Bestiality, A word still not spoken, except in the shadows of the demi-monde! Barely known to most. Yet, forbidden, since the earliest times, as the Book of Leviticus (18.23, 20.15-16) makes clear. Sex with animals was therefore, widely known and practiced in the ancient world, or why have a law against it?
Why the silence today? The shame? Deeds done in secret? In the depths of the jungle (quite literally, as the escaped Cuban slave, Esteban Montejo, recounts of his sexual encounters with a domesticated horse), or in amongst the concrete jungle of the anonymity of the modern city.
What might this teach us, if anything, beyond ‘Well, they want to do this, so why should not they? Who am I to judge? Didn’t a philosopher say that ‘Everything is now permitted’?’ Or is this a mere cop-out, a form of ‘decidophobia’, a fear of decision-making, as Walter Kaufmann has put it? Or, is this, a specific choice, even in its evasion of choice, as Blaise Pascal long ago pointed out?
A coin is being tossed, and it will come down heads or tails―to refuse making a a choice, is itself a choice! You cannot, therefore, evade a choice, even if you are decidophobic!
We are condemned to be free! In this freedom, we define ourselves! There is no reality, except in action! Action precedes essence, meaning that, as we make choices and thereby act on them, we define ourselves, and create who we are, who we are to become. Since there is no God to think of values, there are now no limits to what is permitted, we are truly free!
Hence, existential reality is all! Biological reality? What is that? A footnote? Hidden at the back of a book, that no-one reads, or wants to read? But why?
What has this to do with bestiality? Except that, this too, is a choice! Who is it to tell me that this is wrong, but myself? Society may decree otherwise, but it is still up to me how I choose.
If I want to define myself as a bestialist, what is that to you? Who are you to judge?
Except of course, that the individual is a part of a social reality (‘Hell is other people!’)―a culture, and this culture sets boundaries on my choices. There is an inventory from which I can choose.
Mostly people rarely think outside of this box, and most blindly follow the agenda that the culture (and a government’s social policy) attempts to set.
Even the insane will operate within a set of recognisable symbols derived from within their culture, as the art of the schizophrenics Louis Wain and Richard Dadd show, with their world of cats and fairies.
Self-consciousness of the way in which we are shaped by a culture creates responsibility, and with it accountability. At least, in the eyes of the state. ‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’, therefore not guilty, not to be conscious of oneself in a rational way.
What then of the well-known psychological mechanism, of the ‘foot in the door’ whereby a small favour (let the reader imagine what this might be!) can be followed by a bigger one―well substantiated experimentally?
For example, given two groups, one asked to place large and unattractive signs on the lawns outside their homes, most people refused, unsurprisingly.
Another group were asked to plant small and more attractive signs in front of their homes. Again, unsurprisingly, these were acceptable.
The group that accepted the small and attractive signs were then asked to accept the large and less attractive ones. According to the ‘foot in the door’, the small favour would be followed by acceptance of the bigger favour, and this was exactly as predicted.
In western societies, existential values reign. Me first! This is orchestrated by support groups, a bandwagon onto which all political parties jumped.
For the vote is all! Never mind biology (except when it comes to cancer research, where existential reality works against self-interest). What do we mean?
The little favour (that gender is existential, and that choice is all), the big favour (yet to be approved by western governments, who are likely to have unrepealed medieval laws against such practices) permission for sex with a beloved dog, pig, cat, horse, or any other beloved animal.
Why not? At the moment this is too big a favour. But wait for it. A powerful support lobby arises. Not to move with this lobby labels the government as unjust and judgmental.
Therefore, they make a small favour or series of small favours acceptable.
This is essential to maintain their voter base, and hence their influence. Eventually the big favour is granted, and to argue against bestiality is to be labelled bestiophobic. Such hate speech cannot be tolerated!
Indeed, even to use this word, is to be bestiophobic. Everything is now permitted. Provided you address the issue in the “right” way.