So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
selderane
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Wichita, KS

So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby selderane » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:08 am

Kept it clean in the subject. So, yeah, a dude had sex with a horse and dug it. No real condemnation from the magazine, natch.

Rather than give them traffic, here's the link to where I found the story. Go to the site from there if your stomach can handle it.

Of course, the same principle that safeguards homosexual relations does so here. I know we're mocked for using the "Slippery Slope" argument, but what precisely does "progressive" mean if not the slippery slope? Do I think people are gonna give up relations within their species for more exotic stock?

No. And anyone who even thinks to pose the question isn't serious. The point is as the article (the one I linked) takes pains to note: Ideas have consequences.

When you normalize aberrant behavior don't be surprised when more aberrant behavior looks for acceptance under the same principle.
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.

If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16796
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ccgr » Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:49 pm

Strange times we live in where this is considered Ok...

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:29 pm

Strange times we live in where this is considered Ok...
I don't think it's considered OK any more or less than it ever has. This kind of thing has been happening forever. It's been legal in many states for years, although I'm guessing it's more because they didn't bother to make it illegal rather than a state sanction of such activities.

Still, the article linked to in the OP is wrong. Why is having sex with an animal immoral? Because animals can't consent. In the article from New York Magazine (which I really wish I hadn't read), the man describes having to bind the horse so he won't get kicked. He doesn't have a consenting relationship with an animal, he owns one as a sex slave. That is not consensual sexual behavior. That's where the slippery slope argument fails.

I also take issue with the whole tone of article in the OP. It's just an awful piece of "journalism" that starts with a homophobic comment from Bob Hope and just gets worse from there. Calling Dan Savage a "Buggery Crusader"? Really? I actually found that article more offensive than the New York Magazine article (which again, I wish I hadn't read). I just hate the whole "You're either with us 100 percent or you screw animals" flavor of these shock-tactic articles.
No real condemnation from the magazine, natch.
Now, to be clear, if it were my magazine, I probably wouldn't have chosen to include the article because I find the subject matter disgusting. That being said, what do you expect them to do? If I were doing an interview of Charles Manson, would I really need to go out of my way to tell everyone what an awful piece of crap he is? Personally, I think it would be better to let his words speak for himself. Not every piece of journalism needs to be an op-ed piece.

There are passages in the Bible that describe some awful events (the last few chapters in Judges, for example) where the authors don't go out of their way to say "Hey, isn't this wrong?" because they don't need to. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is promoting or sanctioning those acts now, does it?
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
selderane
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby selderane » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:06 pm

True, I think calling Dan Savage what they did was childish, but it's not inaccurate. He wraps himself in an anti-bullying cloak and then proceeds to mercilessly attack and mock anyone who disagrees with him, even high schoolers.

He has an agenda and it's not stopping bullying. It's stopping anyone opposed to his political ends. So I forgive people who talk about the man inartfully time to time.

Because he's a bully.

And I think you're more heritable to NY Magazine than it deserves because, if I'm reading you right, you think they secretly find the behavior disgusting? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that's not really the point, is it? Do they think the act is wrong?

I don't think they do because if they did they'd have to examine the rationale that permits it, and that leads them back to sexual behaviors they do find permissible. So best to stay mum on it lest honest introspection be called for.
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.

If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:20 pm

I think the point of that type of journalism is that you aren't supposed to know what the slant of the interview is. In fact, the less I can gather about the author's own POV, the better, because the object isn't to glorify or vilify, it's to inform. I think in that sense the NYM article did a good job, but quite frankly, beastiality is not something I particularly want to read about. I don't know what NYM's reasons were for publishing the article.

I watched a documentary a few years ago (the name I don't remember) about an Irish priest who went to prison for molesting children. They had scenes that showed him talking, pretty much. It was disgusting stuff, and anyone with any sense would come to the conclusion that the man was/is a monster. I guess what I'm saying is just because they aren't spoon-feeding you an opinion doesn't mean that the article is glorifying the person being interviewed or his/her behavior.

I haven't read enough of Dan Savage's stuff to say whether or not he's a bully, he could very well be. The Red State article doesn't gain anything by name calling.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ChickenSoup » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:08 am

"Guys when people can be gay, they're gonna have sex with horses. This is only a recent trend and is due to liberals"
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ArcticFox » Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:29 pm

I couldn't make it through the interview. I kind of agree with everything that's been said in this thread so far, to varying degrees. Does the article necessarily glamorize these acts? Well, no... but at the same time I find the level of detail they chose to publish to be somewhat troubling. I've read erotic stories (of human encounters) that were less detailed than this interview so it's hard to assert that they aren't presenting it in a positive light.

...or it was pure troll. Maybe making it a game to see who can read the farthest before shaking their head ruefully and closing the browser tab.

I also found the comments by Santorum in the initial link troubling. I'm never comfortable with any public official questioning peoples' right to privacy. It almost seems as if they're using this kind of nasty behavior as a way to justify intrusions into proples' lives. "See? The State SHOULD know what's going on in your bedroom because otherwise people will just do really squicky things in there. Gross."

Well, maybe they will, but some part of me thinks that as long as it stays in their private home... WTH should I care? My problem is when people try to impose their morality on me by using the law as a club so it's hard to justify doing it to others without being a hypocrite.

As for bestiality itself... I don't really think much about it so I haven't had any deep epiphanies about the moral or philosophical implications. I know the rationale making it illegal has to do with animal cruelty but I dunno... We do much crueler things to animals in the name of medical research and food production, so even that one isn't as black & white as we may wish. Certainly bestiality CAN be implemented in a way that's cruel to the animal, but it doesn't seem to be the case always... and that's a line of thinking I'm going to put aside at this time.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:32 pm

See, I thought about that point (we use animals for other things that are arguably worse, like killing them for food, etc.) too. It's kind of a tricky area, I guess, but then it's not like you can do anything you want with them, you know? As in, needless cruelty. You can get fined and go to jail for beating a dog that you own, or for keeping animals in bad conditions (starving them, etc.). I mean, if I were to torture my pet rats and someone had evidence, I would probably get a visit from the police (and rightly so). I'm thinking that might fall in that area. But then, this is a not a topic I particularly want to think about.

As for the tone of the article... yeah, it was gross. I'm guessing the author was trying really hard to sound sympathetic to the person she was interviewing to get a more frank interview, but maybe I'm giving her too much credit. I agree that it was more graphic than it needed to be. It certainly was not something I enjoyed reading.

EDIT: Another point AF brought up that I failed to address: I think we both agree that the most concerning thing about the article in the OP is that it seemed to be calling for the government to police what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults, which is just about the worst invasion of privacy I can think of.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

storm
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:41 am

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby storm » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:53 am

this is but one more reason I think we are near the end of time I saw a history channel story on robots and they were showing the very life like ones Japan is working on and how soon they will be able to inter act with us and even the idea of robot love and possible marriages between human and robot or androids which they said was still a few years down the line but must be thought about as a possibility
I so want to scream at the new age thinking and the fact that this is all looked upon with more and more acceptance even the pope has now said that animals go to heaven so sad
I grew up on a farm and I loved my dogs but the thought of this type of so called love sickens me
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (NKJV)
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Greg King

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ChickenSoup » Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:09 am

I'm going to blow your mind and tell you that this has been going on for thousands of years
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16796
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ccgr » Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:20 pm

I'm going to blow your mind and tell you that this has been going on for thousands of years
Of course it has, it's mentioned in the Bible as an inexcusable act. The problem is that it may soon become permissible if the media thinks it's ok.

User avatar
selderane
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby selderane » Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:09 pm

I'm going to blow your mind and tell you that this has been going on for thousands of years
Of course it has, it's mentioned in the Bible as an inexcusable act. The problem is that it may soon become permissible if the media thinks it's ok.
Rationally it already is permissible, if not moral.

Again, the same principle that encourages homosexual relations permits this. You can't have one without the other. So, rather than address this troubling consistency of thought, people mock.

As it goes, when you can't argue you ridicule.
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.

If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ChickenSoup » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:56 pm

You've already failed to address others' arguments about flaws in your reasoning (that is, zoophilia =/= pedophilia =/= homosexuality), so don't pretend that "ugh here he goes again" is a valid argument and proceed to act condescendingly. How about you find evidence that it is both permissible and moral, or provide convincing logic that homosexuality and zoophilia are connected by the same line of thinking--or better yet, address how the same reasoning could be used to say that you can't have religion without dangerous religious extremism? How about you address what others have said?

How about you make a useful post?
Last edited by ChickenSoup on Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16796
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ccgr » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:54 pm

Tone it down or this gets locked guys.

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby Sstavix » Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:37 pm

I can understand the slippery slope argument, though. After all, a lot of the same points that were made about homosexuality are also being made about other "deviant" sexual behaviors (meaning "other than the biological male/female couplings intended for the continuation of the species," rather than something in a negative connotation here). Years ago, I came across a medical journal which defined homosexual tendencies as a mental disorder. So consider these arguments....

"It's a mental disorder. Do you enjoy picking on the mentally ill? You monster!"

"It's been happening for centuries. What's the big deal?"

"It happens all the time in nature - it's just part of who we are as human animals."

"Whatever they do in the privacy of their bedroom, why should I care?"

"Who are you to deny their beautiful love? You narrow-minded bigot!"

I've even seen a few cases of "it's part of their religion / culture. Who are you to judge?"

Note that none of these arguments refer to the specific sexual act, and could be potentially made for any of them. In fact, I've seen these arguments made to apply to bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy, pedophilia and more. But I think it's symptomatic of a larger issue - the continued erosion of Judeo-Christian values and the ongoing, corruption of morals, values and principles. Because yes, these arguments might be valid... but it doesn't make them right. It's like I said in the past, even on these forums - if there is no moral center, then any behavior is permissible. The normalization of deviant sexual behavior is just one more in a long list of items to pull us (as a people) away from God.


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron