Yiff Yiff Hooray! Three Cheers for Furries and the Otherkin

 

Three members of the furry fandom and an 

elf-girl member of the otherkin community

 

 

Opening Remarks 

 

The following material consists of revised extracts from Chapter 5 of Zoophilia, Vol. III of The Treadwell's Papers (Blind Cupid Press, 2010). 

 

It was originally presented as part of a series of talks at Treadwell's Bookshop in 2006 and might be said to have anticipated the direction our culture was heading vis-à-vis questions of identity, etc.

 

These questions, however, have mostly been thought through (and fought over) in terms of sex, gender, and race, rather than our humanity as such. 

 

Thus, even though in the years since I first wrote on the subject of becoming-animal and/or becoming-other, there has been far more academic and media attention given to therians, furries, and otherkin, most members of the public still remain blissfully unaware of the term transspeciesism, even whilst obsessively worrying about issues to do with transsexuality and gender fluidity.

 

 

The Furry Fandom

 

I.

 

Whilst there's a level of crossover with the therian community - which I discussed in a recently published post [1] - the furry fandom is often looked down upon by members of the former, who regard furries as frivolous and lacking in respect for the true nature of the animals they like to dress up as. 

 

On the other paw, however, members of the fandom often accuse therianthropes of taking the idea of metamorphosis too far and themselves too seriously. 

 

I suppose, if one wanted to be unkind and offer a crude stereotype of both parties, one could say that whilst therians are genuinely barking, furries are simply mimicking animal noises. 

 

 

II.

 

Essentially, the furry fandom is a movement that celebrates the hybridization of humans and animals in cartoons, comics, and films. It is, therefore, predominantly composed of persons with artistic and literary interests, rather than occult or fetishistic leanings. 

 

That said, many members of the fandom do have a strong attraction to animal cosplay and like to indulge their transformation fantasies - some of which are overtly erotic in character and involve the loss or rippage of human clothing - whilst being suitably attired in a fursuit. 

 

Those who have a particular penchant for furry sex are sometimes labelled as furverts and, whilst these people compose only a small minority of the fandom, they are the ones who - rightly or wrongly - excite most interest from those outside of the fandom [2]. 

 

 

III.

 

The furry fandom started as a discussion group that met at various science fiction and comic-book conventions in the early 1980s and who were interested in all kinds of anthropomorphic characters, but particularly those covered in fur. By 1987, enough interest had been generated for there to be a furry convention in its own right and these have continued to be held annually in Europe and the US ever since [3].

 

With the rise and spread of the internet, the furry fandom has also grown rapidly around the world as an on-line community with many of its own specialised sites and virtual meeting places.

 

Those fans possessing handicraft skills, often like to make their own plush toys, or design elaborate costumes in a wide range of styles and worn either for private pleasure, or when participating at furry events. 

 

Whilst those fans who are more technologically-minded, often create their own anthropomorphic animal avatars called - predictably enough - fursonas (or tiny-bodies), via which they engage in (sometimes kinky) role-playing games with others of their kind in a virtual world.

 

 

IV.

 

As mentioned, for the most part, furries and therians don't usually have much to do with one another and the two phenomena legitimately deserve to be regarded as separate concepts attracting different types of people. 

 

However, there are those - known as furry lifestylers - who blur this distinction by occupying the space between the two categories. 

 

These individuals have beliefs similar to those who practice animal related religions and philosophies, such as shamanism. Thus it is that some lifestylers often claim they have a totem animal that watches over them, or that they are the reincarnation of an animal spirit. 

 

Other lifestylers, meanwhile, are keen to promote the idea that animal instincts exist within humans as part of our genetic code and hope to translate man back into nature, as Nietzsche would say; i.e., to strip away the anthropocentric conceit that has blinded us to our own reality and fooled us into vainly thinking we are of a different origin and higher status to other animals. 

 

That may be, as Nietzsche says, a queer and possibly insane task, but it's certainly a revaluation of values [4]. 

 

 

The Otherkin

 

I.

 

The term otherkin is a rather nice neologism, coined in the early-mid-1990s when it became clear that a distinct new sub-culture was emerging on-line out of various other communities. 

 

Like therians, members of the otherkin like to think of themselves as essentially non-human, to a lesser or greater degree. But whereas therians believe themselves to be part-animal, the otherkin often regard themselves as being part mythological or legendary creature; such as centaurs, mermaids, or elves, for example.

 

Some members of the otherkin also identify in terms of fictional characters who have arisen within modern popular culture; and some, albeit far fewer in number, identify as plants, abstract concepts, or natural phenomena, which is philosophically interesting and one wonders if those who think of themselves as a weather system, for example, wish to become-imperceptible - i.e., reach the point at which they can no longer be identified in human terms, but only acknowledged as a chaos of non-subjectified effects and impersonal elements that must be mapped meteorologically ...?

 

If so, that's kind of cool, speaking as a Deleuzian ...

 

 

II.

 

Whilst almost all otherkin insist that they are neither fantasizing nor role-playing - claiming, for example, that their nonhuman aspect is spiritual in nature and not merely an assumed persona or self-constructed identity - others attribute it to unusual psychology or neurodivergence and do not hold any spiritual beliefs. 

 

Some even suggest that they are biologically other, considering themselves to be directly descended from the species with which they identify via a primeval marriage at some point with mankind. Again, that's very interesting; it reminds one of the fact that stories of humans descending from animals, giants, aliens, or gods are common among tribal peoples all over the world and very often involve illicit sexual relations.

 

Others, meanwhile, believe in a multitude of parallel universes, wherein supernatural or sapient non-human beings exist to whom they are psychically attuned or able to visit via a form of astral projection. I don't know if many otherkin speak in terms of possession, but such a concept surely provides an explanation for their altered state of consciousness and associated behaviours that is found in many religions.

 

But again, just as I understand why furries don't wish to be thought furverts, I understand why members of the otherkin can be a little uncomfortable with being thought part of a weird neo-pagan religion or occultists (despite sharing an obvious interest in the paranormal). 

 

Sadly, there's already a peculiar degree of public fear and suspicion (as well as scorn) directed their way - as there is for others who are perceived as threatening the predominant moral and social order - so no need to also add to this by openly declaring themselves to be devil-worshippers or involved in the dark arts.      

 

Personally, whatever beliefs the otherkin may choose to hold and however they may choose to modify their physical appearance so as too resemble the being it is they identify with (or as), I wish them well and would happily fly the Fairy Star flag if asked to do so ... [5]

 

      

 

 

Notes

 

[1] See 'Madness and Animality: Notes on Therianthropy' (6 Oct 2023): click here.

 

[2] It's perhaps not surprising that the question of sex has at times been a source of controversy and division within the furry fandom. Some members strongly object to what they regard as the distasteful and deviant aspects amongst the community and the term furvert has been coined to specifically identify a sub-section of the fandom that deliberately sexualises anthropomorphic animal characters. 

      Many outsiders also find the pornification of cute and childish animal imagery troubling. But furverts are quick to stress that they have no interest in paedophilia - anymore than they do in zoophilia - and that furvert activity consists primarily of creating, exchanging, and collecting illustrations of their own particular furry fetish character online; a genre of erotic image making known as yiffy art; yiff being a widely used slang term within the furry fandom which, like fuck, has various meanings, applications, degrees of nuance, and which etymologically derives from an onomatopoeic representation of the sound made by mating foxes.

      Whilst it's certainly the case that not all furries are furverts, whether the more prudish members of the fandom like it or not, there is an overlap between furverts and those who enjoy pornography, as well as participants within the world of BDSM and - fairly or unfairly - this has attracted a fair deal of attention, even inspiring an episode of CSI back in 2003 (S4/E5: 'Fur and Loathing') and a book by Michael Cogliantry in 2009 (Furverts, Chronicle Books) - both of which infuriated many furries. 

 

[3] Click here for a peek at ConFuzzled 2023, held at the Hilton Birmingham Metropole Hotel (26-30 May).  

 

[4] See Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, VII. 230.

 

[5] A regular heptagram known as the Elven Star or Fairy Star is used to denote nonhuman identity. It was designed by the Elf Queen's Daughters and first published in the Green Egg newsletter in March 1976. The background colour added here is my own and does not (as far as I know) have any significance within otherkin circles.  

 

The Tiger's Bride

Rachel M. Esposito: The Tiger's Bride

rachelmesposito.com

 

 

"Like the tiger in the night, I devour all flesh, I drink all blood, until ... in sensual ecstasy, 

having drunk all blood and devoured all flesh, I am become again the eternal Fire ..." [a] 

 

 

I. 

 

I love the above lines from D. H. Lawrence. 

 

But Lawrence wasn't the only English writer to evoke the feline spirit and dream of becoming-tiger. Angela Carter also fantasised about entering into unholy matrimony with a tiger and losing her all too human skin, and it's Carter's short story 'The Tiger's Bride' that I'd like to look at here ... [b]

  

II.

Essentially, 'The Tiger's Bride' was Carter's reimagining of Beauty and the Beast [c]: 

 

A beautiful young girl moves in with a mysterious masked figure, known as the Beast, after her father loses her to him in a game of cards. The Beast is eventually revealed to be a tiger masquerading as a man. Having fallen in love with him, the young girl agrees to become his mate and transforms into a beautiful tigress; the suggestion given that this is as much her true nature as it is his [d].  

 

Usually, this tale is discussed in the familiar terms of power, identity, and otherness; often from a feminist, psychoanalytic, or postmodern perspective [e]. There's nothing wrong with that, but neither is there much point in simply offering another analysis in and on the same terms and seen through the same critical lens.

 

And so, here, I'll at least try to say something vaguely novel, whilst, at the same time referring to work first presented at Treadwell's back in 2006 [f]. 

 

 

III.

 

Carter's perversely sensual fantasy of animal transformation raises one key question: is there a fundamental and non-negotiable human nature, or a fixed type of being that is uniquely human and therefore not open either to evolutionary change or magical metamorphosis? 

 

For essentialists of all kinds, the answer to this onto-theological question concerning being and becoming will be a very definite Yes. But for those who reject all such idealism and happily affirm shape-shifting and parahuman hybrids, preferring as they do to conduct their thinking in terms of constant mutation and change, the answer has to be No. 

 

Personally, my sympathies are with the latter; i.e. those who believe in the the dynamic and interchangeable nature of forms. I'm also sympathetic to those who, like Carter, put forward the shocking idea that even virgins born on Chistmas day might prove to be as amoral and as savage as any beast. 

 

Having been handed over by her father to the Beast, Beauty can't help wondering what the exact nature of his beastliness might entail and, prior to her first meeting with her husband-to-be, she recalls the stories her English nanny used to tell her when she was young in order to frighten her. She remembers too how she first discovered the secret of the sexual mystery from watching farmyard animals copulate. 

 

When Beauty first sets eyes on La Bestia she is struck by his size and crude clumsiness, as well as his odd air of self-imposed restraint; "as if fighting a battle with himself to remain upright when he would rather drop on all fours" [155-56]. For all that, he is not much different from any other man, although wearing a mask "with a man's face most beautifully painted on it [… and] a wig, too […] of the kind you see in old-fashioned portraits" [156]. 

 

The Beast has but a single demand to make of Beauty when she is brought before him; "to see the pretty young lady unclothed nude without her dress" [160]. Shocked and insulted, Beauty laughs scornfully at the request and tells him that if she is to be treated like a common whore then she expects not only to be fucked, but also given "the same amount of money that you would give to any other woman in such circumstances" [161]. 

 

This hurts the Beast and he sheds a tear, which, Beauty hopes, is one of shame. However, this doesn’t stop him from making the same request for a second time - with the same results: "Take off my clothes for you, like a ballet girl? Is that all you want of me?" [163], cries Beauty, and again the Beast is forced to shed a tear. 

 

Eventually, when one day out riding, the Beast decides that since she will not reveal herself naked to him then she must be prepared to see him undressed. As he starts to remove his human disguise and finery, Beauty's composure deserts her and she finds herself on the brink of panic as the Beast reveals himself to be: "A great, feline […] whose pelt was barred with a savage geometry of bars the colour of burned wood” [166]. 

 

Beauty can't help noticing the subtlety of his muscles, the profundity of his tread and the "annihilating vehemence of his eyes, like twin suns" [166]. She feels her breast ripped apart as if she had suffered a marvellous wound and she realises that since the tiger will never lie down with the lamb, then she, Miss Lamb, must learn how to run with tigers. 

Having come to this fateful conclusion, Beauty finally decides to strip: 

 

"I therefore, shivering, now unfastened my jacket, to show him I would do him no harm. Yet I was clumsy and blushed a little, for no man had seen me naked and I was a proud girl. Pride it was, not shame, that thwarted my fingers so; and a certain trepidation lest this frail little article of human upholstery before him might not be, in itself, grand enough to satisfy his expectations […]" [166]

 

Continuing with the narration of her tale, Beauty says: "I showed his grave silence my white skin, my red nipples, and the horses turned their heads to watch me, also, as if they, too, were courteously curious as to the fleshy nature of women." [166] 

 

Having finally conceded to his original request of her, the Beast informs Beauty that she is free to return to her father. But, of course, she now finds herself so taken with the Beast's inhuman nobility that she doesn't want to leave him. Rather, she wants to stay and learn how to feel happy in her own nakedness; for the idea of living without clothes still left her troubled and she rightly connected it to a loss of her humanity: 

 

"I was unaccustomed to nakedness. I was so unused to my own skin that to take off all my clothes involved a kind of flaying. I thought the Beast had wanted a little thing compared with what I was prepared to give him; but it is not natural for humankind to go naked, not since first we hid our loins with fig leaves. He had demanded the abominable. I felt as much atrocious pain as if I was stripping off my own underpelt […]" [168]

 

Still, despite the cost, Beauty gives herself to the Beast of her own accord. He, in turn, abandons his human disguise and no longer wore strong perfumes to mask his own distinctive animal scent. Beauty is still concerned about his ferocity and the fact that he might yet gobble her up, but perhaps, she reasons, his appetite need not mean her death. 

 

The story concludes with a very lovely and highly erotic scene that any zoophile or therianthrope must surely treasure; a scene typical of Angela Carter in that it profoundly disrupts "both our expectations […] and our customary moral and aesthetic response" [g]: 

 

"I squatted on the wet straw and stretched out my hand. I was now within the field of force of his golden eyes. He growled at the back of his throat, lowered his head, sank on to his forepaws, snarled, showed me his red gullet, his yellow teeth. I never moved. He snuffled the air, as if to smell my fear; he could not. 

      Slowly, slowly he began to drag his heavy, gleaming weight across the floor towards me. 

      A tremendous throbbing […] filled the room; he had begun to purr. […] The reverberations of his purring rocked the foundations of the house […] I thought: 'It will all fall, everything will disintegrate'. He dragged himself closer and closer to me, until I felt the harsh velvet of his head against my hand, then a tongue, abrasive as sandpaper. 'He will lick the skin off me!' 

      And each stroke of his tongue ripped off skin after successive skin, all the skins of a life in the world, and left behind a nascent patina of shiny hairs. My earrings turned […] to water and trickled down my shoulders; I shrugged the drops off my beautiful fur." [169] 

 

 

IV.

 

What, then, are we to make of this zoosexual fantasy of transformation? 

 

Clearly, it challenges traditional moral understandings of the human, the animal, and the relationship that exists between them. Of course, some might dismiss it on the grounds that in being a magical as well as a sexual fantasy, it has nothing to tell us about the so-called real world. And Carter herself concedes that the tale, unlike the more respectable short story, makes no attempt to imitate life or faithfully record everyday experience. 

 

But for Carter, this is precisely the strength and importance of the tale; in transfiguring the mundane via the extraordinary, the tale challenges our usual assumptions and beliefs about the world and doesn't betray its readers into false certainty and common sense. Tales are always of the unexpected and set in a world wherein the rules governing the boundaries between the true and the false, or concerning identity, are not entirely suspended, but made far more fluid than in ours. 

 

As a matter of fact, Carter's reimagining of La Belle et la Bête is not actually all that radical. It's violence, amorality, and sexual content is found in many of the earliest folk versions that pre-date the more sanitized fairy tales written in the 18th and 19th centuries. Essentially, Carter is reviving an oral tradition in which girls and women are far from helpless or submissive; in which they are, on the contrary, shrewd, quick-witted, and highly skilled. 

 

But as significant as this aspect of the tale is, for me, what really fascinates is that it belongs to a tradition concerning metamorphosis or animal transformation fantasy. Carter too is clearly intrigued by the dialectic of continuity and change and to what extent our humanity is simply skin-deep; if not merely a matter of clothing. 

 

We are obliged to ask the following questions: In stripping naked, and in then stepping out of her very skin, has Beauty realised or lost an essential self? Has she been effectively raped and devoured, or sexually fulfilled via a becoming-animal? It's because such questions make many people uncomfortable - particularly as they are raised within a zoosexual context - that, strangely enough, the overtly bestial content of this and other such tales is often entirely overlooked. 

 

Indeed, it almost makes one wonder if the idea of sex between young girls and beasts isn't something inconceivable to them. But, probably, it simply shows fear; either the fear that our humanity is not so essential and determined after all, or the older, more irrational fear that bestiality will result in the birth of monsters ... [h]

 

 

Illustration by Aleksandra Waliszewska [i]

  

Notes

 

[a] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Lemon Gardens', Twilight in Italy, in Twilight in Italy and Other Essays, ed. Paul Eggert, (Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 117.

 

[b] 'The Tiger's Bride' can be found in Angela Carter's astonishing collection of short fiction published as The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories, (Golancz, 1979). 

      In this work, Carter doesn't so-much offer us her own versions of traditional fairytales, as reactivate the latent violence and sexual politics at the heart of such well-known stories as 'Little Red Riding Hood' and 'Beauty and the Beast'. Some have described Carter's writing style as a form of queer gothic feminism, although more usually it is considered to be magical realism. Concerns with female identity and female empowerment are pretty much present throughout, as are supernatural elements often involving metamorphosis. 

      The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories remains one of my favourite books by any author and I would encourage torpedophiles to read (or re-read) it. It can be found on the Internet Archive: click here. However, please note that page numbers given here refer to Angela Carter's collected short stories, published as Burning Your Boats, (Vintage, 1996). 

 

[c] La Belle et la Bête is a fairy tale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and published in 1740. It was rewritten and published in the form most people now know it by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont in 1756. Scholars have traced the origin of the story back over 4000 years, although, ultimately, it's impossible to know where or when a story was first told.   

 

[d] I will offer a closer reading of the text in Part III of this post.

 

[e] See for example a series of online articles by Ana Isabel Bugeda Díaz under the heading 'Postmodern Retellings 101', which includes a discussion of Angela Carter's 'The Tiger's Bride': click here. 

      The author cheerfully condemns Western dualism, anthropocentrism, rationalism, patriarchal society, the denial or exclusion of Otherness, etc. whilst speaking positively of desire, animality, emotional intelligence, and the need to subvert traditional narratives. Again, I've no problem with this, it's just that it now strikes me as formulaic and a bit old-fashioned.     

 

[f] I'm referring to the six-part series of essays Zoophilia (published as Vol. III of The Treadwell's Papers, Blind Cupid Press, 2010). In particular, I will be referring to the fifth of these essays, on animal transformation fantasy.  

 

[g] Caroline Walker Bynum, 'Shape and Story: Metamorphosis in the Western Tradition' (Jefferson Lecture, 1999): click here to read online.

 

[h] As a matter of biological fact, human-animal hybrids, or parahumans, cannot be bred sexually; attempts to mate a human and a chimpanzee have been made, but they inevitably failed. However, synthetic biology and genetic engineering does potentially open the way for a world in which such inter-species hybrids become possible.

     

[i] To find out more about this Polish artist visit Marta Lucy Summer's blog Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: click here.  

The Lady and the Chimp

Star-crossed lovers: 

Adie Timmermans and Chita the Chimp

 

 

A story that caught my eye earlier this week concerns a woman in Belgium who has been banned by a zoo in Antwerp from visiting the ape enclosure, due to the fact that she was conducting an affair with one of the residents; a chimpanzee named Chita.   

 

For the past four years, Adie Timmermans has visited Chita - who has been held captive at the zoo for thirty years - on a weekly basis and developed a close bond with him, waving and exchanging kisses through the glass (and across the species divide) that separates them. 

 

But now the zoo have stepped in, expressing concern that what they regard as an illicit relationship is negatively impacting upon Chita's natural affinity with members of his own kind; other chimps - perhaps jealous of his rapport with a human - have allegedly begun to exclude him from group activities. 

 

And so, rather cruelly I think, the zoo has banned 38-year-old Ms. Timmermans from making any further contact with Chita, breaking his heart and hers; for parting isn't such sweet sorrow when you don't know if you will ever see one another again.  

 

Keepers have been instructed to help Chita interact more with his fellow chimps. But surely they could have made alternative arrangements; building a private space, for example, in which Chita and Adie could have lived happily ever after in zoosexual bliss ...   

 

 

Personal Love Counts So Little: Further Reflections on the Queer Case of Lou Carrington

Emerald Green Sacred Sex Graffiti (2015)
by Deprise Brescia / fineartamerica.com
 

As torpedophiles will recall, D. H. Lawrence's short novel St. Mawr is the story of a young woman who, having quickly exhausted the limits of love in a conventional (all-too-human) sense, embarks on an affair with a stallion.

However, her search for a form of transpersonal sex doesn't end in the stable. For ultimately, even a relationship with a handsome bay horse doesn't quite meet her needs. She yearns for something else, something bigger, something that can only be found perhaps beneath the radiation of new skies.

Thus it is that Lou ends up living on a small tumble-down ranch near Santa Fe. She hasn't got and doesn't want a man in her life: "She wanted to be still: only that, to be very, very still, and recover her own soul. [...] Even the illusion of the beautiful St. Mawr was gone." [137]

Lou adopts an asexual - almost anti-sexual - position, beyond man and beast, with spooky-erotic elements of spectrophilia:

"Because sex, mere sex, is repellent to me. I will never prostitute myself again. Unless something touches my very spirit, the very quick of me. I will stay alone, just alone. Alone, and give myself only to the unseen presences, serve only the other, unseen presences." [138]

Unable to bear the triviality and superficiality of her human relationships - and finding that even a fling with a horse can only take you so far - Lou decides she will model her life henceforth on that of the Vestal Virgins:

"They were symbolic of herself, of women weary of the embrace of incompetant men, weary, weary, weary of all that, turning to the unseen gods, the unseen spirits, the hidden fire, and devoting herself to that, and that alone. Receiving thence her pacification and her fulfilment." [138-39]

And these unseen presences are manifested in the landscape of her new home; "it seemed to her that the hidden fire was alive and burning in this sky, over the desert, in the mountains. She felt a certain latent holiness in the very atmosphere ..." This despite the tourists in their motor-cars, the "rather dreary Mexicans" and the Indians lurking with "something of a rat-like secretiveness and defeatedness in their bearing" [140].   

The question is: how do you come into touch with the spirit of place? That is to say, how does one polarise oneself with the vital effluence of the environment? It requires, as Lou recognises, submission above all else. One must consent to be seized by a new electricity and undergo a transformation of self - not just psychologically, but physically, as one's bones, blood, and flesh are all subject to a new molecular disposition.

It's a slow and terrible process in which one is essentially violated from behind and below by the destablising malevolence of the world. Loving a man, or a horse, is a piece of cake in comparison. Those environmentalists who, in their naive idealism and anthropocentric conceit, think there's nothing easier or more beautiful than communing with nature are laughably mistaken.

The earthly paradise they dream of is, in reality, inhuman and uncaring; not only does man not exist for it, but neither does a merciful deity watching over man. In the American Southwest: "There is no Almighty loving God. The God there is shaggy as the pine-trees, and horrible as the lightning." [147] Jesus isn't going to help you against the intense savagery of a world that contains mountain lions, pack-rats, porcupines, tumbleweed, and black ants in the kitchen cupboard.    

This is something that Lou, like the woman from New England who owned the ranch before her, will have to learn: that the dark gods and fanged demons to whom she wishes to submit were "grim and invidious and relentless, huger than man, and lower than man" [150].  

Whether she does learn - and whether she finds that something bigger that she desires (and which she conceives in terms of sacred sexuality) - isn't something we can say for sure, as Lawrence ends the story of Lou Carrington at this point, concluding with a little speech from the latter to her mother, in which she insists on her determination to henceforth keep herself to herself:

"'There's something else for me, mother. There's something else even that loves me and wants me. I can't tell you what it is. It's a spirit. And it's here, on this ranch. It's here, in this landscape. It's something more real to me than men are, and it soothes me, and it holds me up. I don't know what it is, definitely. It's something wild, that will hurt me sometimes and will wear me down sometimes. I know it. But it's something big, bigger than men, bigger than people, bigger than religion. It's something to do with wild America. And it's something to do with me. It's a mission, if you like [...] to keep myself for the spirit that is wild, and has waited so long here: even waited for such as me. Now I've come! Now I'm here. Now I am where I want to be: with the spirit that wants me. And that's how it is. [...] And it doesn't want to save me either. It needs me. It craves for me. And to it, my sex is deep and sacred, deeper than I am [...] It saves me from cheapness, mother. And even you could never do that for me.'" [155]

Notes

D. H. Lawrence, 'St. Mawr', in St. Mawr and Other Stories, ed. Brian Finney, (Cambridge University Press, 1983).  

For the earlier post in which I discuss Lou Carrington's affair with St. Mawr, click here.

For a post in which I discuss Lawrence's understanding of the spirit of place, click here. 

Jumping the Shark (With Reference to the Case of Maldoror)

Dr Louzou: Maldoror et le requin femelle (2008) 
obscur_echange.livejournal.com

I.

I don't know if the erotic fascination with sharks, or selachophilia as I imagine it's known, is recognised as a distinct subclass of zoophilia, but I'm guessing that it must be pretty rare to want to sexually engage a great white or hammerhead.*

Dolphins, I can see the attraction of and have, in fact, previously written here on delphinophilia. I am sympathetic also to those who, like Troy McClure, have a thing for fish and have posted too on the subject of icthyophilia.

But getting jiggy with Jaws seems to me to be taking things a bit too far - by which I mean moving into the realm of pure fantasy, not overstepping some kind of moral boundary. Indeed, the only case of a human-shark relationship that I know of is found in Lautréamont's great poetic novel Le Chants de Maldoror (1868-69).          

II.

The Songs of Maldoror is a queer gothic study of a misanthropic and misotheistic protagonist who, like a Sadean libertine, renounces conventional morality and devotes himself to a life of evil. Its transgressive, experimental, and often absurd style both anticipated and influenced Surrealism; Dalí was such a fan that he even illustrated an edition of the work.    

Each of the 60 chapters (or verses) can be read independently and in isolation, as there seems to be no narrative continuity or even any direct relationship between events. One strange episode simply follows another, as if in a dream or nightmare.

Having said that, there are certain common themes and recurrent images and there's also a noticeably large number of animals passing through the work, who seem to be admired by Maldoror for their nonhumanity and inhumanity.

One of these animals is the female shark with whom he copulates in this memorable, rather charming passage:

"They look into each other's eyes for some minutes, each astonished to find such ferocity in the other's eyes. They swim around keeping each other in sight, and each one saying to themselves: 'I have been mistaken; here is one more evil than I.' Then by common accord they glide towards one another underwater, the female shark using its fins, Maldoror cleaving the waves with his arms; and they hold their breath in deep veneration, each one wishing to gaze for the first time upon the other, his living portrait. When they are three yards apart they suddenly and spontaneously fall upon one another like two lovers and embrace with dignity and gratitude, clasping each other as tenderly as brother and sister. Carnal desire follows this demonstration of friendship. Two sinewy thighs press tightly against the monster's flesh [...] arms and fins are clasped around the beloved object, while their throats and breasts soon form one glaucous mass amidst the exhalations of the sea-weed [...] and rolling on top of one another down into the unknown deeps, they joined in a long, chaste and ghastly coupling!"

Whether, technically, it would be possible for a human male to sexually penetrate the body of a female shark, I don't know: a penis isn't quite the same as a clasper and a cloaca not quite as welcoming as a mammalian vagina. Still, you never know until you try I suppose: however, any would-be lovers should be warned - sharks play rough ... 

Notes

* There are probably significantly more people who fantasise about being attacked and eaten by a shark, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish; that is to say, whilst vorarephilia has an erotic element to it, it's not the same as wishing to fuck what used to be known by sailors as a sea dog. 

Le Comte de Lautréamont, Maldoror and Poems, trans. Paul Knight, (Penguin Books, 1978). The passage quoted is in Part II, Chapter 13, pp. 111-112.    

Towards a Queer Ethology 2: Who Fucked Bambi? (The Case of the Deer-Loving Monkey)

 Photograph: Alexandre Bonnefoy/AFP/Getty Images 

"Beasts of the earth ... they gambolled in the glade" 

Our second ethological study also involves a gentle pretty thing doing something that those who like to idealise animal behaviour and use Nature as a metaphysical reference point for their own moral values, would probably prefer not to know about; in this case, a female sika deer contentedly having sex with a male Japanese macaque (or snow monkey) on the island of Yakushima.

Such full-on fucking between two such distinct species of animal is extremely rare. In fact, this is believed to be only the second scientifically recorded example of such behaviour. For despite macaques and sika deer having a close and playful symbiotic relationship in which, in return for fruit dropped from the trees and grooming services, the deer allow the monkeys to occasionally ride on their backs, they don't usually get it on.

In a paper published in the journal Primates, scientists describe how a low-ranking, but horny young male monkey was observed repeatedly engaging in acts of coition with a couple of does. Whilst one of the deer didn't seem to particulary enjoy the attention she received from the macaque and soon ran off, the other appeared to have no objections and even licked off her lover's ejaculate from her back.  

As the lead author of the above paper writes, no ambiguity is possible here; both animals physically consented to and enjoyed the shared sexual experience.

She also suggests that mate deprivation is the most likely explanation for this non-coercive interspecies romance; a theory which argues that males who don't have access to females of their own kind are more likely to display such aberrant behaviour - though why the macaque didn't simply choose to masturbate or engage in homosexual activity with other monkeys, isn't quite clear.

Ultimately, the above case is interesting not only for what it tells us about the creatures in question, but wider issues to do with interspecies relations - including human-animal relations which, in the light of this new research, can no longer be described by opponents as completely unnatural.


Note: readers who are interested in knowing the full details of this case should see Pelé, M., Bonnefoy, A., Shimada, M. et al; 'Interspecies sexual behaviour between a male Japanese macaque and female sika deer', in Primates, Vol. 58, Issue 2 (April 2017), pp. 275-78. 

To read part one of this post - Bambi's Revenge (The Case of the Carrion Deer) - click here.  

To read part three - When You Feel a Little P-Pervish, P-P-P Pick Up a Penguin - click here.

Monkey Business (On Human-Chimp Sexuality)

It's commonly assumed that human males are more easily aroused, more promiscuous and more prepared to fuck just about anything, than human females. But the available research data seems to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the evidence indicates that it's women - not men - who are more polymorphously perverse and erotically plastic in their pleasures, including interspecies shenanigans.

In a famous experiment performed by Canadian sexologist Meredith Chivers, for example, women were shown pornographic videos featuring men and women engaged in heterosexual, lesbian and male homosexual activity. They were also shown films, with added sound effects, of polyamorous bonobos vigorously having sex. Chivers wanted to find out if there was a difference between what women think excites them and what actually turns them on; so it was that the women were hooked up to a vaginal photoplethysmograph, to measure any changes in lubrication, blood flow, or vascongestion.

Asked to record their reactions, the predominantly heterosexual women unsurprisingly said that they mainly enjoyed watching the straight sex scenes. But the VPG told a very different story; they were aroused by all of the sex scenes - including the monkey porn. Indeed, whatever their professed sexual orientation, the women showed significant and rapid genital arousal almost no matter what they watched on screen - girl-on-girl action, masturbating men, or apes getting jiggy with it.

Repeating the same experiment with men, however, Chivers obtained very different results. There was not only a much closer correspondence between mind and body (gay and straight men both physically responding in a category specific manner with what they said they found sexually arousing), but, interestingly, none of the men registered even the first stirrings of an erection whilst watching the bonobos bonking. Any expectation that explicit animal sex would speak to the untamed beast within was - in the case of the men at least - sadly mistaken.

Now, Chivers is quick to point out that this doesn't automatically mean that all women are subconsciously lusting after non-human primates, or dreaming of animal lovers. If we were to believe this on the basis of the physiological evidence, then we would also have to believe that they secretly desire to be raped; because the fact is some women are physically excited by extremely violent fantasy and some display signs of genital response (including orgasm) during actual sexual assault.

Chivers argues - convincingly, I feel - that vaginal lubrication evolved as an automatic protective response, to reduce discomfort and protect from injury during penetration; that it was not essentially a sign of sexual arousal or indicative of desire. Thus, what her data reveals is that even the sight of a pygmy chimp with a hard on can stimulate a reaction, so closely do they resemble humans and so anxious are women to reduce the prospect of coital pain.    

But what of the male apes? I hear you ask. If human females can subconsciously find them a sexual possibility (or threat), do they find women at all attractive?

Apparently - and contrary to what the picture above or certain pornographic fantasies, usually involving large gorillas, might suggest - our simian cousins are not exactly lining up to date, rape, or perv on women. Show a male chimp images of a female chimp's genitalia or swollen anal rump and he's interested to the point that he'll even accept a loss of fruit juice in exchange; show him a pornographic picture of a woman and it's no deal - he'll stick with his juice.

Obviously, there are exceptions; that is to say, there are cases of apes in captivity who, when given the chance, like to watch porn on TV. But, for the most part, chimps seem to prefer their own kind. What's more, they tend to have a very strong MILF fixation and consistently prefer older females over younger, inexperienced females (suggesting that the human male preference for younger women is a relatively recent evolutionary development).   


See: Meredith L. Chivers, Michael C. Seto and Ray Blanchard, 'Gender and Sexual Orientation Differences in Sexual Response to Sexual Activities Versus Gender of Actors in Sexual Films', in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 6, 1108-1121 (American Psychological Association, 2007). Click here to read online version of this essay. 

Delphinophilia

A lot of people claim to love dolphins and dream of swimming with them so that they too might experience something of the sheer joy and underwater togetherness displayed by these fleshy, warm-bodied, and intelligent creatures.   

But for a small number of delphinophiles, to simply swim with dolphins is insufficient and they desire some form of overtly sexual relation. As with other other types of zoosexual contact, however, fucking with Flipper is far from straightforward and requires a good deal of patience, commitment, and knowledge of animal anatomy and behaviour: get it wrong and perving on porpoises might well prove fatal; get it right, and fins can be wonderful.

The key seems to be establishing a bond of trust and familiarity between yourself and your bottle-nosed partner. In other words, adopting a code of erotic etiquette and sexual ethics is as crucial within cross-species relationships as within human-human love affairs. Abuse has no place within zoophilia.

And so whilst it's true - as critics like to point out - that dolphins cannot give explicit verbal consent, they nevertheless can and do make themselves available and amenable to sex play with human beings and have been known to initiate such. Indeed, recent research has shown that they - like other higher mammals - are polyamorous opportunists who use sex as a form of social bonding.

Arguments that exchanging a few simple pleasures with dolphins is harmful to their welfare simply don't hold up; arguments that it is unnatural or immoral and degrades the uniquely special status of the human are laughable as well as untenable. Torpedo the ark means rejecting the naturalistic fallacy and the dogma of human exceptionalism; it means proliferating forms of contact, affection, and affinity with other species.

 
Note: for those who wish to know more about dolphin-oriented zoosexuality the following blogs might interest:

Delphinophile.blogspot.com

http://blog.wetgoddess.net

Delphigirlwrites.blogspot.com

Equus Eroticus (1): The Case of Lady Carrington

In his short novel St Mawr, Lawrence examines a young woman's erotic and pagan fascination for a golden-red stallion, with brilliant black eyes. The horse challenges her to find something within herself that can answer to his own four-legged combination of virility and divinity and from their first encounter Lou is transfixed, transfigured, and turned-on:

"She laid her hand on his side, and gently stroked him. Then she stroked his shoulder, and then the hard, tense arch of his neck. And she was startled to feel the vivid heat of his life come through to her ... So slippery with vivid, hot life! ... Dimly, in her weary young-woman's soul, an ancient understanding seemed to flood in."

What exactly is Lou Carrington thinking of here? When Lawrence writes of this primal experience flooding into her female soul, what conclusion are we invited to arrive at other than this is essentially a carnal form of knowledge? I don't believe I'm being crassly reductive or offering a provocatively crude interpretation to insist on this fact. Rather, I think that Lawrence is deliberately flirting with the possibility of a human-horse love affair in St. Mawr (as elsewhere in his work) and that this passage is an overtly bestial piece of writing. The reason that he stresses the potent and dangerous maleness of the horse is because there is an unspoken desire for penetration.

But Lou would be right to be worried by the prospect of such. For as Bodil Joensen once warned in an interview, being fucked by a horse is always a risky business, even for those who are experienced in the practice. For not only can these powerful creatures bite and kick and suddenly thrust when excited, but at orgasm the glans of a horse's penis swells considerably and this can cause serious - if not fatal - internal damage.

Of course, having said this, Lou doesn't simply have the hots for St. Mawr. When she touches his body she feels herself brought mystically into connection with another world and another way of being; the horse answers to her need for some sense of religious wonder, as well as her desire for sexual fulfilment. When St. Mawr looks at her from out of the everlasting darkness, Lou feels he has uncanny authority over her and that she must worship him like some splendid god or demon.

In comparison, she finds her human relationships trivial and superficial; including her relationship with Rico, her husband, who is himself horse-like in his sensitivity, but forever "quivering with a sort of cold, dangerous mistrust" and fear that he attempts to mask with an anxious form of love and a clever niceness that is slowly driving Lou insane and into the hooves of St. Mawr.   

Unsurprisingly, therefore, Lou abandons Rico and runs off with her horse dreaming of a time to come when men might regain their animal mystery and nobility and become-centaur. 

- D. H. Lawrence, St. Mawr and Other Stories, ed. Brian Finney, (CUP, 1983).

Come Not with Kisses: Leda, Lawrence and the Swan

Max Sauco: Leda and Her Swan 

D. H. Lawrence wrote four very lovely and at times very amusing poems based on the Leda myth. Taken together, these verses are significantly more interesting than the more-widely read poem written by Yeats on this same woman and bird coupling, projecting as they do the idea into a transhuman future in which the new Helen is imagined not as some semi-divine beauty, but as a human-animal hybrid or chimera, compete with green webbed-feet made to smite the waters of an unknown world.

Lawrence is not entirely happy with his own vision, however. For within the curious world of Lawrentian zoology the swan has ambiguous status and often features alongside snakes, newts, and beetles as one of the animals he associates with corruption:

"With its reptile feet buried in the ooze ... its beauty white and cold and terrifying ... it is for us a flame of the cold white fire of flux, the phosphorescence of corruption ... This is  the beauty of the swan ... this cold white salty fire of infinite reduction."

       

- 'The Crown', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays, (CUP, 1988), p. 293 

Thus, for Lawrence, when humanity seeks its fulfilment in avisodomy this is not merely a sign of our perversion, but also indicative of a kind of death drive.

Whether we agree or disagree with Lawrence's analysis of becoming-animal in terms of regression and nostalgie de la boue, at least, to his credit and unlike many pure-minded scholars who refuse to discuss the zoosexual aspects of the Leda myth, he doesn't shy away from the question of why sensitive men and women might desire to fuck with birds and beasts, rather than one another.

And besides, who's to say that the Übermensch won't be born of a swan-princess in a time of corruption?