southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Well actually one of the victims in the bestiality documentary was a family man who died as a result of having relations with an animal. It's his story that led to the exploration of why people would engage in such behavior. This man was certainly a victim of his own poor choices and I believe his death vividly reinforces the notion that such behavior can have horrible consequences and is not a good thing.Glow said:In both the cases you mentioned Oedipus and "The Accused", the story works because it is told from the viewpoint of the victims. Our sympathies are directed at their story not towards the viewpoint of the villain.
Imagine Oedipus if the story was aimed at getting us to understand and sympathize with Laius. I haven't seen "The Accused" but again I'm sure that the story is presented to the viewer NOT from the viewpoint of sympathy for those "poor rapists" but rather from the viewpoint of the awfulness of it and the search for justice ie; the victims viewpoint.
In this documentary on beastiality, the story is told to put forth the viewpoint of the perpetrator, not the victim. Their victims (the animals who even if big and strong, are still helpless in the situation) can not speak. They do not have the ability to form words. If this movie was produced with sympathy for the victim then that would be a different matter.
Just because there is a market for something, doesn't that mean the producer has no accountability.
As I said in my earlier post, I think it is laudable to find connectedness with other humans no matter how different they may be from us, so the sympathy argument doesn't hold water with me. You can sympathize with someone and still not approve of their actions, IMHO.
I also think it is not a bad thing to understand why this abnormal behavior occurs. This to me seems the first step in eradicating it. We can not fight what we do not understand.