submitted 2015-02-21 10:44:55 by ulungudogsdogsdogsdogsdogs
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2015-02-21 13:52:34
I've only given it a brief skim-read, but it's discussion sounds very plausible to me.
The blurring of the human-animal boundary explains why furries have been associated with us in some people's minds, even from their modern beginning:
Thus, while it has been claimed throughout history that zoophilia infringes on the natural order, it is rather the breach of human categories that makes it taboo in Israel; the human perceptions not only of what it means to be human, but also of what it means to be an animal – inferior, helpless, dependent, voiceless.
While what looked to me like the hypocrisy of neutering, and of sexualising leather, fur, and feathers is explicable from the world view which we are (ironically enough) often accused of — that of domination:
Most humans, and, specifically those Israeli families who keep pets (see Shir-Vertesh 2012), do not want to view their animals as sexual creatures – they neuter and spay them, hose them down while in the act or at least laugh uncomfortably. But, in fact, there is a culturally acceptable way for animals to be sexual - when they are dead. There is an erotic charge in fur and leather, men feel masculine in leather and women feel feminine in fur and feathers (Dekkers 1994). Animals can be sensual, as long as human dominance is preserved.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-02-21 14:05:00
…ok, I've just realised how dumb my next suggestion was. We can't possibly have any hope of getting people to stop needing to categorise personhood in black-and-white forms. That nonsense is the etymology of the word "Barbarian", the justification for slavery, sexism, genocides, and why abortion laws aren't the same everywhere.
So the other real option is to keep hiding then. I fear that if we did that, we would let things get worse:
Yet while there is generally a growing lenience towards homosexuality in Israel and in many places around the world, this liberalism does not extend to zoophilia. In fact, the change in the perception of zoophilia and bestiality is going in the opposite direction.
Equine_Aficionado 1 point on 2015-02-22 03:27:35
Lately, western societies have been dismantling their taboos (homosexuality and non-monogamous sexuality, aka "sleeping around", are becoming more acceptable), but the human desire to persecute remains constant. So the few taboos that remain get even stronger.
Severity of punishment = human aggression / number of taboos.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-02-22 11:05:38
Great, so now all we have to genetically engineer a retrovirus to make all the humans it infects produce THC within their own body.
(I'm kidding of course, it's sci-fi right now and even if it wasn't the side effects would be unpredictable at best. Although, perhaps not in 5-20 years).
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-02-22 11:23:52
Hm, thinking about it, if the desire to persecute remains constant, that could work in our favour with the increasing ease of surveillance. To use another drugs analogy (this time not in jest), some governments estimate that a third of their population have used illegal drugs — they couldn't possibly imprison that fraction of their population. If we have surveillance to cover all crimes, I suspect all categories of crime will face the same difficulty, and so their punishments would reduce in severity.
Equine_Aficionado 1 point on 2015-02-22 03:32:16
It also makes me wonder if more furries have zoo-sympathetic leanings than are willing to admit. One of the reasons I'm so fascinated by inter-species sex (and furry art as well) is precisely because it blurs the boundary between humans and animals.
JonasCliverVap vap to the Moon! 1 point on 2015-02-21 20:06:48
That was a fantastic piece. It starts slow, but the author hits on a lot of truth towards the end.
As sexual partners, mature animals can be conceptually transformed into our partners (Bakke 2009:222), our equals, both emotionally and physically, or can at least be viewed as competent adults, mature, sexual creatures with needs and wants. Treating the animal as a sexual partner, able to consent to having a relationship with humans and even initiating it, can actually be seen as an empowering perspective of the animal. From this standpoint, this form of love towards animals acknowledges them as worthy of love in their own right and not as human-like love objects.
This is exactly what all of us believe, and what most of society seems unable or unwilling to accept. Really nice to finally see a non-zoo formally acknowledge it.
/r/zoophilia archive
I've only given it a brief skim-read, but it's discussion sounds very plausible to me.
The blurring of the human-animal boundary explains why furries have been associated with us in some people's minds, even from their modern beginning:
While what looked to me like the hypocrisy of neutering, and of sexualising leather, fur, and feathers is explicable from the world view which we are (ironically enough) often accused of — that of domination:
Leads to a thought… should we show the animal rights campaigners we are more on their side than the general population, or is it better for everyone if we try to say…
…ok, I've just realised how dumb my next suggestion was. We can't possibly have any hope of getting people to stop needing to categorise personhood in black-and-white forms. That nonsense is the etymology of the word "Barbarian", the justification for slavery, sexism, genocides, and why abortion laws aren't the same everywhere.
So the other real option is to keep hiding then. I fear that if we did that, we would let things get worse:
Lately, western societies have been dismantling their taboos (homosexuality and non-monogamous sexuality, aka "sleeping around", are becoming more acceptable), but the human desire to persecute remains constant. So the few taboos that remain get even stronger.
Severity of punishment = human aggression / number of taboos.
Great, so now all we have to genetically engineer a retrovirus to make all the humans it infects produce THC within their own body.
(I'm kidding of course, it's sci-fi right now and even if it wasn't the side effects would be unpredictable at best. Although, perhaps not in 5-20 years).
Hm, thinking about it, if the desire to persecute remains constant, that could work in our favour with the increasing ease of surveillance. To use another drugs analogy (this time not in jest), some governments estimate that a third of their population have used illegal drugs — they couldn't possibly imprison that fraction of their population. If we have surveillance to cover all crimes, I suspect all categories of crime will face the same difficulty, and so their punishments would reduce in severity.
It also makes me wonder if more furries have zoo-sympathetic leanings than are willing to admit. One of the reasons I'm so fascinated by inter-species sex (and furry art as well) is precisely because it blurs the boundary between humans and animals.
Ok, what about her articles she's talking about?
They seem to be in Hebrew.
Though, the article about her article is fairly readable through google translate and seems to be unbiased.
That was a fantastic piece. It starts slow, but the author hits on a lot of truth towards the end.
This is exactly what all of us believe, and what most of society seems unable or unwilling to accept. Really nice to finally see a non-zoo formally acknowledge it.