Being a “zoophile” in modern American society, Beck says, is “like being gay in the 1950s. You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak.”
Now Beck believes he and other members of this minority sexual orientation, who often call themselves “zoos,” can follow the same path as the gay rights movement. Most researchers believe 2 to 8 percent of the population harbors forbidden desires toward animals, and Beck hopes this minority group can begin appealing to the open-minded for acceptance.
In fact, he has an attraction to several animals — among them: dogs, horses, and goats. Raised a Southern Baptist, Ron says his first struggle was with bisexuality and that after some soul-searching, he ultimately decided that “God is more concerned with how we treat others than what sex we have.”
Of course. Moo.
An academic who has studied zoophiles (“zoos”) stands up for them, saying they are not zoopedophiles:
When told of Senator Rich’s remarks about people who commit bestiality being a threat to children, Miletski says, “I think it’s real bullshit for people to say that. There’s no connection that we know of. If you said that to zoos, they would be so offended.” That’s because Miletski says nearly all the zoophiles she interviewed expressed moral revulsion for sex with animals that had not fully matured. In this respect, she says, they recognize the same values that underlie laws against statutory rape.
It is good to know that there are still standards in this world. And finally:
Beck believes these are expressions of fear that are natural in the early moments of revolution. “That’s the story throughout history,” he says. “People don’t want to stand up for anything, because they don’t want to get hurt.” He draws some of his own strength from the recent movie Milk, in which Sean Penn plays the nation’s first openly gay elected official, San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk. “If we all stand up at once, we’ll share the load. What’s the point of living if we have to hide who we are?”
Well, what if what you are is shameful and disgusting? Still, I take the guy’s point. He’s only carrying a logic that drives much in this culture of ours to its rational end. I’ve been snarky in this post, but seriously, if you believe human sexual behavior has no intrinsic moral nature, why is what these people do wrong? In the story, someone says that animals cannot consent to this act. But one of the “zoos” says that how can he be abusing his Rottweiler when he, the man, is the passive partner?
I know, ick. But we are told that disgust is not a sufficient rationale to condemn particular sexual behavior. So, on what rational grounds does one condemn and outlaw this? The idea that it’s wrong because consent is impossible to obtain from the animal is nuts.