Most people are unaware of how their meat gets to them. People turn a blind eye to the industrialized process in which animals are slaughtered. For example, most people don’t know that pigs are often killed in very inhumane ways. In many cases, pigs are tied by their hind legs, left hanging from a hook, and then slowly lowered into a boiling container of water while they’re still alive. They suffered unimaginably painful deaths. And then they become the ham on your ham sandwich.
This is not the case for all animals; some are killed humanely. But unfortunately, the majority of animals in our society are treated like commodities — objects to be exploited for mass consumption. We no longer live in an age in which people can casually kill an animal here, an animal there — we live in an age in which there are so many people that it requires a gigantic, cruel system of slaughter. I believe that when people go to Applebee’s, there should be photos of animals being slaughtered on their menu; it would hurt their business, but at least it would be honest. By enabling people to buy hamburgers and hot dogs at such places, but acting as if the meat simply came out of thin air, they are being deceptive and encouraging the customer to turn a blind eye to the slaughter that occurs behind closed doors.
This is why people should stop eating meat. But many people say “I can’t stop eating meat because it tastes so good! I could never go without meat!” The solution to this problem is to eat products which taste just like meat, but aren’t. A good example of this are the frozen foods companies Boca Burgers and Morningstar Farms. Both of these companies offer foods that look and taste just like meat, but are made from non-meat sources. There are also a lot of ethnic cuisines (such as Indian) which do not have any meat in them. What a lot of people don’t realize is that one of the reasons their meat tastes good is because of things that were added to it (i.e. BBQ sauce, ketchup, seasonings, flavorings, etc.) — these “added” things can be added to non-meat products too. In other words, it’s not the meat itself which tastes good, its the things which are added into the mix. The only reason people think the meat itself tastes good is because people are brainwashed by the meat industry and by advertising to think of it that way.
Above: example of a Morningstar Farms product
If you go into a local Supermarket, look for Boca Burgers, Morningstar Farms products, and Amy’s products. Also look for foods such as tofu and products which say they’re veggie or vegan. There are now more choices than ever when it comes to food that looks and tastes like meat but isn’t. There are Morningstar “Chik’n” patties (which looks and tastes like Chicken but is made of soy), there are products such as vegetarian hot dogs which are also made from soy, and both Boca and Morningstar make burgers which taste like hamburgers but aren’t made of meat. And it turns out that not eating meat is actually healthier than eating meat; there is a lot of cholesterol in products such as beef.
The easiest way to stop eating meat is to slowly stop making it part of your diet (kind of like the way smokers use nicatine gum to slowly stop smoking). Eating products that look and taste like meat but aren’t (such as Boca and Morningstar products) will help you to “get off” eating meat. Eventually, you won’t be eating meat and you won’t even be aware of it.
If you had the opportunity to walk up to a cow or a pig on a farm and cuddle with it, you’d never eat meat again. This is why I’m a vegetarian — I have compassion for other animals.
I am still largely undecided about the issue of abortion, however that does not mean I haven’t drawn conclusions about it. The problem with abortion is that people don’t really know whether a fetus counts as an independent life-form. Those arguing in favor of abortion argue that until the baby is born, it is still technically (biologically) part of the mother’s body and hence the mother can decide what she wants to do with it (similar to how if a mother wanted to chop off her arm, she’d be allowed to do it). But those arguing against abortion argue that the moment of independent sentience occurs not when a baby is born, but the moment a sperm cell meets and egg cell. They argue that from that point onward, the fetus is a separate lifeform.
I’m not a fan of abortion, but nonetheless I do not think it should be prohibited. I think it should be allowed, but strongly discouraged (kind of like smoking tobacco). Ultimately, people should try to avoid getting themselves into a situation in which they have a baby growing inside of them but don’t want to give birth to it. When it comes down to it, abstinence and abortion are similar in the sense that both result in the termination of a life. Abstinence results in the sperm and egg never meeting in the first place, thus resulting in no offspring. The only difference between abstinence and abortion is that abortion terminates life a step closer to reality (i.e. after the sperm and egg have met).
I have a problem with abortion in this sense: the chances of a specific sperm cell uniting with a specific egg cell are extremely small. Between any two parents, there are about 10 trillion possible children which could be born from those two parents, with each of the 10 trillion potential children having its own unique personality and consciousness. Now imagine every possible combination of parents (person A with person B, person A with person C, person B with person C, etc.) and the number of possible children unimaginably huge — septillions upon septillions of possible children. Because of this, each of the 7 billion people alive today should say to themselves, “I’m pretty damn lucky to be here. If the timing of the sperm/egg that made me had been just slightly off, I would’ve ceased to exist”.
Referring to what I was saying earlier, I have a problem with abortion in the sense that when a sperm and and egg cell meet (regardless of how this occurs), a consciousness is “plucked” from the pool of gazillions of possible children; it’s kind of like having 500 columns on a slot machine, and in order for a consciousness to come into existence all 500 of those columns need to say the number “7″. Now, imagine that that consciousness has beaten all the odds of making it to the real world, only to be tragically thwarted by someone’s abortion. That being would’ve beaten all the odds, but failed to pass the last obstacle: being allowed to develop and be born, due to someone’s decision. But then again, when someone decides to abstain from sex, they are also preventing the lifeform from being born. What makes abortion more tragic is that the lifeform has already passed the obstacle of emerging into the real world at the time that its life is terminated. It’s like getting admitted to a prestigious school and then being told after you’ve been admitted that you cannot attend.
At the moment I am still undecided about abortion because both sides of the argument are rational to at least some degree. Because of this, I don’t have a problem with abortions occurring, but I strongly discourage them. The fact is that whether or not abortion is legal, people are still going to get abortions anyway. If abortion is made illegal, women who want to get an abortion are still going to do it anyway, but they’ll do it in unsanitary conditions behind closed doors. This is primarily why I think abortion should be legal, but (based on what I’ve already said) should be discouraged. After all, a fetus is a form of life.
I was recently watching a true crime show on TV which contained language which exemplifies the arrogant, smug, anthropocentric beliefs of our society. For example, in the show they said “a person killed 7 animals and 1 human”. That right there is speciesist language. What the show should’ve said is “there were 8 animals killed, one of whom was a human”. The show should’ve said this because humans are animals. But of course, our society is so human-centric that humans are artificially separated from other species. In fact, it isn’t just this show: the English language itself has words that separate humans from other animals, even though humans are themselves animals. For example, when two humans engage in sexual intercourse, the humans are said to be “having sex”, but when two non-human animals engage in sexual intercourse, they are said to be “mating”. Similarly, if ones sees a sign in a park which says “no animals”, they assume that people will understand it to mean non-human animal. But of course, technically a sign that says “no animals allowed” means that humans are also not allowed, since humans are animals.
The problem is that people in our society don’t see it this way. They see humans as being superior to all other species, and according to our delusional society all other species are “below” humans. This is a fantasy created by humans to satisfy their own over-inflated egos. It also explains why our legal system is so anthropocentric and don’t give non-human animals as many rights as humans. Perhaps one of the reasons why sexual contact between humans and non-human animals is condemn so thoroughly by society is because people don’t know what to call it — is it “having sex”, or “mating”?
When I was watching that true crime show on TV, one of the things I noticed was that the bad guy killed 7 non-human animals first; and when this happened, the authorities looked into it, but didn’t make a big deal out of it. But as soon as humans began to be killed, the word “murder” comes into play and all of a sudden the authorities and the community began to panic. This is yet another example of how people place their own welfare above that of non-human animals — after all, people eat butchered animals all the time and don’t give it a second thought. What really bothers me is the word “murder” — it is a distinctly anthropocentric term. When a crazy person kills a non-human animal, the word “killed” is used, but when a human is killed, the word “murdered” is used; not only that, but the word “murder” never seems to be applied to non-human animals. Also, when non-human animals are killed, they are not called “homicides”. In this sense, the killing of humans gets special attention, whereas the killing of non-human animals don’t get any. In the eyes of the law, non-human animals are mainly objects and resources to be exploited, whereas humans are “special”, “privileged” beings with more rights.
Another thing I noticed while watching the true crime show was that one of the homicide detectives was himself a beef owner. Don’t you see the hypocrisy in that? This man, who was actively investing the killing of an innocent person, was simultaneously causing the deaths of innocent cows, for the purposes of slaughtering them and using them for meat. When the beef owner/homicide detective kills cows for profit, why aren’t the deaths of the cows called “homicides”? Clearly, there is an anthropocentric smugness and arrogance going on — even though both humans and cows are sentient beings, people seem to arrogantly think that a human life is more important and more valuable than the life of a cow (or a horse, or a dog, or any other non-human animal).
Here is another example: someone once told me the following scenario: “A man and a dog stand on the edge of a cliff; you must push one of them off. Which one do you choose?” This hypothetical scenario really annoys me because it forces one to say “human” — in that sense, it is a loaded question. A similar scenario is presented on p. 55 of the book “Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat”. In this part of the book, it gives the following scenarios:
“An out-of-control trolley is headed toward a group of the world’s last five remaining mountain gorillas. You can throw the switch and send it towards a 25-year-old man. Should you?
[Second scenario]: The trolley is speeding toward a man whom you do not know. But you can throw a switch and send it hurtling towards a pet dog? Should you?” — Hal Herzog, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat
The author goes on to say the following:
“In both cases, Mary Jean said to save the person over the [non-human] animal, even if it would mean the death of Tsali, our late, great Labrador retriever. I made the same decision, and you probably did too. Petrinovich found that almost everyone chose to save people over animals in these situations. This is also true of people in other parts of the world. In fact, of all of the ethical principles he examined using many different types of trolley problems, Petrinovich found that the single most powerful moral rule was ‘Save people over animals’.
Marc Hauser, director of the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory at Harvard [added another trolley dilemma]:
Once again, you are walking over a footbridge and see the trolley speeding down the track. It is headed toward five chimpanzees. Next to you on the footbridge is a large chimpanzee. The only way for you to save the five chimps is to personally push the big chimpanzee in the path of the trolley. Should you do it?
In this case, most people say that you should sacrifice one chimp to save five chimps. But recall that [in a different trolley problem], most people say that it would be wrong to push a human into the tracks to save five people in exactly the same circumstances. Rationally, we should make the same decision in both cases. But we don’t. Our intuition is different when we think about moral situations involving animals.” — Hal Herzog, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, p. 55-56
The above trolley problems are good examples of how humans arrogantly believe that their lives are more important that those of non-human animals. When it comes down to it, I am not like most people. For example, if a trolley were speeding towards a person I did not know and I had the ability to save that person by sending it towards my pet dog and killing my pet dog, I would not do it. I would let the trolley continue its course towards the person I did not know. Also, if a trolley was headed towards 5 beings (of any kind — human, chimp, etc.) the fact that the beings were human would not change my decision — according to the above mentioned trolley examples, I would push the large being in the way to save the 5 beings. The fact that they are human does not matter to me. Unfortunately, I am in the minority, and most people are smug and would have their best interests placed in the human.
But when it comes down to it, the trolley dilemma is itself flawed, because it doesn’t give you a third option — diverting the trolley so that it doesn’t hit anybody. If that choice were an option, I would not allow the trolley to hit the person and I would not allow it to hit the dog — I would simply divert it so it didn’t hit anybody.
Everything discussed so far could also explain why people act so irrationally when a person is attacked and killed or eaten by a non-human animal, such as a bear or a shark. Most people think that humans are the best thing that has ever happened to the Earth, so when their arrogance is destroyed by an animal attack, they get freaked out; they are reminded that humans are not in control of the Earth. I am not like most people; I do not mind it when people are attacked by animals because it is part of nature (and I especially don’t mind it considering the fact that only a handful of people are attacked by animals each year, while billions of non-human animals are killed by humans each year). In fact, I consider being killed and eaten by an animal the best possible way to go — it is an environmentally friendly way to go and provides nutrients to a hungry animal. Unfortunately, most people don’t see this and rely on their primal instincts to retaliate against the animals.
The point of all this is that humans are awfully arrogant, and need to reform the legal system so that non-human animals have just as many rights as humans. The legal system also needs to be reformed so that human-animal sexual interactions are allowed. “Human exceptionalism” is what is behind all this — it is the delusional philosophy that humans are “beyond” nature. This is rubbish — humans are not beyond nature, they just think they are.
(For those who don’t know, “speciesism” is a bias in favor of one species, usually humans, over others; it is like the terms “racism” and “sexism”).
On Wikipedia, people are constantly criticized for creating “original research”. This is not the way it should be. People should be praised for creating original research. Why? Think about this: when Albert Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, at the time he made it, it was “original research” — meaning, the only person in the universe who had thought of it was Einstein, so he had no sources to back it up — it was simply his idea.
That’s the problem with Wikipedia — their function is to create a website which relies on other sources. People who edit Wikipedia become like mindless zombies, taking information from other sources and adding it to the collective. When a person in that conformist group stands out from the crowd and begins coming up with new ideas (the way Einstein did), that person is shunned by Wikipedia and is usually blocked by smug, self-righteous Wikipedia “administrators”, whose sole purpose is to bully people and block people.
Basically, if there were Wikipedia in the early 1900s and Einstein had gone onto Wikipedia and written an article called “The Theory of Relativity”, his article would’ve been put on “articles for speedy deletion” and his article would’ve been deleted by some arrogant administrator. Additionally, Einstein himself probably would’ve been blocked indefinitely by those same arrogant administrators.
My point is that Wikipedia hates people who come up with points. Wikipedia hates original thinkers, and prefers geeky losers who spend their lives carrying out mindless tasks — all they do is copy information from other people and restructure it in a way that doesn’t plagiarize. This does not make them original thinkers — they’re still copiers.
One of the best things a human being can do is think of original ideas and create inventions. Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, and Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. But if Einstein and Edison had thought the way Wikipedians do, they never would have come up with those ideas. People who free themselves from the shackles of Wikipedia are free to think what they want and do what they want. Being original, thinking freely and inventing new things are traits which are loathed by Wikipedia — yet these traits are the traits which lead to the success of people such as Einstein and Edison, and it is these traits which will lead to a creative and imaginative future.
Don’t listen to what Wikipedians say — there is nothing wrong with original research, and there is nothing wrong with original ideas.
The most obvious problem with college is that it is a giant scam. College is outrageously expensive, and most of the money that is given to the colleges goes into the pockets of the college administrators, such as the president. Money that could’ve been used to make the cafeteria food better or to make the dorms better instead goes into greedy people’s pockets.
Most colleges try to get people to attend their institution by bamboozling people into thinking of it as a “wonderful” place. The truth is, it isn’t. From mediocre dorms, to low-quality cafeteria food, to extremely expensive college textbooks which aren’t even used in class, college is not the “wonderful” place that the glossy college brochures would like you to believe. Those brochures are aimed as prospective high school seniors, and are essentially propaganda to trick people into thinking that the college is better than it actually is. They tell people what are supposedly the best things about the college, while leaving out the negative aspects. Also, they use enticing imagery (such as pictures of smiling students and vague phrases like
“you can make your future here”).
But there are subtle problems with college as well. For example, consider the GPA. Although most people think the GPA is good, it really isn’t. The reason the GPA isn’t good is because it encourages students to take easy courses. Although the college propaganda says that students should “challenge” themselves, when students in real life do actually “challenge” themselves, they are usually penalized with low grades and a low GPA. Thus, in order to maintain a high GPA, students are pressured into taking courses with don’t challenge them. To make matters worse, when this issue is brought up with college administrators, they blame it on the student and not they system (they take the easy way out).
Also, there are serious ethical problems with scholarships. A person who is paying $15,000 a year to go to a college could be sitting in that college’s dining hall next to a person who is attending the same college for free. This isn’t fair, yet it is accepted by colleges and isn’t illegal (for some reason). In many ways, scholarships are racist against white people. For example, a college which is desperate to increase their ethnic
minority population may allow ethnic minorities to attend their college for free, while at the same time forcing white people to pay huge amounts of money. But the unethical scholarship practices don’t just involve race — they also favor arbitrary abilities (for example, sports). All students should have to pay the same amount to attend an institution — there should be no scholarships.
The grading system is also unethical. Most colleges grade a class based on the A-F letter system. This system should be abolished and replaced with “pass/fail”. In addition, in currently existing letter systems all “F”s should be counted the way “W”s are counted and should not negatively impact a person’s GPA.
There are several things to remember about college. College is an expensive waste of time. College is a business. College is a place with generally low-quality housing and low-quality dining. College is over-glorified and is much worse than what people claim it is. College is a place where archaic ways (such as sitting in classrooms and listening to professors lecture) have not caught up with the technological advances of the last 30 years. College is a place with too many pre-requisites. College is a place in which there is an “early bird gets the worm” system for housing and class choices, causing there to always be a “race” to get a spot. But most importantly, college is a scam.
Dolphins are one of the few creatures on Earth that have sex for pleasure. It is no surprise then that dolphins have been documented enjoying sex with humans.
Here is a quote regarding delphinic zoosexuality:
“Zoophilia is best described as a love of animals so intimate that the person (and the animal) involved have no objections to expressing their affection for each other in the sexual fashion. This does not include forcefully mating with an animal, without their consent, or with no mutual feelings whatsoever. This is something that I would never do to a dolphin, since I love them dearly, and treat them with the same respect that an honest husband would have for his wife and children.
Dolphins are very intelligent, highly emotional and expressive creatures.They enjoy the company of humans, and if a relationship develops between a human and a dolphin, as has happened with me, they will, on occasion, wish to express their trust and affection for you in the most direct way; through mating, or sex-play. You see, dolphins do not use sex purely for procreative reasons. They use it as a way of strengthening the bonds between pod mates (mothers and calves included), and also for fun. Dolphins and humans share this common trait with very few other animals, so sometimes it makes me wonder when people continue to ask me ‘How DO you mate with a dolphin?’. Easy. Let the dolphin tell you! [...]
You should love a dolphin, not because of the sexual relief they can provide, but because they are a unique animal, one of the few wild animals that seek the company of man by their own initiative. This is special Do not abuse it.”– http://www.zoophile.net/dolphins.php
The above website also says the following:
“There are 2 ways of determining the sex of a dolphin. The most obvious way is to take a peek under the peduncle (the long part of the body connected to the tailflukes). On the dolphin’s belly, directly opposite the dorsal fin, will be the umbilicus, or the navel of the dolphin. Looking further down towards the tail, you start to see the differences. Male dolphins have two separate slits for the penis (the urogenital opening) and the anus. These are separated by a bridge of skin. The male’s urogenital opening is generally located further up the belly, towards the navel.
Females, on the other fin, have one continuous larger slit, the anus located at the end of it. On either side of the genital slit, you will find two smaller slits; these are the mammary slits, where the nipples of the dolphin are kept for feeding the calves. The slit is also located closer to the tail stock of the dolphin. The other way to determine the sex of a dolphin, if you can’t reach their belly, is to look at their mellon ,or head. The males tend to have a fatter, rounder mellon, while the females are more sleek and streamlined[...]
There are various ways a dolphin has of showing that she or he is interested in sex. Males are probably the easiest to detect. They will swim around, sporting an erection (anywhere between 10 to 14 inches longfor a Bottle-nose), and will have no bones about swimming up to you and placing their member within reach of your hand. If you are in the water, they may rub it along any part of your body, or wrap it around your wrist or ankle. (Dolphin males have a prehensile penis. They can wrap it around objects, and carry them as such.) Their belly will also be pinkish in colour, which also denotes sexual excitement. Females can be a little harder. The most obvious way a female dolphin has of displaying her sexual interest is the pink-belly effect. Their genitals become very pink and swollen, making the genital region very prominent.They may be restless, or they may be acting as normal. If you are out of the water, they may swim up to you and roll belly up, exposing themselves to you, coupled with pelvic thrusts. If you are in the water, they may press their genitals up against yours, nibble your fingers, nuzzle your crotch, or do pelvic thrusts against you. Each dolphins way of expressing sexual readiness varies, so the longer you know the dolphin, the better you will detect when they are sexually active[...] [if a dolphin wants to have sex with you], accept, if possible!” — http://www.zoophile.net/dolphins.php
Here is video showing a dolphin showing an apparent sexual interest or “sex-play” as described in the above quote:
Here is another video showing a dolphin with apparent interest in having sex with a human, and engaging in “sex-play”:
Although the above videos could’ve been staged, they still strongly suggest that dolphins are at least somewhat willing to have sex with humans. Since the “sex-play” seen in the videos above occurred at two different times in two different aquariums to two different people, it makes the notion that dolphins are willing to have sex with humans more credible. Also, although the above videos could be interpreted as being humorous, remember that the human sexual attraction to dolphins is not something to laugh about — it is a real sexual desire that many people feel, but few people reveal.
As Delphigirl pointed out, there is the strong possibility that the above videos involved training; she provided another video in which dolphins appear to be sexually attracted to humans in open water:
One of the main problems for those who are sexually attracted to dolphins is that finding a dolphin “partner” is a bit of a logistical nightmare, especially if one lives in an area far from the ocean. Firstly, people are not allowed to own dolphins as pets, because of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Secondly, it will be difficult for people to have sex with dolphins in aquariums because those are public places, and zoosexuality is taboo. Thirdly, it is not easy to have sex with a dolphin in the wild, not only because dolphins are often on the move, but because (just as with aquariums) the wild is not private, allowing bigots to aim their prejudicial zoosexual discrimination towards the dolphin lover.
The logistical problems associated with the creation of a real life dolphin-human relationship are discussed in the quote below:
“The sad truth is that most delphinic zoos [dolphin-oriented zoosexual people] will never be able to have a relationship for obvious reasons. There is very limited access to captive cetacea and only a small number of animals in such facilities; all of whom can be easily identified, so contact with them is extremely unlikely for most, and very risky for those who work with them. As for wild dolphins, one faces a difficult situation due to the Marine Mammal Protection Act here in the U.S., similar laws in other coastal places in the world, and other issues prohibiting interaction with these animals. Despite these obstacles, though, some people have had relationships with wild dolphins” — http://delphigirlwrites.blogspot.com
Based on Internet evidence, the best place to have sex with a dolphin is at night, in a secluded (remote) bay or cove:
“Aquariums are a bad choice, for many reasons. Too public, the dolphins are not in their natural habitat, night visits are impossible, etc etc…some may have external enclosures, which may be accessible, but that is no guarantee. Best thing sometimes is to find a beach or a cove that the dolphins frequent. It takes time to develop a relationship with a dolphin to the point where they will let you mate with them (although some have been as quick as 3 days to acclimatize). Gaining their trust takes time,and you need to visit frequently. This is impossible for some people, I understand, but it is the best way. Sometimes you just need to be in the right place at the right time. I have been extremely lucky on two occasions with wild dolphins, and my current mate is a dolphin who lives in the harbour of my resident city. Well, I hope this is of use to whoever is interested.”– http://www.zoophile.net/dolphins.php
It is quite possible that in the future, if zoosexuality ever become accepted by society, the first laws to officially allow sex with animals will have to do with dolphins. Chances are that future technology will be able to prove that dolphins enjoy having sex with humans, thus bringing people to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with having sex with dolphins (and thus resulting in a law protecting the rights of delphinic zoophiles). But this hypothetical reality is far from occurring — right now, zoosexuality, even delphinic zoosexuality, is still irrationally reviled by society, just as black people were irrationally reviled by people in the U.S. South in the early 1800s.
There is nothing wrong with having sex with dolphins, so long as the dolphin consents to sex. As discussed in other posts, animals can consent to sex by using body language; they do not need to speak a human language to communicate what they want and don’t want. In addition, it is very clear when a dolphin does and does not want to have sex. And according to Internet sources, people have personally experienced dolphins becoming aroused at the sight of a human:
“I was quite happily swimming around with the dolphins when she suddenly decided to grab my foot with her genital slit. Dolphins have very muscular vaginal orifices, and can use these muscles to manipulate objects and carry them. I stayed still for a while, to see if she was just playing, but she continued to masturbate against my foot, and in the light of the torch I sometimes carry, I could see that her slit had become very pink and had swelled as well. She was aroused!
So, I started to back-paddle with my hands towards a small beached area, partially submerged in the water. A couple of times she pulled me forward into the deeper water, but eventually I got my self to the shallows. I dislodged my foot (Being careful not to pull too hard), and took her gently by a pectoral fin and rubbed her belly just to aclimatize her, I guess. She immediately rolled belly up and started doing pelvic thrusts against the palm of my hand. It was unmistakeably erotic, and by now I was fully aroused.
I stripped off my shorts, and gently pulled her into the shallows until she was lying on her side, her belly facing towards me, half submerged in the water. I nestled myself belly to belly against her, and pressed my member against her genital slit. She immediately arched her body against mine, and took me inside her body, initiating a quick series of muscular contractions with her vaginal muscles. I wrapped my left arm around her body and just held her close while she manipulated me inside her body, until I climaxed barely 2 minutes later. Surprisingly, her body also shuddered against mine, and we spent the next 5 or so minutes just lying together in the shallows, holding each other, enjoying our company and reveling in the fact that we had shared something special together, something very few people can claim to have done.
I do not brag about this though. It is not something you can brag about, since it not only is demeaning to the act, but it destroys the purpose of the act as well; to express affection, and trust. I only consent to those dolphins who ask. As a result, I have mated only three times. Each time was memorable and special, because each time it was something we both wanted to share with each other. Sex, for me, is just another, albeit powerful, expression of affection and trust. I wouldn’t engage any other animal, though; it is not my attraction. But there is little I wouldn’t do for a dolphin.” — http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html
As the above quote shows, people have had sex with dolphins, and from what these people described, both participants (the human and the dolphin) were satisfied by their blissful interactions.
Dolphins are also one of the few animals that humans have married. For example, on my post about human-animal marriage, I discussed a human-dolphin marriage; here is a photo of that marriage:
The marriage took place in Israel, between and a woman and a dolphin who were in love with each other. What is interesting is that the dolphin apparently understood the marriage, at least partially, because dolphins are so smart.
Delphinic zoosexuality is very widespread, but most delphinic zoosexuals are in the “zoosexual closet”. Like other zoosexual variations on the zoosexual orientation wheel, delphinic zoosexuals play an important part in defining the zoosexual community. Also, on my post about what it’s like to be eaten, I briefly discussed the above issues.
If an alien from another planet watched all of our TV shows and observed our pop-culture, that alien would leave the Earth thinking that people did not like having sex with dolphins, and were not sexually attracted to them. However, besides websites such as zoophile.net, there are tools that would make the widespread (closeted) delphinic zoosexuality easier to detect.
For example, take Google Trends. It is a website which determines how much a term is search for by people on the Earth, and then categorizes those searches by country and city. For example, when “sex with animal” is typed in, one will discover that the countries where this term is searched for the most are Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia. However, when “dolphin sex” is typed in, one will discover that the term “dolphin sex” is searched for frequently in New Zealand, the United States, and Australia. Also, the city where “dolphin sex” is searched for the most is Tampa, Florida.
Additionally, there is more evidence that delphinic zoosexuality is widespread. For example, read this quote:
“I have learned an important lesson – people want dolphin sex, and lots of it! The proof is in the dolphin flavored pudding [search terms for dolphin sex][...] Now, what I want to know is: why is dolphin sex so popular? Put your penis where your porpoise is and comment” — http://thejamminjabber.com/2007/08/07/dolphin-fckers-of-the-world-unite/
The above quote could have less to do with people being attracted to dolphins, and more to do with the fact that they (the delphinic zoosexuals) cannot express themselves in public, so their expression comes out on the Internet instead, resulting in a huge number of searches for dolphin sex. If dolphin sexuality (delphinic zoosexuality) were actually accepted by society like it should be, perhaps people wouldn’t be relying on the Internet so much.
Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence on the Internet that people want to have sex with dolphins:
“I wanna f*ck a female dolphin” — man
“I would like to have a sexual relation with a female dolphin. It looks comfortable and the dolphin’s vagina is very muscled.” — Anonymous
“I want to have sex with dolphins; they are sexy” — a guy
“Dolphins are amazing creatures and I think they would be the best animals to have sex with because they are the only other mammal that I know of
that has sex for pleasure” — Vampirevivic
“The thought of having sex with a dolphin had never occurred to me, but it sounds wonderful.” — Dogmeat19, http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-23156.html
“For me, I think the passion for dolphins is a mix of their grace, beauty, strength, intelligence, and personalities. And perhaps to some extent the sheer exoticness of their being, they’re unlike any other mammal.” — Cetacean
“I just have an inexplicable attraction to them [dolphins]. Their appearance, behavior and lifestyle are all huge turn-ons. It’s an obsession and a love.” — Delphinidae
“I love dolphins because of their intelligence, personality, because they enjoy humans, [and because] I love every part of the dolphin body too. I think that they are maybe the most beautiful creatures on the planet. The shape of the dolphin body is so great, and for me they are a symbol of freedom.” — dolphlove
“Being able to find a horny [dolphin] in the wild sounds real hot…does that come with any Florida vacations? hehe” — German07
“I would love to make love to a dolphin.” — Sasquasher
“I hear that sex with [dolphins] is incredible, especially if you are a human male.” — shadowtalons
“I wish I could be making sweet passionate love to a female dolphin in a secluded cove away from civilization so we can enjoy each other in peace. I would be in the shallows embracing her, and she would do her best to wrap both of her fins around my body. I would hear her loving moans fill the air and mix with mine, I would cooe her and rub her body as we make love. She will give me heavenly pleasure unlike any being on Earth by rhythmically thrusting against me, and at the same time clenching, rubbing, and rippling her vaginal muscles along the full length of my member. I would feel her beautiful, sleek, smooth body as we both shudder and shriek and as she thrusts faster and clenches harder to an inevitable climax as our souls intertwine. And we will become soulmates for as long as time will let us.” — Dolphin Zoo
Sources of the 7 quotes above: http://beastforum.com/showtopic-105394-15.html, http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?s=f79e54601f473bebd60183b9a1ad9f9e&showtopic=105394&st=45
Obviously, as the above quotes demonstrate, there are many people out there who are sexually attracted to dolphins. It is not an abnormality.
There have been a few books written about human-dolphin sexual interactions. For example, the book Wet Goddess: Recollections of a dolphin lover is an auto-biographical book by a man named Malcolm Brenner, who had a sexual relationship with a dolphin for 9 years. He discusses the book he wrote on this website: http://wetgoddess.net. Here is a photo of him when he was with his lover:
According to Malcolm Brenner, the dolphin he regularly had sex with was the love of his life (source)
Here is a quote about Brenner’s euphoric experience:
“Brenner described how in the 1970s he fell madly in love with a dolphin he was photographing at a local amusement park. After the usual teasing and flirting that comes with mammalian courtship, the two consummated their love affair. The most common reaction New Times heard from readers: ‘I didn’t know that was even possible.” —
Probably the reason why people didn’t know that having sex with a dolphin is possible is because of a lack of zoosexual awareness; and this lack of zoosexual awareness is created by the stupid taboo that society has irrationally placed on zoosexuality.
Also, here is another quote about Malcolm Brenner:
[Malcolm Brenner said] ‘She [the dolphin] would take my leg very lightly in her jaws and run her teeth up and down my leg. It’s an incredible sensation. I don’t know if other people would find it erotic, but I certainly did.’
[Commenter says the following:] “What are your thoughts on this? I personally think it’s a step in the right direction for the bestiality civil rights movement. Organisms should have the liberty to love and have sex with whatever they want (as long as it’s consensual). Love is a right, not a privilege. Wet Goddess is the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of the 21st century.”– http://totse2.com/showthread.php?448-Man-Writes-About-Sex-with-a-Dolphin
There are a lot of bigots out there who think zoosexuality is a “sin” (which is complete bullsh*t), and think sex with animals is immoral. By default, zoosexuality is not immoral. There is nothing wrong with zoosexuality. Just as heterosexual sex can be abused (i.e. a man raping a woman), zoosexuality can also be abused (i.e. the human forcing the animal to have sex). Think of it this way: heterosexual sex isn’t bad because it can be abused, and similarly zoosexual sex isn’t bad because it can be abused. When zoosexuality is done in an abusive way, then it is immoral, but if both the human and animal consent to sex, then it is not immoral. Most zoosexual people would never do anything abusive to their animal lovers. As discussed in other posts, most zoosexual activity is cruelty-free, and many zoosexual people are also vegetarians and animal rights activists.
Luckily, there are people out there who are willing to defend zoosexuals (delphinic or not), even though they themselves are not zoosexual. For example, read this quote:
“I may not agree with your desire to have sex with dolphins, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to have sex with dolphins” — Dr. Zoidberg, http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=312283
Hopefully, as time goes by, more and more people will think like the person in the quote above: This is the way people should be thinking if they do not agree with zoosexuality. Zoosexual rights is an important issue. It may take time, but in the end, delphinic zoosexuals will triumph, and people will look back at society in the early 21st century and wonder why people were so against zoosexuality. One of the most important things that people seek is the truth — and it is true that there is nothing wrong with having sex with a dolphin.
Additionally, remember that dolphins themselves are often sexually attracted to humans, in a phenomenon known as “reverse bestiality”. They have been known to demonstrate their attraction by making their bodies turn a pinkish color, and through certain behaviors. Of course, due to the taboo associated with bestiality and zoophilia, the “reverse bestiality” dolphin fact will probably never be discussed by the mainstream media.
Here are some blogs which are specifically about dolphin-oriented zoosexuality:
People must ensure that zoosexual’s rights are protected — and that means repealing anti-zoosexual laws and decriminalizing interspecies sex between humans and other animals, whether those animals are humans, dolphins, dogs, elephants, etc. It also means making sure that new anti-zoosexual legislation doesn’t pass.
It is suggested that you also read this post: http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/zoosexuality-should-it-be-considered-acceptable-or-not
It is strange that people are OK eating meat all the time, yet they condemn sex with animals. Here is a quote regarding this paradox:
“It’s strange that a man could face death in some countries for having sex with a goat or sheep, but nobody would blink twice if he killed it for meat” — Mezziekins, http://totse2.com/showthread.php?448-Man-Writes-About-Sex-with-a-Dolphin
This is exactly what I’m talking about. People seem to have their morality inverted. Most people believe that it is OK to kill and eat and animal, yet most people also believe that it is “immoral” to have sex with an animal. I believe the opposite should be true — it should be OK to have sex with an animal, and people should not be allowed to kill animals and use them as meat.
Here is a quote from a previous post I wrote:
“There is something very ironic about zoosexuality, especially concerning consent. If a person eats an animal, such as a chicken nugget or a hamburger, then did that animal ‘consent’ for you to eat it? Of course not; yet it is acceptable by society. More that 90% of the world population eats meat, yet it is estimated that only a small amount are zoosexuals. This brings up an odd point; does eating a chicken nugget mean you are having non-consensual oral sex with an animal? Why are people criticized for having sex with animals, but not criticized for eating them? I bet that many of the animal rights activists who condemn zoosexuality eat meat regularly without even thinking about it. I find it strange that people can condemn an issue like zoosexuality while at the same time eat animals that have been slaughtered in a factory; this seems hypocritical to me. It would seem that this apparent hypocrisy is the result of two social norms which have collided with each other: the social norm of eating meat (from a biological perspective, gaining protein) and the social norm of sticking to the human species when it comes to relationships. This mix would seem to indicate that both results of the two outcomes (eating meat and staying within our species) results in more offspring. So ultimately, it may be the subconscious urge to propagate our species which is the driving force behind the apparent hypocrisy of eating meat yet condemning zoosexuality. (When you think about it, though, what would an animal prefer: to be killed and eaten, or to have sex?)” — Vivid Random Existence
People need to realize that there is nothing wrong with having sex with animals, but there is definitely something wrong with killing them and eating them for meat. I bet that the average person who regularly eats hamburgers would stop eating hamburgers if he/she went to a slaughterhouse and witnessed a live cow being killed. Unfortunately, there is an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality, and people ignorantly continue to eat meat without even thinking about where the meat originated from.
Why is there such a strong hypocrisy regarding meat consumption and zoosexuality? Because people are selfish. All they care about is whether or not something benefits them. Eating meat benefits them at the expense of others (but all they care about is themselves, and not the suffering they caused others). People generally look down upon zoosexuality because they don’t see it as benefiting anyone (in terms of procreation) — this is a selfish and arrogant view. Homosexuals don’t procreate either, yet they’re becoming accepted. Unfortunately, a lot of people are likely to say, “I’d be willing to eat a cow, but I wouldn’t want to have sex with one”. All they care about is what is in their selfish interests.
Here is a quote from a previous post I wrote:
“It is also important to remember that good zoosexual people understand that an animal has a right to consent or not consent (by using signals and body language). Zoosexuals also understand that animals are sentient and conscious beings just like humans. However, slaughterhouse people do not care about the animal’s consent and do not care about the animal’s rights; they slaughter animals to exploit them for financial gains (to them, animals are only objects). While zoosexuals genuinely respect the rights of animals and love animals, slaughterers have no respect for animals. Ultimately, having sex with an animal can be ethical (and usually is ethical), whereas slaughtering an animal and creating a premature death for an animal is never ethical. (Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to realize this; they support the slaughters by eating their meat, and condemn the zoosexuals for no rational reason). Most non-zoosexual people are selfish and only care about what benefits themselves; they eat meat in order to take nutrients from animals and make themselves stronger, and they condemn bestiality because it doesn’t benefit them or directly impact them (so this enables them to criticize it as much as they want). Also, society has brainwashed them into hating it.” — Vivid Random Existence
College costs are rising all the time. Eventually, colleges will cost millions of dollars, and nobody will want to go to them. When this happens, colleges will have priced themselves out. The days of their corrupt extortion and scamming will be over. The colleges will no longer be able to create a racket and force people to give all their hard-earned money to greedy college presidents.
When the college system breaks down (perhaps around 2025), people will only use education through the Internet, or some virtual means, because it will be far cheaper than actually attending college, which by 2025 will cost millions of dollars.
Do not go to college. It is a giant scam. They are not really there to educate you — all they want to do is take your money. College is essentially a business, not a learning center. People will do whatever they can to rip you off and steal your money, whether that be through unreasonably expensive college textbooks, or dorm room fees, or forced meal plans, or “late extensions”. Do not go through all that hardship — avoid college: it is an institution of extortion. Until lawmakers create laws that forbid colleges from ripping people off so much, it will be up to individual people in our society to force themselves to not get sucked into the dull world of college.
If you want to become something specialized (i.e. a doctor or lawyer), then go to college. Otherwise, don’t. It will be a waste of time. There are jobs out there that don’t need a college degree. And besides, the bachelor’s degree is extremely overrated, and basically the new “high school diploma” and doesn’t really mean much to people. Either go all the way and become something really specialized (like an engineer), or avoid college altogether.