submitted 2016-11-02 21:44:07 by KynophileDog lover
KynophileDog lover 6 points on 2016-11-02 22:10:04
I recently saw this theory re-examined, and thought I might apply it to the prevalence of zoophilia within given cultures. In short, the theory, which explains how European, Asian, and North African peoples came to dominate the rest of the world. There are people with the opinion that this is due to some inherent superiority of people of those races (or some subsets, like Europeans or Asians), or conversely because of some moral deficiency allowing for barbarism and colonialism. This documentary argues, instead, that geographical factors were mostly the cause of this uneven societal development.
In brief, in order for a civilization to develop agriculture (and thus a stable enough food supply to focus on other forms of development), it needs access to grain crops which store a lot of energy, a dry enough climate to be able to store these long term, and, most important for our purposes, access to animals which can be domesticated. For instance, European homo sapiens began domesticating the dog at least 15,000 years ago, and perhaps earlier, and using them for protection and hunting. Neanderthals, who coexisted with them, seem to have just eaten these animals rather than fully domesticating them, and went extinct for unknown reasons.
This widespread domestication also led to human exposure to mutated animal diseases such as smallpox, measles, and the flu. Eurasians occasionally had outbreaks of these kinds of diseases, but none were fatal to whole tribes of people, and so they developed antibodies to resist and become immune to these sorts of diseases.
Given Eurasia's relatively high population density and close proximity to livestock, which were themselves domesticated to have an affinity for human attention, some people in Eurasia would be very likely to develop affection for them, and have sex with them. This is essentially due to the wider availability of animals which could be domesticated in those regions. Thus, I would argue that in the long term the more people have sex with animals in a society, the better off that society is in attempting to compete with its neighbors. Of course, more sex with animals may lead to the development of laws against it as well, since if such a phenomenon is rare there is no reason to ban it.
In short, I think this theory has, as a corollary, that societies with zoophiles in them tend to do better overall than societies without them, and that this is not solely due to the greater liberality of already advanced societies, but is connected to the very agricultural supremacy which lead to their growth in the first place.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 3 points on 2016-11-02 22:22:33
great post. I'd be more surprised if at least a few zoos weren't involved in the domestication of animals. Why else would some rational person see a viscous wolf and want to be with them? Answer, sex is a pretty powerful motivator.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-11-03 01:29:43
I've always suspected this, personally. Good point.
IAmAZoophile 2 points on 2016-11-03 18:19:23
Personally, I think ideas like this one and the 'gay uncle' hypothesis (or whatever it's called) are pretty absurd. Coming up with roundabout theories that explain how certain deviations from the human average could theoretically aid in evolution/the development of society is a fun thought experiment, but that's about it. People's sexuality doesn't need a justification.
....that said, the argument that early animal domestication was primarily driven because zoophiles wanted to be with wild animals sounds fun enough that I might argue for it just to mess with people.
KynophileDog lover 1 point on 2016-11-03 21:19:35
I wouldn't say that zoophilia caused domestication, just that the two are naturally linked together. If anything, I think it's the other way around: without the sorts of physical and mental changes attendant to domestication, or even semi-domestication/coexistence in close proximity to humans (to include deer, among other species), I don't think it very likely that humans would go through the trouble of having sex with live animals.
IAmAZoophile 1 point on 2016-11-03 23:43:37
On the contrary; there's plenty of evidence to suggest that without modern societal pressures forcing people's sexuality to conform to modern expectations, zoophiles were much more free to pursue their desires. Indeed, bands of roving proto-zoophiles would separate from their proto-societies to try to integrate into, for example, packs of wolves, herds of horses, or pods of dolphins. After gaining their trust and fucking them extensively, they would then act as a conduit for initial interactions between the animals in question and human society, laying the foundation for domestication of the species.
This explains why dolphins were domesticated so much later than most other animals; obviously dolphins are such sex gods that no person would ever want to leave them, preventing the crucial final step in the initial domestication process from taking place.
KynophileDog lover 1 point on 2016-11-04 02:13:59
Um... I'm skeptical of this. What evidence do you have of bands of proto-zoos living with the jellyfish or their species of choice. Unless this is sarcastic, in which case it is an absurdity like every idea taken to its logical extreme.
IAmAZoophile 2 points on 2016-11-04 05:48:28
I believe it in my heart
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2016-11-05 11:00:37
fuckin lol. but seriously, you dont believe being a zoophile is only something that has happened in recent times do you?
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2016-11-03 00:14:19
The book is, as usual, more in depth, but the PBS special is good rendition.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 1 point on 2016-11-03 05:06:01
i hope to have time to watch this at some point. downloading it now. thanks!
/r/zoophilia archive
I recently saw this theory re-examined, and thought I might apply it to the prevalence of zoophilia within given cultures. In short, the theory, which explains how European, Asian, and North African peoples came to dominate the rest of the world. There are people with the opinion that this is due to some inherent superiority of people of those races (or some subsets, like Europeans or Asians), or conversely because of some moral deficiency allowing for barbarism and colonialism. This documentary argues, instead, that geographical factors were mostly the cause of this uneven societal development.
In brief, in order for a civilization to develop agriculture (and thus a stable enough food supply to focus on other forms of development), it needs access to grain crops which store a lot of energy, a dry enough climate to be able to store these long term, and, most important for our purposes, access to animals which can be domesticated. For instance, European homo sapiens began domesticating the dog at least 15,000 years ago, and perhaps earlier, and using them for protection and hunting. Neanderthals, who coexisted with them, seem to have just eaten these animals rather than fully domesticating them, and went extinct for unknown reasons.
This widespread domestication also led to human exposure to mutated animal diseases such as smallpox, measles, and the flu. Eurasians occasionally had outbreaks of these kinds of diseases, but none were fatal to whole tribes of people, and so they developed antibodies to resist and become immune to these sorts of diseases.
Given Eurasia's relatively high population density and close proximity to livestock, which were themselves domesticated to have an affinity for human attention, some people in Eurasia would be very likely to develop affection for them, and have sex with them. This is essentially due to the wider availability of animals which could be domesticated in those regions. Thus, I would argue that in the long term the more people have sex with animals in a society, the better off that society is in attempting to compete with its neighbors. Of course, more sex with animals may lead to the development of laws against it as well, since if such a phenomenon is rare there is no reason to ban it.
In short, I think this theory has, as a corollary, that societies with zoophiles in them tend to do better overall than societies without them, and that this is not solely due to the greater liberality of already advanced societies, but is connected to the very agricultural supremacy which lead to their growth in the first place.
great post. I'd be more surprised if at least a few zoos weren't involved in the domestication of animals. Why else would some rational person see a viscous wolf and want to be with them? Answer, sex is a pretty powerful motivator.
I've always suspected this, personally. Good point.
Personally, I think ideas like this one and the 'gay uncle' hypothesis (or whatever it's called) are pretty absurd. Coming up with roundabout theories that explain how certain deviations from the human average could theoretically aid in evolution/the development of society is a fun thought experiment, but that's about it. People's sexuality doesn't need a justification.
....that said, the argument that early animal domestication was primarily driven because zoophiles wanted to be with wild animals sounds fun enough that I might argue for it just to mess with people.
I wouldn't say that zoophilia caused domestication, just that the two are naturally linked together. If anything, I think it's the other way around: without the sorts of physical and mental changes attendant to domestication, or even semi-domestication/coexistence in close proximity to humans (to include deer, among other species), I don't think it very likely that humans would go through the trouble of having sex with live animals.
On the contrary; there's plenty of evidence to suggest that without modern societal pressures forcing people's sexuality to conform to modern expectations, zoophiles were much more free to pursue their desires. Indeed, bands of roving proto-zoophiles would separate from their proto-societies to try to integrate into, for example, packs of wolves, herds of horses, or pods of dolphins. After gaining their trust and fucking them extensively, they would then act as a conduit for initial interactions between the animals in question and human society, laying the foundation for domestication of the species.
This explains why dolphins were domesticated so much later than most other animals; obviously dolphins are such sex gods that no person would ever want to leave them, preventing the crucial final step in the initial domestication process from taking place.
Um... I'm skeptical of this. What evidence do you have of bands of proto-zoos living with the jellyfish or their species of choice. Unless this is sarcastic, in which case it is an absurdity like every idea taken to its logical extreme.
I believe it in my heart
fuckin lol. but seriously, you dont believe being a zoophile is only something that has happened in recent times do you?
The book is, as usual, more in depth, but the PBS special is good rendition.
i hope to have time to watch this at some point. downloading it now. thanks!