence in unrestricted media, but not overt sexuality, genitalia, or boobs 'n butts.

That being said, there's still SOME subculture acceptable zoosexuality out there – the donkey boys of Columbia come to mind:

Donkey Sex: The Most Bizarre Tradition

Claims made in this video are the opinions solely of those interviewed and are unsubstantiated, specifically claims made about Muslim people are not verified...

www.youtube.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/2rkp0b/donkey_sex_the_most_bizarre_tradition_2012_vice/

Men on Colombian coast enjoying sex with donkeys

Cartagena, Colombia

journalism.girishgupta.com

A really illuminating read on the subject of sexual practice and taboo is Porn Row, by one Jack Weatherford. It's an entry level book that juxtaposes an anthropological view of the red light district in DC with different cultures' approaches to sex and sexuality, including some rather taboo topics. Highly recco'd read.

It's something that humans wrestle with constantly... and - if not necessarily directly visible and studyable - then can be indirectly observed in legality through the years.

If we look at the last few hundred years, the French seemed to pave the way during their Revolution, when they inadvertently decriminalized zoosex by not including it in their new legal structure in the late 1700s. entering into the 20th century, During the 20th century, zoophilia was legalized in the Russian Empire in 1903, in Denmark (including Greenland and Faroes) on January 1, 1933, in Iceland on August 12, 1940, in Sweden in 1944, in Hungarian People's Republic in 1961, in West Germany in 1969, in Austria in 1971, in Finland on January 15, 1971, and Norway on April 21, 1972.

There was a little progress made and then the inevitable backlash, as the internet brought zoosexuality back into visiblity by the mainstream. WIth more public visiblity into the practices, legal backpeddling occured in France (illegal since 2004), Belgium (2007), the Netherlands (2010), Norway (2010), Australia (2011), Germany (2013), Sweden (2014), and Denmark (2015).

All in all, not a bad article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_zoophilia

 

[ihftgb]

Whatever is ''accepted'' by society, is whatever those in power want people to accept. With enough propaganda, anything can change.
And modern society is evidence of this. The narrative is changing in real life of what is now normal that wasn't considered normal before.

 

[pascal7769]

Certains croient en leur dieu d'autres pas

 

[ToastMaster]

Historically, with the dominance of judeo-christian religions, it likely stems from anything that would disrupt the nuclear family "one man, one wife", "sex only for procreation" etc.

In modern times, most people are against it because they find it disgusting, and therefore it must be bad. Because the mainstream media have no desire to push zoophilia as an agenda, there is also no serious social pressure to change it.

 

[nouveauparadigme]

The second reason is that I think the modern incarnation of Feminism would NOT support this and in fact would be totally against it. The reason I say this is that you can see the hostility of feminists towards women choosing of their own free will to be a 'traditional wife'. Those women are treated as if they are betraying the sisterhood for wanting to be submissive to their husband and be taken care of by a man. If modern 4th wave feminists can't accept a woman being submissive to a human male... we shouldn't expect that they'd very accepting of a woman deciding to be submissive to a less evolved species. Also insert common view people have that a woman having sex with a dog is somehow degrading of herself.

I think you're very wrong on this. The reason why some feminists may be critical of a woman in a traditional heterosexual relationship is because in willingly subordinating herself to her husband, she a) puts herself in a position of dependency that might end up harming her in the future and b) reproduces those structures in the relationship which disadvantage women on a societal level, thus solidifying these structures' foothold in society. Criticism of this type of relationship isn't just about your personal preference for submissiveness, it is about you recreating society's power imbalances.

But this does not apply at all if you have a submissive relationship with a male nonhuman animal. There is no narrative in society that favours a male animal over a human woman, disadvantaging her and putting the animal in a position of power; if anything it is the reverse, and a submissive relationship to an animal is actually greatly subversive in our society's power structures.

In short, feminists wouldn't be against woman/male animal relationships since they do not reproduce a power imbalance that is disadvantaging and possibly dangerous to the woman, both individually and socially. I also doubt they would see them as degrading, because in my experience those people who are feminist will also be much more likely to question human exceptionalism and see our fellow animals as equal to us, rather than "less evolved" or inferior.



And also, for every feminist who says you should not enter a traditional hetero relationship, you'll find one who says it is completely your choice and someone who sees it ambivalently. This is by no means a decided issue, and if you think all feminists are against it, it is because you have only heard some of them speak.

 

[Red_Neptune]

I think you're very wrong on this. The reason why some feminists may be critical of a woman in a traditional heterosexual relationship is because in willingly subordinating herself to her husband, she a) puts herself in a position of dependency that might end up harming her in the future and b) reproduces those structures in the relationship which disadvantage women on a societal level, thus solidifying these structures' foothold in society. Criticism of this type of relationship isn't just about your personal preference for submissiveness, it is about you recreating society's power imbalances.

But this does not apply at all if you have a submissive relationship with a male nonhuman animal. There is no narrative in society that favours a male animal over a human woman, disadvantaging her and putting the animal in a position of power; if anything it is the reverse, and a submissive relationship to an animal is actually greatly subversive in our society's power structures.

In short, feminists wouldn't be against woman/male animal relationships since they do not reproduce a power imbalance that is disadvantaging and possibly dangerous to the woman, both individually and socially. I also doubt they would see them as degrading, because in my experience those people who are feminist will also be much more likely to question human exceptionalism and see our fellow animals as equal to us, rather than "less evolved" or inferior.



And also, for every feminist who says you should not enter a traditional hetero relationship, you'll find one who says it is completely your choice and someone who sees it ambivalently. This is by no means a decided issue, and if you think all feminists are against it, it is because you have only heard some of them speak.

I like this take though I could add much to the conversation.

In short, my experience is you either run into the traditional woman who enjoys it because it's taboo and she has to traditionally submit to the authority of an animal instead of male human or the left leaning woman who embraces it as empowerment though still taboo.

However people are complex in emotion and thought especially when it comes to conclusions and morals. We could ask all the women of the forum and we'd still get very different reasons. It's best not to put them in a singular box.

Also the "feminist hate men therefore would never like dogs" is such a funny line of thought. As if conservative traditionalist would even be more accepting Lol

 

[K_9River_rat]

I wonder why they prohibited it in the first place though. Did Noah catch his wife with the family goat and invent a prohibition on animal sex in their religion as revenge? Were they worried about people having so much sex with animals that they wouldn't have sex with their wives/husbands and have babies? Was there an out break of some kind of STD that jumped from animals to humans because? Or, did someone just randomly decide it was bad?

These are the things that go through my brain when I'm bored.

From the little bit of research I've done, it would appear that the biblical mention likely came from disease, specifically rabies.

I'm not going to go back and dig again for all the sources, but it appears there was a massive rabies outbreak shortly before the biblical mention..

The people of the time, not understanding disease and such like we do now, saw people that were intimate with animals die. So jumped to the conclusion that sex with animals must be bad...

 

[K_9River_rat]

Sadly I don't think this will ever be accepted into mainstream society. I have two main reasons... and religion is not it.

I think the main thing preventing it... is that people treat and equate dogs as 'almost children'. Look at how many people call their cats/dogs "fur babies". They treat them and relate to them the way they would to little kids. And since most people have an obvious revulsion to anything sexuality with children (as they should) the idea of sex with a dog ends up being reviled as well.

The second reason is that I think the modern incarnation of Feminism would NOT support this and in fact would be totally against it. The reason I say this is that you can see the hostility of feminists towards women choosing of their own free will to be a 'traditional wife'. Those women are treated as if they are betraying the sisterhood for wanting to be submissive to their husband and be taken care of by a man. If modern 4th wave feminists can't accept a woman being submissive to a human male... we shouldn't expect that they'd very accepting of a woman deciding to be submissive to a less evolved species. Also insert common view people have that a woman having sex with a dog is somehow degrading of herself.

On point, as usual!

 

[r3dr0ck3t]

Ever since the bible was invented, people have blindly obeyed the rules. Those who wanted to think outside the box and try something new and exiting were severely condemned and punished. Nothing has changed even 2000 years later.

Nothing has changed since the Fall. Btw, a lot of the rules youre talking about if followed usually lead to a family oriented life with no crime record. We might slip from time to time but don't throw the baby out with the towel (whatever the saying is XD)

 

[katoss]

I wonder why they prohibited it in the first place though. Did Noah catch his wife with the family goat and invent a prohibition on animal sex in their religion as revenge? Were they worried about people having so much sex with animals that they wouldn't have sex with their wives/husbands and have babies? Was there an out break of some kind of STD that jumped from animals to humans because? Or, did someone just randomly decide it was bad?

These are the things that go through my brain when I'm bored.

Interesting ideas. I'm not sure why they're were so against it. Some people getting sick from it would be a cause. Maybe an innate feeling that most people are against it. We're just the exception.

 

[saddlebum66]

I wonder why they prohibited it in the first place though. Did Noah catch his wife with the family goat and invent a prohibition on animal sex in their religion as revenge? Were they worried about people having so much sex with animals that they wouldn't have sex with their wives/husbands and have babies? Was there an out break of some kind of STD that jumped from animals to humans because? Or, did someone just randomly decide it was bad?

These are the things that go through my brain when I'm bored.

It precedes Noah by a Millennia of Millenniums. BTW, if youre going ti bring the Bible into the discussion, you'd better bone up on it. Noah was not a Lawgiver.

Most of the People of the Book were not. Many of their enemies WERE.

The Prohibitions almost always had a purpose, though the purposes are not always clear in our day. But especially for pastoral and nomadic peoples, birthrates are critical to prosperity. You are correct in that guess. I suspect the stds jumping from one host to another is correct as well.

But do not rule out societal disapproval for no reason at all, other than disgust. In those times, people were conquered, or one or more conquerors. Defeat allows an inhospitable climate to fester about the defeated. That, historically, has always led to a society forbidding practices simply because they do not want their children associating with the children of lesser beings.... These may be all, some or none of the actual reasons. Most were already in place long before Scripture came into existance.

 

[saddlebum66]

I think you're very wrong on this. The reason why some feminists may be critical of a woman in a traditional heterosexual relationship is because in willingly subordinating herself to her husband, she a) puts herself in a position of dependency that might end up harming her in the future and b) reproduces those structures in the relationship which disadvantage women on a societal level, thus solidifying these structures' foothold in society. Criticism of this type of relationship isn't just about your personal preference for submissiveness, it is about you recreating society's power imbalances.

But this does not apply at all if you have a submissive relationship with a male nonhuman animal. There is no narrative in society that favours a male animal over a human woman, disadvantaging her and putting the animal in a position of power; if anything it is the reverse, and a submissive relationship to an animal is actually greatly subversive in our society's power structures.

In short, feminists wouldn't be against woman/male animal relationships since they do not reproduce a power imbalance that is disadvantaging and possibly dangerous to the woman, both individually and socially. I also doubt they would see them as degrading, because in my experience those people who are feminist will also be much more likely to question human exceptionalism and see our fellow animals as equal to us, rather than "less evolved" or inferior.



And also, for every feminist who says you should not enter a traditional hetero relationship, you'll find one who says it is completely your choice and someone who sees it ambivalently. This is by no means a decided issue, and if you think all feminists are against it, it is because you have only heard some of them speak.

Only one reply to that....are your ears acting as barbs?

In any unestablished movement worthy of its cause, Orthodoxy of Thought and Policy become a critically important issue.

I submit that if you are trying to gain acceptance of a position, you do not sabotage it by supporting things and concepts Anathematic to those whose acceptance you need. Feminists are no different, and certainly not stupid.

Even after 25 decades of Women advocating for equality, they haven't got it yet. They have not given up, but gaining ground is snail-slow....You really think the movement is going to be openly approving of those basic ideas of abnormal behaviors?

Feminists have a tough-enough row to hoe, without poking themselves in the eye with a sharp stick. I doubt that, as a policy to be pursued, our little hobby's acceptance problem even remotely occurs to them as a possibility or as a desirable state.

 

[Obbgirl]

It's so hard to even find others in the wild. Like the swingers have their pineapple, we can't really do that. I wish we could!

 

[Jmmp2803]

Because most people think it's animal abuse

 

[Bloit]

Because most people think it's animal abuse

It's this simple.

 

[diggy dick]

Mybe the reason is human can't make animal pregnant, if yes mybe beastiality not gonna be a problem....

Even in my society long ago, some man practice a magic that can turn them into a tiger

 

[humperwumper]

I wonder why they prohibited it in the first place though. Did Noah catch his wife with the family goat and invent a prohibition on animal sex in their religion as revenge? Were they worried about people having so much sex with animals that they wouldn't have sex with their wives/husbands and have babies? Was there an out break of some kind of STD that jumped from animals to humans because? Or, did someone just randomly decide it was bad?

These are the things that go through my brain when I'm bored.

Agrarian/civilised society places a lot of value on inherited lands and privileges. Marriages govern access to land and status. I think that is a big reason why so many aspects of gender and sexuality are controlled in the Abrahamic religions - because sex = marriage = power.
By contrast, native American culture (mostly egalitarian and nomadic) seems to have been very permissive, and still was even 20 years ago compared with the rest of US society (I'm old, I was there).
In Europe today, I would tentatively suggest that the more egalitarian a country is, the more tolerant its attitudes to bestiality, but that has been changing rapidly in the wrong direction in the last few years.
Anyway, there is also the "ick" factor for many people and this can be exploited by the politically motivated moralizers. The ick factor, or at least a defensiveness, is not unique to humans. Aversion to extraneous sexual contact is pretty universal among all species of mammals (females of most species will kill males who approach at the wrong time), but said aversion is always finely balanced with horniness, which is why interspecies sex is also not uncommon, and often seems to involve male animals when they are going through puberty and will fuck anything with a pulse (or without).