Thursday, November 29, 2012
Animals are much easier to understand than women
... so says Michael Kiok, the chairman of Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta) ... for those of you who are wondering, Zoophilia is the upmarket name for bestiality.
Michael is at the forefront of a campaign, lobbying the German government not to change its laws on bestiality. That's right: the chairman of a zoophilia pressure group wants the laws in Germany to stay the same ... because at the moment in Germany sex with animals is legal - and has been since 1969 when it was decriminalised. The proposal is to reverse that decision, & put a hefty fine in place for those whose love for their pets crosses the line.
Naturally, Michael is outraged. What his Alsatian 'Cessie' has to say about this is anyone's guess, although Michael insists "We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything." And while I'm sure that Michael does indeed 'see' it that way, I'm not sure how one determines that the animal concerned sees it in a similar light. (Please note my restraint in not taking advantage of the multiple opportunities for very crude jokes at this point ... might I humbly request that anyone using the combox on this do likewise?)
Those who want the law changed see the practice as cruelty to animals. Michael counters by talking about all the cruelty to animals in the animal husbandry industry. I don't disagree that there are plenty of cruel practices out there. But I can't say that I follow his logic that the cruelty he objects to somehow justifies the cruelty that he advocates - although, of course, he doesn't see his practices as in anyway cruel. And while I respect the concern of those who want the law changed for the sake of animals, it is a pity there is, as far as I can make out, no concern for the dignity of the human person in this debate & how degrading it is to that dignity to engage in such practices. From a natural law perspective, there is no argument to be made but that people should not have sex with animals. From a Christian perspective, particularly thinking in terms of the theology of the body, it is quite simply a grave moral evil.
As for poor Michael, pray for him (& those who suffer from the same kind of attractions). He says that he has had 'special feelings' for animals since early childhood. Those feelings 'took on erotic elements' when he was a teenager. The practice was no longer unlawful ... there were no boundaries in place ... why would he not have acted on these 'special feelings'? He needed help to channel his sexuality in a way that would help him flourish as a human being ... and it would seem that help was not there. I think his words, which I used for the title of this post, goes to the heart of this man's problems: 'Animals are much easier to understand than women.'
You can read more about this here and here.