<$BlogRSDURL$>

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Bestiality is against the law?

Now think about this... what is the most harmless sexual experience that could be used by initiates and veterans alike? Sex with animals, of course. This is a no brainer, and it's shameful that bestiality is against the law.

Sure, it might seem counter-intuitive, but what ecstatic experience besides heterosexual missionary isn't? Certainly some prudes might be a little at odds with the idea, but hear me out. What are the potential arguments against sexual experience with animals?

1. It's a disorder:

A: No way! As with all other alternative sexual practices it is counter-intuitive (as stated above), but that doesn't make it bad. Who is it hurting?

2. Historically it doesn't exist, how can it be a natural human sexual variation?

Simple, it has existed. Even the Old TEstament forbids sex with animals as a taboo, as do other ancient myths. Therefore, it had to be enough of a problem to address. Secondly, nomadic peoples probably had more than average amounts of man-beast acts since they spent so much time around animals and revered them as essential to their existence (some even having totem animals). Toni Morrison in her classic "Beloved" recounts how many of the local boys (yes in good ole' rural America) had their first sexual experience with cows.

3. It's harmful to the animal and "against animal rights"

Ok, time for a little frankness (although it might hurt to hear). We don't REALLY care about animals rights if the animal is serving a purpose. When used as a learning tool or outlet for sexual desires, animals are serving a great purpose. It allows non-self touch that is nontheless completely removed from the involvement of other people. If we're willing to chop a chicken's head off to feed ourselves, why not use the chicken as a sexual object if indeed we are attracted to it? Seems like skewed logic to me.

Now that we've reviewed some of the arguments against bestial sex I'm open for comments on the topic. If anyone can give me a valid reason why animals cannot be objectified as sexual fetishes (much as they're now objectified as food) please feel free to comment.

Monday, February 23, 2004

Hi, Greg here. I would like to remind all to support our kindred organization NAMBLA at www.nambla.org

For too long gays, lesbians, pederasts, beastialists, polygamysts, and incestuous peoples have been held down by outdated sexual "normalcy" notions that have long been shown false. In 1973 Homosexuality was removed from the DSM, a diagnostic Manual that defines disorders for the psychiatric community. Since that time homosexuality, rightly, has been considered a natural deviance in human preference.

With growing acceptance of natural deviation in sexuality the time has come for other sexual minorities to open their minds and mouths to those who would use fear to stifle our pursuits of happiness that have been ensured the citizens of the United States since the Declaration of Independence.

We're not inventing rights, but rather finally claiming those rights wrongfully denied us by oppressive judicial precedents that were handed down as the result of generations of Westerners in general and Americans in particular being indoctrinated with unhealthy and illogical sexual stigmas.

Let Freedom Ring!
Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. — David Thorstad

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?