my comments in red



Cannes - A semi-documentary about a group of US men who had sex with horses has taken the title as the most shocking movie at the Cannes film festival.

But while Zoo has drawn big, curious crowds at its screenings, the real unsettling quality about the movie is its approach: it depicts the men in a sympathetic light, one that tries to push the viewers to understanding their sexual perversion.

The documentary - in which actors recreate non-explicit scenes under audio interviews with some of the men involved - centres on a true-life incident.

In July 2005, a 45-year-old man died of internal bleeding after being anally penetrated by an Arabian stallion during a bestiality weekend in the US state of Washington.


------------------------------------------------


The men heard in the film are remarkably honest about their motivations. One of them argues "mammal to mammal" love should not be seen as wrong.


Please tell me I'm not the only one that see's something creepy happening. Why is disgusting perversion becoming something we feel a need to more closely examine in lurid detail and even celebrate ? Isn't this over the top ?

Bestiality flick shocks Cannes: Entertainment: International: News24

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a very wise man and one of the few Democrats (along with Hubert Humphrey, who was a good man even though I disagreed with him about almost eveything) that I'm proud to say has my admiration and deepest respect, nailed it--he called this "defining deviancy down."

on occasion, the oldsters are right--the country is going to hell in a handbasket. I think they are spot on in regard to the moral state this country finds itself in today.

The funniest part of the whole thing is that the film was dedicated to the memory of one of their buddies who got kicked by a horse, and subsequently died, trying to pound a horse. These douche bags should have been laughed out of the festival. I does not bother me so much that there are guys out there fucking animals, but they feel comfortable enough to try to defend it. Like they look around and think, "Ok guys, looks like society is getting to where pounding animals in the butt hole won't seem that weird." What would Mr. Ed say?

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Yes, interesting that SOMEONE brought that up.

D.D. Up - D.D. Down

One of the goals of the gay agenda is "D.D. Up" and "D.D. Down." You have probably never heard of those things, so let me explain them. "D.D. Down." means "defining deviancy down." The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in his study on this, shows that when deviancy becomes prevalent in a society, societies tend to define deviancy down so they can live with it. Otherwise it becomes too uncomfortable to know there are that many perverts of whatever kind who are living around you. [ See American Scholar, Winter 1993, 17-30 ] So the American Psychiatric Society defined it down until it became normalcy.

What is "D.D. Up" (defining deviancy up) ? It is taking the other side that has always been known as normal and defining that up into deviancy. You say, "Well, that's ridiculous." Listen to Dr. Charles Krauthammer, who says:

One way is denial: defining real deviancy down creates the pretense that deviancy has disappeared because it has been redefined as normal. Another strategy is distraction: defining deviancy up creates brand-new deviances that we can now go off and fight. That distracts us from the real deviancy and gives us the feeling that, despite the murder and mayhem and madness around us, we are really preserving and policing our norms. [ Charles Krauthammer, New Republic, Nov. 22, 1993, 20-25, quoted in NARTH Bulletin, Volume 2, Number 1, March 1994, 4-5 ]

So the deviate is declared normal, and the normal is unmasked as deviant. Do you know who the new deviants are ? Heterosexuals, family members, fathers, ministers, anyone who says that homosexuality is wrong or sinful.


From:

What's wrong with same-sex marriage ? D. James Kennedy & Jerry Newcombe
Crossway Books 2004, Pg. 82


It seems to me that we're focussing on MORE deviant behaviours. The current focus on THESE and rejection of decent and NORMAL behaviour seems strange. I mean, Ok, weird is weird. Nasty is nasty. The trend of making weird an nasty NORMAL, and normal, WEIRD AND NASTY can NOT lead a civilized society to greater success. No matter HOW one "spins" it. Now we're looking at movies about some confused nutcases that enjoy sex with animals that depicts these freaks in a "sympathetic light" ?

What are we SUPPOSED to think ? "Oh everythings just fine. People now "have sex" with animals and it is an accepted practice. So what ?"

I suppose that's not to much of a stretch, considering many of us are so confused about what the word marriage means that we think two women or two MEN should be able to "get married". It's absolute insanity.

What is a tad scary is that the number of people that think like this, seems to be on the RISE. Though I DO wonder. It actually may be on the decline. It may just be a few very NOISY nuts.

Sure. There have ALWAYS been idiots that would screw ... christ, some knotheads would screw the tailpipe of a CAR.

But now we feel a need to make MOVIES about it ?

This is what is creepy.

Writerman, Defining Deviancy Down is one of the best sociological essays I've read. I don't often meet people who respect Moynihan enough. Cool post. : )

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov