• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Any Zooish Jews?

D

dogsrgreat

BANNED
I live in London where my social circle just touches on the fringes of the sex positive community here. Perhaps it is a coincidence but a high proportion of the women I know who are involved in the sex positivity movement also identify as Jewish. This probably makes sense given the respected position that women often enjoy in Jewish communities.

Which brings me to the notion that we have a potential three way intersection on a venn diagram: Jewish Females, Sex Positivity, Zoo positivity.

My question is, does this third intersection exist, or do the ancient Abrahamic prohibitions on bestiality (or just traditional attitudes to doggies) still prevent sex positive Jews from playing in this particular pool?
 
I don't know any hard numbers, but I know there's at least one. A young (to me) jewish woman I knew about 15 years ago had an interest in a friend of mine, she was also interested in his dog, but the idea freaked him out a little. I tried to keep touch with her, but we moved apart and drifted.
I know another jewish girl who wasn't into it that I know of, but she accurately pegged me during a conversation. Managed to change her mind about it from something horrid to something that can be OK, again, we remained friends for a time, even meeting up for a couple of doggy playdates (actual dog play, not sexual) before losing touch.
 
I'd be curious how a religious Jew who is also a zoo would cope with the laws against sex with animals in the Torah. Is there a good religious argument why the laws should not apply anymore?
 
Agreed. I doubt very religious Jews would participate or approve. I am thinking more of the many Jews who are somewhat secular but still enjoy a spiritual and cultural connection, were maybe raised and educated in Jewish traditions.
 
Just found out I'm part Jewish, but just a small percentage. So I guess I'll have to ask my sister, I know she's positively sex positivity. (How to frame the question though? Hmmm...)
 
Tailo said:
I'd be curious how a religious Jew who is also a zoo would cope with the laws against sex with animals in the Torah. Is there a good religious argument why the laws should not apply anymore?
Click to expand...

I imagine in the same way people of other religious denominations deal with it, "Well that part doesn't count because..."
If people actually followed the commandments of their chosen religion, the world would be even crazier. :)
 
I'm religious + a zoo, so I definitely think it's possible, though I'd imagine they'd have to be a bit more liberal on their views for it to work
 
Can't help wondering... Is jizz, be it animal or human, kosher? :)
I'd suspect that some would be an automatic "no" - Pigs, ferinstance. But what about horse, donkey, or dog?

Perverted minds wanna know...
 
Ive know like 2 jewish zoos and a muslim zoo in chat before. So they exist. The things they said were pretty jewish so it believe them.

Zoos are from all stripes and backgrounds. We are definately a melting pot.

One jew even pointed out that a rabbi had interpreted the adam story as actually very very zooish. He showed me the link but i dont have infront of me of a interpretation of it being adam and the beasts.
 
egoldstein said:
I imagine in the same way people of other religious denominations deal with it, "Well that part doesn't count because..."
If people actually followed the commandments of their chosen religion, the world would be even crazier. :)
Click to expand...

It just appears to me that the Jewish holy scriptures are particularly explicit about this. It would be easier for a Christian to say that while it is part of the bible too, those laws were specifically given to the Israelites and don't necessarily apply to those who do not descend from them. Additionally Jesus taught things that could be interpreted as modifying the harsh judgement from the earlier parts of the bible.
 
ZTHorse said:
One jew even pointed out that a rabbi had interpreted the adam story as actually very very zooish. He showed me the link but i dont have infront of me of a interpretation of it being adam and the beasts.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I agree that it is. Genesis 2:18 to 23 (King James version, emphasis preserved) says
  • And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
  • And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
  • And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
  • And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
  • And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
  • And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
So it appears to have been Adam who was not satisfied with the animals alone. God seemed to be fine with them. Quite zooish. But it seems that God didn't want his chosen people, the Israelites, to engage too deeply with animals later anymore. It's similar to how he created man with foreskin, but then made it part of his covenant with them that their foreskin should be cut away.

I'm totally fine with not being among God's chosen people. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tailo said:
Oh yes, I agree that it is. Genesis 2:18 to 23 (King James version, emphasis preserved) says
  • And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
  • And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
  • And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
  • And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
  • And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
  • And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
So it appears to have been Adam who was not satisfied with the animals alone. God seemed to be fine with them. Quite zooish. But it seems that God didn't want his chosen people, the Israelites, to engage too deeply with animals later anymore. It's similar to how he created man with foreskin, but then made it part of his covenant with them that their foreskin should be cut away.

I'm totally fine with not being among God's chosen people. ;)
Click to expand...
Yep thats basically what i read.

He mentioned about the jewish interpretation of balaam and his female donkey, that the reason she spoke what she said was because he had sexual relations with her. Yet was a prophet. Very interesting jewish interpretation.
 
Fzmr said:
I bet if there are, they probably aren’t into pig sex ?
Click to expand...
Maybe that makes me Jewish then? I hate the whole pig sex thing. Truly gross. Ever seen a pork tapeworm? Yuck :(
UR20Z said:
Can't help wondering... Is jizz, be it animal or human, kosher? :)
I'd suspect that some would be an automatic "no" - Pigs, ferinstance. But what about horse, donkey, or dog?

Perverted minds wanna know...
Click to expand...
Last time I checked dogs didn't have a cloven hoof, so I think that makes them non-kosher.. and therefore their semen?.... but then what about man jizz? We don't have cloven hooves either.
 
Tailo said:
It just appears to me that the Jewish holy scriptures are particularly explicit about this. It would be easier for a Christian to say that while it is part of the bible too, those laws were specifically given to the Israelites and don't necessarily apply to those who do not descend from them. Additionally Jesus taught things that could be interpreted as modifying the harsh judgement from the earlier parts of the bible.
Click to expand...

Sure, I wasn't speaking of bestiality specifically, but for all the prognostications collectively. So many ignore the bit about wearing clothes made from two types of cloth, poly-cotton is a death sentence, mentioned alongside homosexuality. New Testament wise, who follows the parable of the rich man even though Jesus says it's a requirement. How many are even aware of it? "Oh that doesn't apply to me, I'm not rich". Lots of inconvenient bits get ignored and gobs more get rationalized away.
 
It is not ok in Judaism. The bible (old testament) says *specifically* that "Man (a human for that matter, so also a woman) shall not lay with a beast".
 
Tailo said:
Oh yes, I agree that it is. Genesis 2:18 to 23 (King James version, emphasis preserved) says

<snip for space>
Click to expand...

<pedantic mode on>
Just as a point of information, be aware when citing from the KJV of the bible, that italics DOES NOT indicate emphasis. Anything in italics in the KJV is a notation from the translators that can be read roughly as "We're not 100% certain of the accuracy, but this italicized word/phrase is the best educated guess we could make at translating the word/phrase <insert original text in original language/script here>, which has no direct English equivalent".

Some of the high-end KJV "study bibles" will include the untranslated source text, sometimes in the original script, as a sidebar, or similar, with indicators to show precisely what word or words in the original text are being "quasi-translated" into the italicized passages you see in the English version.
<pedantic mode off>
 
egoldstein said:
I imagine in the same way people of other religious denominations deal with it, "Well that part doesn't count because..."
If people actually followed the commandments of their chosen religion, the world would be even crazier. :)
Click to expand...
I can't see how it would be crazier. I think it would be more ordered and generally a better place than it is now. I'm not religious but not stealing, not murdering, not lying, loving your fellow man like you love yourself, doing unto others as you want them to do unto you. This all sounds much better than the world we live in today. At least from my point of view.
 
1KnottyGirl said:
I can't see how it would be crazier. I think it would be more ordered and generally a better place than it is now. I'm not religious but not stealing, not murdering, not lying, loving your fellow man like you love yourself, doing unto others as you want them to do unto you. This all sounds much better than the world we live in today. At least from my point of view.
Click to expand...

Do realize that most religions have a bit in there about killing the nearby folks who don't share their beliefs. IMO, the majority of the world we live in today has been largely driven and shaped by people who profess a religion, I'd welcome a deviation from that. A shared human morality isn't based on and does not require religion.
 
The way it was explained to me was that in Orthodox or Conservative Judaism Zoophilia would be condemned but in Reform Judaism, it would be permissible.
 
ZTHorse said:
Yep thats basically what i read.

He mentioned about the jewish interpretation of balaam and his female donkey, that the reason she spoke what she said was because he had sexual relations with her. Yet was a prophet. Very interesting jewish interpretation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have encountered many Christians that interpreted the Adma and Eve story in the same way. Supposedly, a lot more went on between Eve and the serpent.
 
Alpha Cat said:
Yeah, I have encountered many Christians that interpreted the Adma and Eve story in the same way. Supposedly, a lot more went on between Eve and the serpent.
Click to expand...
THIS winged serpent is... confused. Why wouldn't they say so? Hmm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top