Very long time readers will know that we warned that the creation of the notion of “sexual orientation”, and the criminalizing of “discrimination” against “sexual orientations”, logically implied that all sexual behaviors would, and must, come to be seen as allowable.
Step into the patented Briggs Time Funkifier™ and set your dial to 2014:
Gender theory in brief says we are what we sexually desire. It’s not that we have desires, but that we are these desires. They are the core of our being. They make and form us. They are our orientation.
We started with “heterosexual” and “homosexual”, terms invented just over a century ago. Did you know that? The learned words and their colloquialisms “gay” and “lesbian” first described abnormal behavior. It took about fifty or sixty years before the words morphed into kinds of sex, now “gender”, just like male and female.
“Bi” followed close on the heels of the expansion, and of course now we have a blizzard of “orientations”, the range limited only by our imaginations. Which, unlike the behaviors of most of the inventions, is fecund.
Once you allow that our will alone creates these various sexes (or “genders”), then it logically follows every invention is as valid a category as any other. This does not mean that every new “orientation” is immediately and universally accepted, for one because not every citizen is a logician. And for two because it takes a while to soften up our powers of reasoning.
Now bestiality, like sodomy, has always been with us. As I have pointed out many, many, many times, it has been, is, and likely will increasingly be legal in many localities. The article from 2014 suggested “woofies” as the term to describe the “orientation” of bestiality, to take the place of the learned word “zoophilia”.
It’s apt, like “gay”, in expressing common zoophilic behavior—female “dogs” having sex with canines, for instance.
Well, the term never caught on, much to my disappointment. But lately there has been a resurgence of interest in sex with animals, so I may yet live to see the word become common. Nobody, after all, wants to say “I’m a zoophile.” They’d rather say something like “I’m a woofie.”
The academic Peter Singer may be the reason for the adoption. He has just published, in the peer-reviewed Journal of Controversial Ideas, the paper “Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible“. By some person calling herself “Fira Bensto” (I put that into an anagram solver and got “Fiat Boners”). I only assume it’s a woman, because the journal announces the name is a pseudonym.
Which right away tells you the authoress does not have the courage of her own convictions, because if she did she’d use her real name. And boldly say how she wants to get it on with the snails in her backyard. Instead of claiming “I do not engage myself in zoophilia.”
Hey, why not snails? And why not cats, gophers, worms, cockroaches and rats? Why limit it to man’s former once best friend? That would be speciesist (our authoress uses this word), judgmental and discriminatory. Which, like it or not, is logically true.
Sex with animals is, scientifically speaking, yet another form of masturbating. Not to say a new way to frighten the horses. So whatever the argument of Fiat Boners is, it can be no more than a justification of this specific form of masturbation, glued onto words about how the animals ackshually like it.
There is also this (ladies, avert your eyes until the next paragraph): We eat the little porkers, so why not give them a good porking, too? This kind of argument will convince many.
What’s fascinating is our authoress begins her paper by decrying religion, saying “We can already find in the Old Testament several passages which portray bestiality as a crime against nature”.
She also cites some curious facts, like some surveys suggesting “2% of the general population find the prospect of having sex with animals sexually arousing.” There are also dog-bites-manisms like “7% of the female respondents have some sexual interest in horses”.
This leads to the democratic fallacy, which is that if 50 + epsilon percent of the population say a thing is moral, then it becomes moral.
There is some “consent” humor: “Suppose that during a walk in the forest I suddenly see a deer. I happen to have some food in my backpack, so I hand it to him and he comes nearer to eat it. I can safely take this as an indication that the deer consents to being fed by me.” She doesn’t complete the thought of bending the deer over the nearest log in payment for the food. But the reader will.
“Briggs, that’s terrible language!”
What did you think sex with animals was, sweetheart.
Anyway, our author ends with claiming “The case for zoophilia being permissible is fairly robust, and commonly raised objections fall flat or are insufficiently backed up.” She’s right: her conclusions follow from her premises that zoophilia is yet another “orientation”, and “orientations” can’t be discriminated against. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said so himself.
The most amusing part of this was that the appalling Peter Singer, after first proudly announcing the paper, realized people would assume he was doing something odd with the pallet of Alpo he picked up down at the Costco. So he wrote a long tweet implying what he really meant was that it was nice to have animals as companions.
Sure, Pete. Woof woof.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.