Wednesday, September 4, 2013


This post is in discussion of the fetishes which may or may not be possessed by my co-worker. He would say I'm displaying delusions of grandeur by even referring to myself as his co-worker, implying I'm somehow his  professional equal, where he's a degreed (bachelor's degree, to be specific; I don't want anyone to consider him more academically accomplished than he really is; at least he didn't stop at an A.A. -- I'll give him that -- but he's not exactly a PhD)  lab technician, while I'm a lowly intern who is two quarters shy of my three bachelor's degrees, one of which is in biochemistry, which is the field of his degree. He's leaps and bounds above me -- so far that it's surprising  he even acknowledges my existence.  I should consider myself honored that he bothered videotaping me as I was tossing my cookies while preparing the fecal slide. I should feel flattered that he is threatening to post the incriminating footage on YouTube or anywhere else.  The fact that he has noticed me should cause me to feel all warm and fuzzy.

I won't discuss pedophilia, regardless of any real or falsely implied connection my co-worker may have to the practice. It's disgusting enough that I cannot bear to think of it, much less write about it. And, if truth be known, I seriously doubt the man, obnoxious though he may be,  has any connection to the practice. I can't exonerate him entirely, as some of the rumors have even been on the Internet, and we all know that anything on the Internet cannot be automatically discounted.

Let us instead focus our attentions upon another rumored aberration possibly [or possibly not] possessed  and/or practiced by this rather obnoxious individual. The topic is, if you have not yet predicted, bestiality. (I misspelled it earlier. The other spelling [beastiality] makes more sense to me, but according to the experts, it is incorrect.) I'm glad, just in the even that my co-worker ever finds this blog, that I corrected the spelling myself before he found it and pointed out the error of my spelling. He would take great pleasure in doing just that. Then again, if he did that, it would further confirm his interest, and perhaps expertise, related to the topic.

A synonym to bestiality is zoophilia. I would not have guessed merely by looking at the two words that they were synonymous. I would have assumed that zoophilia was reserved for amorous relations with wild and/or exotic animals. (This was silly of me; just because zoophilia has the word zoo in it should not infer that it would refer inherently to animals commonly found in zoos.) Such is not the case, however, and the two words are, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable. Some experts (seriously, while I admit to being the author of a blog on this topic, why would anyone devote serious research or make one's life's work the study of such a topic?) reserve the term zoophilia to describe either the desire or the tendency to engage in such acts, while bestiality to refer to the specific act of engaging in such practice. Former President Jimmy Carter would probably consider the two terms one and the same, as if you've committed sex with an animal in your heart and mind, you've, for practical purpose, actually done the deed. Others would say it doesn't matter what you think about, but matters only if you act on said desires.  I have no answer to the overall question, but, all things considered, I would prefer to keep my distance from those who contemplate such relationships whether or not they act on their bizarre desires.

I'd now like to toss out a third term for your consideration:  zoosexuality, which refers to those whose sexual identity is defined by a desire to have romantic and sexual relations with animals. I can't quite wrap my mind around this one. As a true  liberal, I had to learn to  accept that perhaps heterosexuality was not the  One True Way, but I must draw the line at zoosexuality, if only for the reason (and it's not the only reason)  that I don't believe an animal can truly give consent for a sexual act. Even if he or she were to appear to enjoy what was being done to or with him or her, is that, in and of itself, informed consent? (Sort of like a woman's having an orgasm during a rape   not negating the distinction of rape in describing the sexual act.) Just because a sheep appears to enjoy the act, does that negate the non-consensuality of the encounter?) I have no guess as to whether or not sheep appear to enjoy sexual activity, whether with other sheep or with humans, but I'm not sure that their mere sexual response can be rightly inferred as consent. (Once my neighbor's female kitten [six months old, so sort of a kitten], for who I was responsible while her owners were on vacation, apparently went into heat. She sounded as though the male cat was killing her, and I scared the tomcat away, but then she acted seriously pissed at me for having frightened away her suitor.)

similar to what I witnessed with my neighbor's cat, whom I had not previously known was a slut; does my cow-worker want to be that top cat?

In most parts of the world, bestiality is frowned upon if not outrightly banned by law. (In the U. S. the practice is banned by law.) In no part of the world, according to my sources, is it condoned. Imagine that!  There's one thing on which we as a species can agree, which is that animals are not meant to be boinked by humans.  It may be the only thing upon all nations agree. (Obviously the zoosexuals don't agree, and apparently have websites declaring just why their exercising of their sexual expression should not be considered  deviate, strange, wrong, or illegal. I didn't visit any of the aforementioned sites because I don't want any of that smut on my hard drive.)

Mt co-worker (I'll continue to use the word  to describe our work relationship whether or not it harms his sense of self-worth and feels that it cheapens the value of his degree)  may no more about the information that that which I have  shared. Then again, maybe he knows even less. Rumors, even though they sometimes turn out to be rumors, are nothing more than rumors until proven otherwise.

Jeffrey, if you're still even thinking of posting your disgusting video on YouTube, you should seriously consider the ramifications your actions shall bring upon your head. (A pox on you and on your entire household if that video ever sees the light of YouTube!) I have not yet begun to fight.


  1. Ew... there's some odd stuff going on in your lab!

    1. Maybe there is, or maybe there isn't, but if that video ever sees the light of day, a whole lot of people will have the opportunity to d4cide for themselves whether or not anything really weird is going on with Jeffrey and all the descendants of the animals on Noah's ark.

  2. This post reminds me of that very weird Gene Wilder movie, in which Gene Wilder plays the part of a doctor who has a patient with zoophilia. I haven't seen the entire movie, just a clip ( if you happen to be interested ) I wasn't aware that the original Willy Wonka was involved in such controversy!

    1. *That should say, "I wasn't aware that the original Willy Wonka was involved in such A CONTROVERSIAL FILM!*

      For all I know, Gene Wilder has only ever had romantic feelings for PEOPLE.