Jump to content
Zoo Community Forum & Zoo Writers’ Guild
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

arcticwolf    41

Roman Oil Lamp0a2b0d2d8d9cb17d3430637423be9914--oil-lamps-romans.thumb.jpg.b38cff54b70e328838ab3c41caf34920.jpg

Stone relief in Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar3f4bb9a07e1046d7a7b2cb3a0797a18e.thumb.jpg.558972b63e1b27607ac806997e2f5d18.jpg

Pasiphaë and the Bull.ec8c15028a1988133fd951a992964245.jpg.1d5087c8cffacfe14fbfcee04fe6a534.jpg

Gouache paintingcb202a05b4b4e5e0da4af4d272ef7279.thumb.jpg.573c3789fbd0cb7bd0997635bfc677b8.jpg

Rock carving at Kedareshwara Temple.0cb0491a543cf3b961ca966d3c800e56.jpg.73274cfb4e0efd79fd537d8b1540adc6.jpg

19th century watercolor painting.4b7e9283d9a9a6f7066e2b16441b556b.jpg.568f1af6b23494ded9cb2e4725d2b10c.jpg

Illustration de La Grande Danse macabre des vifs, 1905.


Roman Oil Lamp with Erotic Motiv; 1st-3rd century AD.ec682f4005199b6876d135ef17c4b67b.jpg.986f7e3fdc4ce602542df23ef24a9ce8.jpg


  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
arcticwolf    41

Patan Kathmandu Nepal9cee2a4542fb5733acd161f0ea1277fe.jpg.5a5e4d246141b9f06ead55525b1a339d.jpg

Persian illuminated manuscript31a04d3b7fe7c5f333993a01f2bec1bf.thumb.jpg.156bdb4b93eb7906243aa953ec77353b.jpg

An 18th-century Indian miniatureIndiaerotic5.thumb.jpg.78ddd4827121347418937e8ca626b69e.jpg

Hokusai's (1760–1849) The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife.ac2774bdee069bb487af9aebc401f522.jpg.2cd6d20c5212a9f8e5943f5833c67b15.jpg

A Pretty Like Place by Franz von Bayros49d960ffca00f31211544a08dcf35c32.jpg.e827c8ca3fe1936ddd5f02916a7837cf.jpg

Folio from the Silsilat al-dhahab in the Haft awrang by Jami (d. 1492)2ae7e97fde7fbdd053cc5f0bed17cef1.thumb.jpg.9d5c7758a84fee86c42848e3e4c227d6.jpg


  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
ferritlove    16

Love the old and ancient art!  I've seen much of it before, but it really rams home the message that zoo existed since forever.  This is just stuff that survived time... probably not one one-thousandth of what was actually produced.  Thanks for sharing!

Share this post

Link to post
30-30    21

Ferritlove, isn´t this way of perception a bit simple? Because there´s pictures of it, it must exist?

To give some context here:

The Indian depictions of "zoo" (I´d prefer to call them bestiality acts) can also be explained rather well if you know that the Kamasutra, the Indian "manual of bodily love" separates all humans into three types of animals , dependent on the size of their genitals. There´s the "dog" persons with small dicks and vulvae, the "horse" persons with , let´s call it, mid sized ones and the elephant persons with...I guess you can figure that out by yourself. So, do we really see "zoophilia" in these pictures? Or are these pictures more of a code? What do you think?

I should also mention that the early hunter societies had a firm belief of having sex with their prey to "give back nature what the hunters have taken". Many of those neolithic depictions all the "zoos" celebrate as proof for "zoophilia always has been around" actually aren´t what they think.

In ancient Greek mythology, most of the animal-human contacts described aren´t meant literally , most often Zeus or another god (or representation of a Greek god) turned himself into animal form and thus these depictions also don´t qualify as a "proof" for zoophilia. Zeus used this form of sex for punishment in the case of Pasiphae, because her husband, King Minos, refused to obey Zeus. So Zeus planted the sexual desire for a white bull into Pasiphae to humitiate Minos and it is said that Daidalos built her a rack to perform intercourse with the bull...what resulted in the birth of a monstrosity called Minotaurus (The bull of Minos) roaming Minos´ labyrinth, later being slayed by Perseus. Not exactly a story of love and affection, is it?


 When it comes to ancient depictions of bestiality acts, you should always take it with a huge grain of salt. There are many factors to take into consideration and one should never fool himself into believing what seems so obvious. I´ve even heard many "zoos" arguing that "zoophilia" is legit because there were brothels in Pompeii where pictures similar to those that have been linked in this thread decorated the walls. I´ve always wondered how a Pompeiian "horse brothel" could manage to offer this kind of "service" , but without any stable like area adjoined to the house in question. It´s rather safe to say that this may mostly appeal to those ones suffering from "mixoscopia bestialis", rather "normal" persons who get aroused by seeing others (mostly women,btw) being penetrated or fellating animal dicks. But this isn´t zoophilia at all...in these cases, the animal is just a means and not at all desired by the typical "guy who wants to see his wife getting fucked by doggie", to name the most "popular" form of mixoscopia bestialis.

And the Japanese illustrations should be perceived with the knowledge of the traditional Japanese naturalistic religion of Shintoism. In these cases, the illustrations serve to illustrate more than just "zoophilia", the animals being the placeholders for kami (Ghosts) of nature.

One more example: In ancient Egypt, there was the so called ritual of the goat of Mendes where a priestess performed fellatio with a goat at the summer equinox on an annual basis. This doesn´t mean that in ancient Egypt, fucking animals was seen as normal sexual behaviour, this was a highly ritualised event that took place as a symbolic act. The priestess had the "privilege" for this, it was part of religion, not normal sexual conduct. 

I really think we should stop drawing out these ancient pictures for the sole purpose of fishing for justifications. Not only is it, as I have shown, a rather simple way of perception missing out on a huge part of context, it also includes a terrible fallacy in itself. Just because our ancestors did something 2000 years ago, it isn´t a valid legitimisation. In ancient times, girls in the age of 9 - 12 were married to grown men, in ancient Greece homosexual intercourse with underage kids was "normal"...but neither of these two things qualifies as a defense/justification for paedophilia. In medieval times, it was normal to take a dump in the streets in open sight, yet public defecation is rightfully punished today, not only for hygienic reasons. Always keep that in mind before you draw rather ridiculous and outlandish conclusions.

Share this post

Link to post
silverwolf1    192

Just goes to show how many different perceptions there can be to a subject or object. I see neither what Ferritloves interpretation represents, nor 30-30s. I see only art for arts sake. Like much art today, it may have been made to shock. Or it might have been an accepted practice, or a religious rite, or a form of entertainment as our tv is today that few pay attention to. 

I just see art though. 

I do agree with 30-30 in that even if an accepted practice back then, it does not justify it's practice today. Too many ancient or historic practices are well gotten rid of today, and thankfully so, to say this one is right by art alone.

Just my humble opinion,


Share this post

Link to post
caikgoch    34

Yes and no.       Each and every individual piece is subject to multiple interpretations,  *BUT*, where the is lots of smoke there is generally a fire somewhere nearby.        Certainly the Greeks blamed bestiality on tricky gods and the Romans used it for torture and entertainment but where did they get the idea that it was even possible?

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this