A Woman and Her Chimp
PervScan reader Margaret writes:
What do you make of this woman and her relationship with her chimp? Stories are getting pretty lurid — baths, wine, sleeping together, lonely widow. Dismal, poignant, but also, perhaps worthy of a discussion on Pervscan?
In case you haven’t heard about it, earlier this week a domesticated chimp mauled and mutilated its owner’s friend so badly that the victim, who is in critical condition, is now being considered a candidate for facial transplant surgery. Evidently the chimp had attacked before. On the day of the mauling its owner may have given the chimp some Xanax to calm him down, though she now denies it. If you want to get a spine-tingling sense how the attack unfolded, you can listen to the owner’s 911 call. Perhaps the most telling moment is when the police, arriving on the scene, say of the victim: “We have got to get this guy out of here. He’s got no face.”
A number of stories have emerged about the “crazy” bond the chimp, named Travis, had with its owner. “Sandra Herold, from Stamford, Connecticut, gave Travis the finest food, and wine in long-stemmed glasses; they took baths together and cuddled in the bed they shared; Travis brushed the lonely widow’s hair each night and pined for her when she was away; and if she left the house alone, Travis would give her a kiss.” It would be easy — too easy — to extrapolate from those facts and assume that there was something more illicit about their relationship. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t. Suffice to say, however, that the existing information is pervy enough and perhaps even pervier than much of the bestiality that appears here on PervScan.
Often bestiality is a simple act: man molests dog and that’s the end of it. (Incidentally, it would be interesting to know if a single rape affects a pet dog with anywhere near the severity that it affects a human. Does the animal suffer nightmares? Depression? Or does it shrug it off? Just another bad day in the animal kingdom…) In the case of the chimp, however, the relationship was clearly not so one-dimensional. Watch this video of the owner on YouTube. She clearly loved the animal. Did the chimp love her back? Is a chimp capable of love? The surrogate mother experiments of Harry Harlow suggest that a chimp is indeed capable of experiencing love. If so, then the reciprocity of their feelings may well be pervier than any simian masturbation fests they may have had.
I have to play the devil’s advocate here and vote for a sick, twisted emotional relationship, but not a sexual one. Human sexuality is different enough from chimp sexuality so that the two won’t mix well. She might give it a try, but the chimp is a “what bam thank you m’am” type animal, and the owner isn’t likely to get a lot out of it besides bitten bruised and battered ala Beyonce.
She called this guy her “baby”! Look for the perversion to be of a mother’s love, not sex per se. When I worked with the big primates, we were trained to always have a cattle prod on hand for control purposes. They get violent, no matter how many years they’ve gone without an episode, you can NEVER let your guard down. You start to think of them as people, but these people can “rip your arms out Jim”. Her behavior was criminal, and possibly even perverted, but not, I think, sexual.
JMHO
I wonder what the reaction would be if the chimp had RAPED the victim instead of violently attacking it.
I would of started filming, fo’ sho’
I suspect rape does not have a huge emotional impact on animals: sex in the animal kingdom is often not particularly consensual to begin with, from what I understand, so i doubt they think of it as particularly unnatural to the extent that they think of it as well.
Rape has an emotional affect on all animals, especially Mammals, as proved, per se, by scientific evidence.
Love is capable by all Mammals, Reptiles, and Aves, that’s for certain.
Consent is proven in neural biology, to exist in all Mammals (basically as long as they share the ‘Neocortex’ we have).
Basically all ‘Mammals’ have a consciousness, as proved, and hence can ‘consent’, just like we can.
All forms of coercion are purely sexual, even when an animal dominates for territory and play, it is for sex; so the route cause of the much favoured anti-zoo idea ‘when a dog humps your leg, it is for dominance, not sex’, is correct and incorrect, dominance is for sex.
Let’s say a dog, in the wild, a dog wants territory, his pad where he can say to anyone who enters his ‘pack’, ‘you’re mine’, even if they don’t want sex now; they want to tell their potential mate, ‘you’re for later’.
It is also wrong to say, ‘males do it to males for territorial dominance and leadership’, but truly, nothing in the dog brain says ‘this is a male, not a female’, but because it’s sex anyway, it leads to ’sex’, so either way, being sex, it is still ’sex’; and dogs are often bisexual, as with many other animal, just most males don’t like another male taking control of them, if they think they both deserve ownership the same ‘pad’; if they both enjoy it, it is consensual ‘homosexuality’, which means, it is ok for a human to sodomise a dog, because they don’t care who you are, anal penetration of both sexes gives them pleasure, not harm.
So, all sodomies being ‘ok’ according to what we say ‘nature’, classes ‘unnatural’, even though it is clearly ‘natural’; after all, everything has a cause, so who’s to say everything’s not natural, and all forces act like dominoes of fatalism, and leads to the everything being natural anyway, which is one thing that baffled me in my research of ‘Nature’.
Humans still class it as ‘unnatural’, but deflect the argument again, by saying, ‘we don’t copy the animals; we shouldn’t act like them, we’re better’; despite the question, ‘what are we better at then, zoosexuality?’, which would lead to ‘that’s wrong, I didn’t mean that’; humans like to think they have a higher importance than animals, and set away from them, and at the same time, are scrapping all truths.
For starters, a human IS an animal.
We ARE natural, but we should follow the most sensible degree of standards for our own survival, as a tribe of Primates (humankind classes themselves as ONE international tribe, by allowing international alliances; which makes us too big an arrogant, moving towards money and power, instead of ’safe’ freedom).
All mammals DO consent, and so CAN humans, because they ARE animals; just you have to read the varied body language (which is near enough the same as ours, anyway), correctly.
The more humans set themselves away from nature, the more ‘unnatural’ they become, and it completely ‘dismisses’ the attitude of saying ‘that’s unnatural, and hence is wrong’; everything will become ‘wrong’, even though it is ’seemingly’ ‘right’, and we’d forget the purpose of such social and political law; ‘perversion of freedom’, or ‘food for thought’, choose, don’t suppress others over your choice, if they have an opposing opinion, unless they are doing the same to you; only then should fights take place between ‘parties’, even with ‘non-consent’.
Dear fellow humans, you can’t have it both ways; be sensible, live and let live, and only intervene if freedoms are being affected (but a liberalistic world at this stage would lead to total anarchy, due to bad national security).
Society should be EXPECTED to be sensible, laws of a ‘nanny state’ only affect freedoms of those who are ‘minor offenders’ of ‘your opinion’ and/or ‘overall’;
For more text (comment buffer application breakdown), please follow this special link:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=484049877&blogId=501656286
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Barely Legal