can we discuss homosexuality? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2016-09-03 07:48:10 by wright-one ursidae canidae pantherinae
one of the bigger rifts here lately seems (to me) to have been caused by a previous discussion about homosexuality.
some here don't feel they have a right to have a negative opinion of it (they do). the real issue i have is that i simply don't understand why they have a negative opinion of it. i would really like to hear it laid out and discussed.
of course they have a right to have a negative opinion of it. anyone has the right to be wrong.
Seriously people, we're crossing species barriers, why get hung up on gender? it just screams of insecurity.
No, it depends on what your view of the world is. For me, homosexuality really is an alien feeling. It is something that I cannot understand and do not feel. For me, it is like meeting someone who says, "I like to be stabbed with knives." For me, same sex attraction IS extremely strange. I grew up in the 1990s in America and I had never heard of gay until I was 9 years old. I didn't think much of it but I did think that it didn't make a lick of sense. How could anybody like that?! Was what I thought at the time. Same sex attraction never once crossed my mind before I was told about it. A book our class was reading at school had the word, "gay" in it meaning "happy" and there were some boys in the back of the class that were giggling and I asked my mother why they were laughing when I came home from school and she explained it. Gayness back then was not esteemed and given the kind of privileged status that it has today. Back then homosexuality was considered to be something perverse. Prior to hearing about gay I never had a gay thought, never a gay desire (and I never had such feelings/desires after hearing about it either. I had no idea how that could be appealing to anybody). I just only had those kinds of feelings for "boys." And you'll understand why I put that in quotes. I really never had the thought about feeling about a member of the same sex as myself in that sort of way. A female could never satisfy me in that way. They were off the "menu"- nothing to consider not even in the least and it actually never even crossed my mind and I believe that if I had NEVER been told of homosexuality I probably would have lived my whole life oblivious to the idea of seeking love with women. I mean, that's just not how it works, folks. That would be the same as having NO relationship in my eyes. The idea of same sex attraction is revolting to me as well. I feel disgusted. It boggles my mind how or why anyone would want the same sex in this manner. And by the way, when I talk about a woman not being able to satisfy me- I'm not talking about her having a lack of "dick and balls" as the reason for why she wouldn't work. I don't know how to explain it other than that there is some deeper, intrinsic, intangible, even mystical aspect of male beings/creatures that I really want and crave. It's deep, it's cosmic. Some might call it "masculinity," I suppose. That's probably the closest conception to what I'm trying to speak of. I view heterosexuality in a sacred way. I'm not talking "Bible" I'm talking about my own feelings, perceptions of life- my own experience both past and present. But anyway, so I hope you can see that homosexual feelings are not at all natural for me- as I do not naturally feel that way. But guess what IS natural for me?? Other. species. attraction. From as early on in my life as I can remember I have been having "thoughts" about other species. For me, I see myself- my being- as being equal to members of other species. I know that that thought is controversial in our modern culture. Our modern society tells us that humans are in some way more "special" than other kinds of creatures. This is why our society has an easier time accepting homosexuality than it does zoophilia because at least in homosexuality they are both human, right? But this doesn't mean that homosexuality truly makes more sense than interspecies attraction does. As you can see, I easily and readily felt attraction to other species on my own from as young as I can remember but homosexual feelings is something I do not have in me at all. Is crossing the species barrier truly "more nuts" than getting hung up on gender? I would beg to differ. Human society being prejudiced against nonhuman creatures does not mean that something so strange as attraction to the same sex is somehow "more normal or natural." I am actually living proof that gay is really just AS strange as zoo- not less. And I don't need to explain my view of us all being equal creatures to every other creature we are all male and female and can feel attraction towards each others' masculinity and femininity, right? My view is simple- male attracts to female and visa versa. This is a natural attraction that you feel regardless of your species so it is perfectly conceivable, in my mind, that one may find the love of his or her life in a member of a difference species. I really just don't view humans as being all that different from other creatures in this respect. Hence, my own view is that heterosexual interspecies attraction about equals heterosexual intraspecies attraction. Being in a straight relationship with a member of another species is more normal in my view than being with the a member of the same sex.
I've always taken a "You do you." view of the world. Considering how well documented homosexuality is in the animal kingdom, whether you understand it or not is irrelevant, it's as natural as breathing.
...or wanting it up the ass, I suppose.
The studies have never shown that nonhuman creatures are homosexual in the same sense that humans are. They may engage in some "gay sex" behavior but we don't know if they would identify themselves as gay like a sort of "true attraction" like they have a specific PREFERENCE for the same sex. Interspecies sex also occurs naturally in nature so you could say that both "gay" and "zoo" are both equally natural.
I have read several publications studying the topics where same-sex non-humans have created pair-bonds, even raised offspring, and in a few cases, when a monogamous partner passed, taking time and seeking out another same-sex partner.
That, to me, shows no appreciable difference between humans and non-humans, except that I can interact with human examples and ask them more detailed questions.
I would agree with that statement. I think it is uncommon, especially in the wild, but more common in domestication. Without getting into a lot of detail, I think it has to do with the traits which govern who is seen as a member of the social group.
So it's bad because you personally think it's gross? I personally think it's gross to want to fuck bears, I guess that means you're bad too. Anyways, the male and female sex's brains overlap, so anyone who says they're gay or straight for deep spiritual reasons is bullshitting themselves. It's entirely about which sex's bodies they find sexually exciting. Also at least homosexuality can be explained by saying their brain got messed up and developed with the other sex's sexuality. You can't give the same explanation for zoophiles. There's no part of the brain that says "be attracted to animals" in either sex's brains, so I also don't agree with saying homosexuality is as weird as zoophilia.
"There's no part of the brain that says 'be attracted to animals'" It's called imprinting. As far as male and female brains being alike, I'm a little unsure on that point. One article is not going to convince me. Every scientific study has its flaws/ ways that the study isn't perfect. And perhaps it is the case that some people do not have "gender distinctive" minds whereas other people may very well have that. Regardless, heterosexuality is something that is sacred to me. That's how I feel. And just because I personally feel that a certain form of sexuality is bad doesn't mean that that sexuality should be made illegal. Because obviously not everyone feels like me and I shouldn't be able to put my "religion" into legislation.
i appreciate your well thought out response.
i don't really have a leg to stand on by way of a rebuttal because you say below:
which is more than some are willing to say, and i'm glad you believe that.
.. but i still admit to having a few issues, particularly with this statement:
to say that being homosexual makes one privileged ignores the fact that people around the world are STILL beaten and/or killed simply for being homosexual. perhaps you meant in the US only, but that statement still holds.
I have no idea what's wrong with this woman
Frankly, I would argue an opinion can never be wrong.
Nor can it be right, by the other side of the coin.
I'll just say this. According to an NHIS survey (link), in the U.S., about 1.6% of adults in the U.S. identify as gay/lesbian, and 0.7% identify as bisexual. Meanwhile, according to some Bayesian analysis I did on furry and zoo surveys (link), self-identifying zoos are at least an order of magnitude less prevalent (0.02%-0.2%, depending on your assumptions).
With regard to individual issues, the gay and zoo communities have some similarities: a desire for privacy and the right to love who they love so long as everyone's happy with it. But the details are very different, largely because nonhuman animals can't speak verbally, which makes it difficult to convince others that relationships with them can be consensual.
Sociologically, it seems to me that zoos don't have the numbers or the cohesion to implement social change in the way the gay community has successfully. My hope is that we, as a society, start to understand morality and psychological better, so that we can then settle the issue of what sorts of love are alright. In my opinion, that understanding will lead to animals being given more consideration as sentient creatures, and particularly that sex with humans will be acceptable unless it harms someone, human or animal.
I don't think we are very similar communities, in general, because zoos have a tendency to be more quiet and introverted, especially with their sexualities. Many zoos (not all, maybe not even most) become interested in animals largely because they find them a better fit for their desires, whether due to opportunity, differences in personality, or past experiences with animals or humans.
In short, while I support gay rights and the recent flowering of the gay community in the public sphere, I view it as counterproductive to all involved to tie that to other erotic minorities, and particularly zoosexuals. There are useful lessons to be learned from the history of the gay rights movement, and from some of the science and art arising from it. But if they are to be useful to zoos, they will have to be heavily adapted, not simply used as-is with a dog swapped in for a partner.
I agree that there are some important (societal and practical) differences between same-sex attraction and attraction to a different species.
But it frustrates me when I'm at some LGBTQ event, and the slogans they use could just have easily been used for zoophilia, but if you point that out, you are treated like pariah. "Love is love", "it's not a choice", "you have the right to be yourself"... It could be used to justify anything, really. So when people around tell me to be proud of my sexuality, that at Pride it's okay to show who you are and what you like... I know it's not true. And I guess I shouldn't complain, but there is still emotional reaction anyway. I think it's a good thing that different gender/sex preferences are more accepted now. I find no logical reason for people bash on homo/bisexuals. But I wish that other sexual minorities would be considered eligible for respect too.