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

What do you think of this quote?

CorwynLux

Tourist
I've been doing some reading and came across this quote. Was curious what your opinions on it were:
Sexual intercourse is supposed to be a sign of love; it is supposed to be carried out between two creatures of approximately equal standing. For a human to have sexual intercourse with an animal implies that it is of equal standing to the human. It denies a hierarchy in which animals are always lower than humans. So it blurs, or denies, boundaries, particularly the boundary between the human and the animal.
Do y'all agree? Disagree?

My thoughts go towards "Hmm. Well in that case how does one make sure that there's equal standing?
 
Humans are animals. The bullshit of us being more than any other life is of our own making and heavily based on religion which is the concentrated stupidity of mankind.

Also there is a typo in the quote. :D
I fixed it up lol. I was reading the chapter off Google Books and had to type the quote off manually.

I think you're on the mark. The context of the quote seems to suggest that the writer of the quote was in fact pointing out how people often put themselves in a separate category from "animals" but that we made up the category seemingly arbitrarily.
 
Humans are animals. The bullshit of us being more than any other life is of our own making and heavily based on religion which is the concentrated stupidity of mankind.

Also there is a typo in the quote. :D
"....heavily based on religion which is the concentrated stupidity of mankind." a big call Pes! IMHO stick to your knitting ...... ie no preaching :LOL: ;)
 
Do y'all agree? Disagree?
Both.

I can't agree with the first part, that sexual intercourse is supposed to be a sign of love. I see love as something that lasts beyond a fuck, yet animals of many species depart for good after intercourse. Sex can also happen without partners choosing each other, even without getting in contact with each other when you think about pollination in trees.

Sex is very basic, very old, evolutionary speaking. Love is newer. Since sex came before love, it can't be meant to be an expression of love in general. But love and sex go together in some species and, for me, sex is better when I am in love with my partner as well.

I agree that cross-species sex implies that those involved are not from absolutely separate realms, even though they may not really be of equal standing either.
 
That's fair. I don't think they were implying hat sexual intercourse is the essential quality of love as much as "one piece out of potentially many that love itself may exist" but that's how I chose to interpret it. Your sense of a transcendent quality of love beyond carnal factors is admirable though.
 
Sex can be an expression of love but is not inherently love. That is part of what people against use. Saying that animals can not consent as they are just fallowing their instincts. Which first having been around animals at very least a great deal of them are more than their instincts. Also a large amount of humans just fallow their instincts as well. We are all a mix of biochemistry making out brains do different things and it has been shown that human respond to such things as smells and pheromones.
 
I disagree, iv’e had my fair share of intercourse and some I knew, many I did not. Though it cost me two divorces (I didn’t CHEAT) but was gone too much too often. Still neither love nor creation were foremost a thought.
 
We are a tiny fraction of humanity, who may or may not dissent from such a statement. The author is expressing an opinion. As it has not been proven that we are NOT superior to animals, it remains a valid opinion.

We here generally take the opposite
view. As that ALSO has not been proven to be the fact, that remains an opinion. Why are we worried about it? Since we are, indeed, that tiny minority, our opinions are not ever likely to prevail. We are not likely ever to be free to discuss this in public without some trepidation. EVEN LESS is the possibility of dropping trow in Lafayette Square and having at it with the dog or the horse. One hopes that was never on the table, but Quien sabe?

We are an even smaller group within the so-called community, than within the overall practioners of our hobby. Groups within groups, groups without groups...everyone has an ax to grind. But in the end we remain outnumbered and outgunned. Unless that changes, neither will the opinions
 
Last edited:
Back
Top