Lawmaker works to make bestiality illegal in Florida

[Missizzy]

Isn't that the argument for legalizing child , though? That if people can view it and fantasize about it, they won't actually physically harm a child?

But what about the children or the animals used in the films and images? Don't they deserve our protection?

 

[Nova]

Isn't that the argument for legalizing child , though? That if people can view it and fantasize about it, they won't actually physically harm a child?

But what about the children or the animals used in the films and images? Don't they deserve our protection?

Are you responding to my post? Because, no, what I said has nothing to do with any arguments for legalizing child . (Since you bring it up, however, the jury is still out on whether on the whole encourages imitation or relieves pressures that might otherwise lead to illegal behavior.)

I don't know anyone who argues that actual child should be legal so that child molesters can relieve their tension. Maybe that argument could be made for simulated child , but it's not a subject I've thought about enough to form an opinion.

My point was there are all kinds of animals and all kinds of fetishes. Vaginal or anal intercourse with a sheep is one thing, stepping on a bug is another. The fact that some people get a sexual thrill from the latter is not a reason to outlaw stepping on bugs. If someone likes to masturbate while stroking her cat, should that be a crime? The cat isn't being harmed; it's enjoying the attention (which we would find perfectly normal absent the adjacent sexual activity). What if two people are having sex and their dog or cat jumps on the bed with them? (This has happened at my house at least once with virtually every kitten we've raised.) How many seconds do they have to get the animal off the bed before they have committed a crime?

I suspect it is questions such as these that derail bestiality laws.

 

[IWannaKnow]

What I posted was that I believe bestiality is "relatively rare," i.e., relative to some other fetishes. It's hard to know from a quick internet search how much on-line curiosity translates into actual behavior.

Those pictures came from somewhere...but just for the sake of argument, would you feel happy, safe and comfortable with a zoophile living next door to you and your cats? Even if he were only looking at them for pleasure and imagining himself having sex with them but didn't follow through? Perhaps masturbating to pictures he took of them while they were out in your yard or watching them though the window while they played??

If you look at the numbers Missizzy produced, the average "registered member" at Beastforum has made fewer than 7 posts, so I think a lot of those users come from the idly curious.

It's yet another leap to insist we make sex with animals into one more capital crime "to protect the children." Missizzy's point about sex and control is a good one, but it's not the same as hard data showing that perpetrators commonly move from one to the other.

I have no problem with attaching criminal penalties to beastiality, but we all need to face the fact that in most cases there is no complaining witness and no one to testify at trial.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nake...-no-will-the-house-keep-bestiality-legal.html
Goat abuse sparks outcry;
The case of a goat who was raped and killed has prompted a push for a bill that would outlaw bestiality in Florida.

BYLINE: MARC CAPUTO, [email protected]
January 4, 2008 Friday

Parker said he couldn't prosecute the suspect in the death of Meg because DNA samples taken with a sheriff's office rape kit were inconclusive.

Parker said he asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement last week to retest the evidence.

The goat can't talk anyway, what would be the point of parading her into the courtroom? So the accused can face his accuser? DNA and a police report. Witness statements. Photographs of the victim.

Are you responding to my post? Because, no, what I said has nothing to do with any arguments for legalizing child . (Since you bring it up, however, the jury is still out on whether on the whole encourages imitation or relieves pressures that might otherwise lead to illegal behavior.)

I don't know anyone who argues that actual child should be legal so that child molesters can relieve their tension. Maybe that argument could be made for simulated child , but it's not a subject I've thought about enough to form an opinion. I have thought about it, alot, and I am VERY against it. Perhaps some people are able to look but don't touch, but I would bet you every $$$ in my bank account that the reverse is true. Why else do dieters empty the house of everything but carrot sticks? Human nature is not the look but don't touch type, IMO. If a person went far enough to search something like that out, they have other thoughts too. IMO of course....

My point was there are all kinds of animals and all kinds of fetishes. Vaginal or anal intercourse with a sheep is one thing, stepping on a bug is another. The fact that some people get a sexual thrill from the latter is not a reason to outlaw stepping on bugs. The last time I checked, bugs are insects, animals are mammals or invertebrates. How do you know it is the killing of the bug rather than the clad or unclad foot that inspires the fetish? None the less, no sexual intercourse with the "animal", therefore not the same topic IMO.

If someone likes to masturbate while stroking her cat, should that be a crime? The cat isn't being harmed; it's enjoying the attention (which we would find perfectly normal absent the adjacent sexual activity). Once again, no direct sexual contact between the human and the cat. Not illegal, er, illegal if you have a LAW.


What if two people are having sex and their dog or cat jumps on the bed with them? (This has happened at my house at least once with virtually every kitten we've raised.) How many seconds do they have to get the animal off the bed before they have committed a crime? Did you then turn and have sex with the kitten, film that act and then put it on the web? If they need to perform a rape kit on a animal we are clearly not discussing the same thing as your pet jumping on the bed while you are having intercourse with a consenting human....

I suspect it is questions such as these that derail bestiality laws.

I suspect it is discussions such as this one which derail bestiality laws. Lawmakers want above all else to be re-elected. If they believe their electorate think and feel as you do, well, what one of them would want to tackle this issue?

 

[Nova]

Iwannaknow, what my neighbor does on his own property while thinking of my cat is of no concern to me and shouldn't be the concern of LE. I don't spend any time thinking about my neighbors' sex life and I don't think the legal system should be burdened with protecting you or me from our own imaginations. If he injures my cat, there are already laws that apply.

Later, you change YOUR definition of bestiality to include only those incidents that include sexual penetration. (You are wrong about insects: they are animals, too. Most living things that are not plants are animals. The exceptions are bacteria, algae and fungi. In the example I gave, it was the shoe AND the animal that fueled the fetish.) That may well be a good boundary for a bestiality law, but my point was that to enact such a law, legislators have to be willing to have a public discussion of such issues. They can't make law anonymously on the internet. I can understand why some are squeamish, though that shouldn't be an excuse.

Yes, I understand that prosecutors can use forensic evidence instead of testimony by the victim. But the fact remains that somebody has to know the crime occurred and make a complaint. (And the forensic evidence has to be available. Apparently, there's a problem with the testing in the goat case.) Since most people molest their own animals, who will make the complaint? Law or no law, bestiality will remain a difficult to prosecute and rarely used charge, I predict. This is a second reason why it may not have been a priority for legislators in the past.

I don't know why child was brought into this discussion except that it joins bestiality under the heading, "Things That Make Us Uncomfortable." But that's not why both should be illegal.

ETA I see that by the end of your rant you accuse me of being personally responsible for bestiality (and the lack of a law against it) in Florida. To that I can only reply with the old adage: Honi soit qui mal y pense.

 

[Missizzy]

I'm curious, how do we know that people typically abuse their own animals? Many of the cases we've followed here on WS, involved animals that were essentially "pimped out" (for want of a better word) for the purpose of sexual contact. Thus, the number of people who seem to be meeting up on CL and other forums. I highly doubt that the thousands of people who are seeking dates or meet-ups on beastforum and other bestiality forums always provide their own animals.

As in the case of Douglas Spink, he not only openly boasted of his sexual connection with his dogs and horses but made money by selling the services of those animals. He also trafficked the animals across state lines for the purpose of sexual activity.

I believe that I'm the one who brought in the issue of child as it seems to be a recurrent theme in bestiality arrests and investigations. I, too, am curious why. Is it for the industry or simply to satisfy a particular sick person's lust...or both?

I think the laws being considered for passage (and already passed in a number of states) are quite well defined. I seriously doubt that a couple would be arrested due to the fact that a kitten jumped onto a bed during an intimate moment. I think the law is intended to be far more narrow. If that kitten showed up being subjected to sexual contact during a film, that's a whole different story, IMO. I am fully aware that statistics can sometimes be skewed. However, the link between the crimes seems to be holding up as presented by the animal welfare protection groups and the FBI.

Nova, you brought up a point about why should you be concerned about what your neighbor might be thinking about your cat. My lack of concern about that very issue almost destroyed our family's life. I should have been far more cautious concerning what my neighbor was thinking about my precious two kitties and two dogs--not to mention my children. He raped one young cat and the rectal damage was so great, the sweet little guy had to be put to sleep. He literally skinned the fur and flesh from another dear kitty's entire tail which had to be amputated. He then sexually abused our Corgi and Cairn terrier. Earlier victims told similar stories. All this was done in view of a group of special needs children....ours and at least two others to prove to them what could be done to them if they spoke out about their rapes. The young man also shared with them magazines about bestiality to engage their interest. This crime totally upended my entire life. I'm still dealing with the aftermath 13 years later and I'm the mother....not the victims.

How I wish I could still publicly speak and/or protest. Trust me, I'd be out on the street corner. Abused animals, just like abused children are my life. I've sought out the hurt and the maimed. I currently live with 8 kind hearted abuse survivors--all tiny dogs who've been kicked, stomped, cut, had eyes gouged out, vulvas viciously cut off, items inserted in their penises and legs hacked off. They fill my life with joy as they truly seem to value the gentle treatment they know are entitled to. The issue of protecting the vulnerable is a 24 hour a day commitment in my life. I'll close with two of my favorite quotes.


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" ~M. Gandhi

and

""Animals cannot speak, but can you and I not speak for them and represent them? Let us all feel their silent cry of agony and let us all help that cry to be heard in the world." ~Rukmini Devi Arundale

 

[Missizzy]

A recent case of interest:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/mesa/foster-child-🤬🤬🤬🤬-images-computer-02242011

Bondage, Bestiality, Child Found on Man's Computer

"A Mesa [AZ] man was arrested for having child on his computer. Detectives found dozens of images of children on 60-year-old Frank Foster's computer. The images also included adults and animals.

Detectives initially found 50 images and videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors under the age of 15, including two girls seen in several bondage and bestiality situations. Police say he admitted downloading the images for the last 10 years and said his children of choice are 5 to 8 years old...."

more at link


Obviously, the case has not been tried. We've yet to see it proven that Mr. Foster's images actually do contain child , bondage, and bestiality. But, if he was my neighbor, I'd be very concerned about the safety of any animals or children under my care and I'd welcome LEOs investigation into his practices.

I have to wonder just how many survivors of childhood sexual abuse were also forced to participate in sexual contact with animals and pets or observe their sexual torture.

 

[IWannaKnow]

Nova:
Missizzy did a fabulous job of explaining exactly how child and beastiality are tied together. I will not attempt to add to her wise words. It can all be verified on the net if the time is taken to do so. I never changed my definition, and as no example was cited I have no idea where you got that impression, but if you would like to define it as only sexual penetration I am fine with that.

My entire point is summed up by you:

to enact such a law, legislators have to be willing to have a public discussion of such issues

If a lawmaker reads here to judge just how a bid to enact this law might be received by the general public, I believe they would immediately drop the issue like a hot potato. THAT is my point. And clearly a lack of understanding of the topic and willingness to address it is going to be a stumbling block.

 

[Nova]

I'm curious, how do we know that people typically abuse their own animals? Many of the cases we've followed here on WS, involved animals that were essentially "pimped out" (for want of a better word) for the purpose of sexual contact. Thus, the number of people who seem to be meeting up on CL and other forums. I highly doubt that the thousands of people who are seeking dates or meet-ups on beastforum and other bestiality forums always provide their own animals....

Fair enough. I haven't conducted a formal survey; the above is merely my opinion. But I think it stands to reason because assuming motive, an animal molester has easiest means and opportunity with his or her own animals.

You seem to believe that internet chatrooms are the best indicator of bestiality. You may be right, though I would still caution that the low number of posts per user in the room you analyzed indicates most users are merely curious. And we are talking in thousands of people out of planet that has six billion. The numbers may be regrettable, but we're still talking about a relatively uncommon fetish.

My only knowledge of the subject is anecdotal and comes from the stories men raised on farms tell about their neighbors. But perhaps internet (and earlier sexual activity by girls) have replaced the sexual experimentation that used to happen with farm animals.

I believe that I'm the one who brought in the issue of child as it seems to be a recurrent theme in bestiality arrests and investigations. I, too, am curious why. Is it for the industry or simply to satisfy a particular sick person's lust...or both?....

I think a certain number of people have a fetish for one or the other, and then there's another, perhaps larger group of people that are polymorphously perverse, i.e., they are pretty much up for anything, but may prefer that which is forbidden. No doubt some of the latter graduate, just as serial killers do, from the low risk of pets to the higher risk of children.

I think the laws being considered for passage (and already passed in a number of states) are quite well defined....

Good. I never said bestiality should be legal; I merely said criminalizing it requires some thought and definition. Our initial revulsion and outrage don't in themselves make for sound law.

I seriously doubt that a couple would be arrested due to the fact that a kitten jumped onto a bed during an intimate moment. I think the law is intended to be far more narrow....

I should hope so. That's all I was saying.

Nova, you brought up a point about why should you be concerned about what your neighbor might be thinking about your cat. My lack of concern about that very issue almost destroyed our family's life. I should have been far more cautious concerning what my neighbor was thinking....

No one here is defending the psychopath who victimized you and your family. (And of course you are one of his victims as well.) No one here is minimizing his crimes. But I don't see how you were supposed to know what he was thinking. And I don't see how a bestiality law would have changed matters in the situation you describe.

To recap, I NEVER said bestiality should be legal. I merely said it had to be carefully defined and I understand the squeamishness of legislators who have to discuss specifics in public (which was noted in the original source).

And I still haven't seen evidence that the sky is falling in terms of numbers of offenses. But that doesn't mean individual crimes aren't horrible. Nor does it mean I love my cat any less or take any less care in protecting him. (FTR, he's an indoor-only pet.)

FWIW, I think anyone who uses that Gandhi quote has to give up eating beef, because it is almost certain that he, a devout Hindu, was thinking of cows.

 

[Nova]

Nova:
Missizzy did a fabulous job of explaining exactly how child and beastiality are tied together. I will not attempt to add to her wise words. It can all be verified on the net if the time is taken to do so.

She may have done a fabulous job, but my complaint was tying it to my post. I neither said nor implied that child should be legal. She referred to my mention of a particular fetish that involves watching a woman squash a bug. My point wasn't that "watching" should always be legal, but that killing roaches should be. Demanding that the government intervene in the killing of a roach based on what is in the killer's or the viewer's mind is a misuse of the judicial system, IMO.

I never changed my definition {of bestiality}, and as no example was cited I have no idea where you got that impression, but if you would like to define it as only sexual penetration I am fine with that.

Maybe you never changed your definition in your head, but you certainly changed it in your post. You began talking about my hypothetical neighbor masturbating to photos of my cat. (That was your example.) Later in the post, you say a bestiality law would only target acts that involved sexual penetration. Those are different definitions of bestiality.

My entire point is summed up by you:

If a lawmaker reads here to judge just how a bid to enact this law might be received by the general public, I believe they would immediately drop the issue like a hot potato. THAT is my point. And clearly a lack of understanding of the topic and willingness to address it is going to be a stumbling block.

History proves you wrong. History shows that a legislator looking at this thread would more likely rush to pass an overly broad law without regard for the legal consequences, safe in the knowledge that anyone who tried to discuss the matter reasonably would be shouted down and accused of abetting monsters.

 

[Missizzy]

I fully agree with your statement, Nova, about following the "letter of the law" concerning Ghandhi. I am a vegetarian and I do not wear leather. I do not judge others that choose other paths and humanely raise and slaughter their animal foods. It's just not my choice.

Our children were believed. Their rapist was convicted and served 10 years and is a RSO for life. This might seem trivial to some, but our precious pets did not receive their "day in court". Not a day was served for their abuse. At the time, bestiality laws didn't exist in Oregon, which covered teens, and thus he couldn't be charged for the acts described by 10 children (8 of ours and 2 others), and I just mentioned a few.

I live with the knowledge that this man is most likely abusing animals and children again. The two sexual acts seemed to be inextricably linked for him, for some terrible reason. My children had voices. My pets did not.

 

[Nova]

I fully agree with your statement, Nova, about following the "letter of the law" concerning Ghandhi. I am a vegetarian and I do not wear leather. I do not judge others that choose other paths and humanely raise and slaughter their animal foods. It's just not my choice.

Our children were believed. Their rapist was convicted and served 10 years and is a RSO for life. This might seem trivial to some, but our precious pets did not receive their "day in court". Not a day was served for their abuse. At the time, bestiality laws didn't exist in Oregon, which covered teens, and thus he couldn't be charged for the acts described by 10 children (8 of ours and 2 others), and I just mentioned a few.

I live with the knowledge that this man is most likely abusing animals and children again. The two sexual acts seemed to be inextricably linked for him, for some terrible reason. My children had voices. My pets did not.

Good for you, Missizzy. I should have known.

From your post, I assume the legislature in Oregon has enacted some sort of law to cover bestiality. I'm glad. I hope they've toughened the penalties for child molestation, too, as 10 years for the offenses you describe against children is too little.

I think any non-consensual sex should be penalized; that includes rape and sex with children or animals.

 

[Missizzy]

Yes, our laws on bestiality and animal abuse have been strengthened. As to the ten years, I need to clarify. The rapist was a juvenile and could only be held "under the jurisdiction of the court" until the age of 25--thus 10 years in lock-up. It's only because of the fine work of Crime Victims United that juveniles can be held until 25 in Oregon. That's not the case in many states.

Also to clarify, the rapist never confessed nor admitted to any crime at all. He attended no sex offender treatment while incarcerated. There was a time that he was allowed access to animals, before we made a formal complaint to the director of the Youth Authority. Sometimes animal therapy can be a wonderful thing. Sometimes, it's just not appropriate.

He is a RSO for life, however.

 

[Nova]

Yes, our laws on bestiality and animal abuse have been strengthened. As to the ten years, I need to clarify. The rapist was a juvenile and could only be held "under the jurisdiction of the court" until the age of 25--thus 10 years in lock-up. It's only because of the fine work of Crime Victims United that juveniles can be held until 25 in Oregon. That's not the case in many states.

Also to clarify, the rapist never confessed nor admitted to any crime at all. He attended no sex offender treatment while incarcerated. There was a time that he was allowed access to animals, before we made a formal complaint to the director of the Youth Authority. Sometimes animal therapy can be a wonderful thing. Sometimes, it's just not appropriate.

He is a RSO for life, however.

I understand now. As a rule, I don't think juveniles should be treated the same and I abhor the latest trend of charging younger and younger children as adults, but I imagine it is painful for you and your children to know the rapist is out of jail. I am very sorry for that. (Given the facts I know, I certainly agree with you that this was not a good case for animal therapy.)

 

[Missizzy]

Sorry to revisit this unpleasant topic but I stumbled upon some information which proves to me just how timely it is for Florida to enact legislation concerning bestiality.

For quite some time, I've been researching former Dr. William Ayres. He was a psychiatrist in San Mateo County, CA who evaluated children for the county. He's accused of molesting many many boys. This is of great concern to me as three of our sons came to us from San Mateo foster care. In doing research on Ayres, I've been looking for other doctors who might somehow have been connected with him. We have a thread concerning the man and a number of other doctors.

I came upon the name Wilhem Reich, a curious and strange man who still has quite a following. He believed that orgasmic energy can be harnessed and channeled. Imagine my surprise to find out that the Orgone Lab is only 10 miles from my home as is still offering trainings and seminars. I found an article about an interesting event concerning Reich and cloudbusting in Tucson, AZ. Apparently he brought his orgone equipment to town during the worst drought in Tucson's history and left just after they received the greatest amount of rainfall in their history:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/paranormal/2009/11/03/ufos-orgasms-and-the-occult-the-tucson-connection/

Under the article is a comment by a person named Malcolm Brenner (I use his full name as he publishes it) who claims to have been abused as a child in the "Reichian cult". I decided to do further research as Mr. Brenner stated that he is writing a book. I wanted to know more. Well, he wrote a book but it seems to be about a different subject. It concerns his sexual, sensual, and spiritual experiences with a dolphin named Ruby in Florida, some years ago. The name of the book is "The Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover". It was published in 2009. Brenner even has a website concerning the book and experience:

http://wetgoddess.net/

He also addresses the issue of consent from the viewpoint of a zoophile:

http://wetgoddess.net/FAQ1.html

Just a side note. I found the Eye of Horus at the bottom of the page to be curious. I recently researched Colin Batley of Wales who was convicted of numerous child rape crimes and who admittedly followed the "Book of Law" by Aleister Crowley. Interestingly, Batley's female accomplices (also convicted of child sexual abuse) all had the Eye of Horus tattoeed on their bodies. I just found that a bit odd.

I have to say that this bit of research has felt more than a little surreal. Very very strange.

 

[Missizzy]

Another resource which touches on occurrence and practice. I have no idea how reliable this is, just thought I'd set it out on the table:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Zoophilia/id/1931219

 

[tlcya]

ugghh, I guess I just assumed it was illegal everywhere already.

 

[Nova]

Sorry to revisit this unpleasant topic but I stumbled upon some information which proves to me just how timely it is for Florida to enact legislation concerning bestiality....

I don't know about timely. The dolphin lover is writing about events he claimed happened in the 1970s; and even HE questions other accounts of human male/female dolphin sex, claiming those accounts don't describe dolphin anatomy correctly. It would appear some zoophilia is just fantasy or weird boasting.

And the result of his writing is that it took him 30 years to get 50 copies published. This is hardly a title wave of interest in zoophilia.

As for his explanation of "dolphin consent," he himself provides the refutation with the cartoon he includes cautioning us not to ascribe human motivations to wild animals. Sex with a dolphin may have been "sensual and spiritual" to him, but what was it to the dolphin? I think we have to assume the dolphin was attempting to procreate, so even if the human didn't use physical force, he certainly used deception to coerce the sexual behavior.

(BTW, he's right about this much: dolphins can easily kill a human being even if by accident. I oppose all forms of bestiality, but people should certainly leave the dolphins alone.)

***

I don't know what Wilhelm Reich has to do with this discussion, but he had a huge following in the 1970s. (My husband, a licensed psychotherapist (now retired) has read all of Reich's works published in English.)

Whatever they are doing at the Orgone Lab at this point, we can't blame it on Reich.

 

[Missizzy]

Let me try to explain. I learned of Reich's work when I was researching doctors that might have been linked to pedophilia. I'd seen a number of comments here and there on the web that said that writers were abused by doctors involved in a "Reichian cult" (a writer's phrase, not mine). I wanted to know more. Last June I did a good bit of research on Wilhelm Reich and bookmarked a number of articles. I was looking at those again in connection with the investigation into the former doctor, William Ayres, of San Mateo County California. In reading one of those articles, I came upon the name of Malcolm Brenner and checked to see if he had ever written his book, "Growing Up in the Orgone Box". I found the info about the "Wet Goddess" and also his blog. It seems that he has not yet written the book about his childhood abuse. He seems to take his time with writing.

I take Mr. Brenner at his word. If he says that he had sexual contact with a dolphin, I'll believe him. I seriously doubt that he ever thought that he'd strike it rich with a book about the subject. I merely wanted to point out that his acts then and even now would be legal in the state of Florida and that does not please me at all.

Concerning Wilhelm Reich....it's a fascinating story. I've read all about his work, his travels, his museum and the Infant Trust. It's very clear that the US government attempted to squelch his work for some reason. I have no doubt that the man was incredibly bright as many practitioners follow his theories today. I found a number listed throughout the country. The links I read were these:

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/reichlecture.html (history)

http://www.wilhelmreichmuseum.org/about.html (The Infant Trust)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cq...&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false (the issue of genital examination in the context of psychiatric exams)

http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/wilhelmreich/index.html (information about the burned materials)

It seems that Reichian therapists have cast aside the use of the controversial Orgone Accumulator for more mainstream therapy practices. However, you will find that Dr. DeMeo of Ashland, OR has a full schedule of seminars and seems to still use some sort of similar device. He can be found here:

http://www.orgonelab.org/

I was even contacted by a WSer in Kansas whose uncle built an Orgone Accumulator in connection with the beat poet William Burroughs. It still exists on the family property, I was told. I have to tell you that I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that one is brought forth each year for Burning Man. I have a son who is an avid Burner and I'll have to ask.

I'm still a bit uneasy about some of Reich's statements about infants and children. I highly admire and agree with many of his theories but some things seem a bit creepy. That's what caused him to come to my attention in the first place. I was curious as to whether he ever trained a number of seemingly interconnected child psychiatrists who have been accused of molestation. Was he a pedophile? I certainly cannot make that judgement. He surely had some very odd sexual experiences in his childhood and obviously had an awful lot of unresolved pain about mothers. However, it's surely possible that some of his followers misread his teachings or used them for their own puerile purposes.

That's the long and slightly strange story of how I came to find Malcolm Brenner's story of purported bestiality.

 

[Nova]

Let me try to explain. I learned of Reich's work when I was researching....

Missizzy, as you know Reich wrote very freely about sex, particularly when compared to the Victorians who preceded him. For that reason, his works have always appealed to those with extreme and/or deviant sexual interests. That doesn't mean that Reich himself is the cause of those interests, although he certainly encouraged free attitudes toward sex.

To my knowledge, very little that is productive was ever got from an orgone machine, but Reich's openness about sex still proves a welcome alternative to Freud's emphasis on perversions and repression.

I'm not sure what remarks Reich made about children, but psychiatrists have acknowledged sexual impulses in children since long before him (again, see Freud for example). We shy away from discussing such things in polite society, largely I think because pedophiles wrongly use any mention of sexuality in children as an excuse to exploit the young. You and I will agree that incipient sexual instincts in children in no way excuses molestation by adults.

***

I wasn't doubting Brenner. It is he who doubts previous accounts; of course, he has a vested interest in his book being unique, but he claims that earlier accounts don't get dolphin anatomy right. I wouldn't know.

I did watch a TV program on male dolphins who have initiated sexual attacks on female humans. Sometimes "swimming with the dolphins" isn't the transcendent experience imagined by New Agers. (I don't have data, but I suspect such attacks are more common with captive dolphins.) So I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that Brenner reversed the sexes in his dolphin sex. Nonetheless, I still consider it coercive and therefore wrong.

***

But BTW, there's a link on the Amanda Knox thread to the DSM-IV, which calls bestiality a "rare paraphilia." I believe that's where I came into this discussion.

 

[Missizzy]

ITA, Nova, concerning the issue of general society's reverence for the sexual innocence and purity of children being sullied by pedophiles. No longer can parents proudly show off their sweet bath-time photos and very rarely can toddlers get away with running through the sprinkler in the front yard bare-bottom. That is one of the saddest outcomes of the validation of pedophilia, IMO.

I've experienced a similar outcome of the growing knowledge of bestiality. Things that used to seem very innocent to me in the past, now have taken on a tainted sense. It used to be common practice to photograph children with the family pet. Now, sick people who trade in child and bestiality have spoiled that to a degree.

I hope you are right about this being a rare paraphilia. I'm not getting that sense, though. WS have certainly opened my eyes to things I never knew existed and caused me to research these interests. That's led me to believe that it's far more common that we thought.

I also think there's a vast difference between a conduct-disordered youth (budding sociopath) who is cruelly torturing animals for thrill and those who express a sexual/sensual connection with their pets and/or other animals. The end result is sometimes the same but sometimes very different. Society always has to err on the side of caution when it comes to safety for our animal friends, though, to my mind.