A still-born
baby would not be news. Unless the baby is a dead lamb with
a human-like face. Evolution throws up such surprises. How we react to them
also shows how we perceive our evolvement when confronted with other forms.
Erhan Elibol, a
vet, had to perform a caesarean on a sheep in a Turkish village in 2010. He said:
“I’ve seen mutations with cows and sheep before. I’ve seen a one-eyed calf, a two-headed calf, a five-legged calf. But when I saw this youngster I could not believe my eyes.”
The lamb’s head
had human features on – the eyes, the nose and the mouth – only the ears were
those of a sheep.
While the
reports suggest that the fodder of the mother had abundant vitamin A, the
subtext is the possibility of beast and human cohabitation. A similar example mentioned a goat from Zimbabwe. It managed to live for many hours. The villagers
were so afraid, they killed it.
The governor of
the province had said:
"This incident is very shocking. It is my first time to see such an evil thing. It is really embarrassing. The head belongs to a man while the body is that of a goat. This is evident that an adult human being was responsible. Evil powers caused this person to lose self control. We often hear cases of human beings who commit bestiality but this is the first time for such an act to produce a product with human features.”
A similar fate,
or at least ridicule, is meted out to children with dominant animal features.
Scientific
Darwinian explanation would merely allude to the possibility of an ‘antecedent’
strain embedded in the human body and, perhaps, mind. We live in fairly close
communion with what we term ‘domesticated’ creatures, much as we refer to human
– unfortunately more often women – in such a manner to suggest a comfort with
the hearth than with the caveman skills of slaying lions.
Have religious
mores made the human less animal? How would then one explain “unnatural sex”,
which mimics to an extent animal behaviour when in heat? Humans do not have a
period of being in heat. Should one therefore assume that evolution has
empowered the homosapien to continue with perpetual animalistic behaviour, and
the true test is the amount of value-laden acts that manage to supercede
pleasure? However, experiencing pleasure is a human boon; animals do not feel it,
except perhaps as relief, much as scratching an itch.
When we read
about instances of humans and animals, the preference seems to be for what
might broadly be the canine and bovine family. There is rarely an instance of
sex with simians, who are closest to us. Is there a ‘morality’ embedded in
unnaturalism, where this would be deemed as incest?
Also, would we
be able to stretch attraction to pets where the sexual act might never occur
but the affection is a compensatory aspect, and indeed the nuzzling, caressing,
licking are not too far from human foreplay? These do not worry us, or even
cross our minds, because there is a clear demarcation in our ethical paradigm.
Bestiality is when the lines blur. A human having intercourse with an animal is
termed bestial. We refuse to see it from the animal perspective. Surely, we
could not term it ‘humanistic’. And we do not even care much about it. That
probably explains how eveolved we are, for we can take control of our acts and
how we choose to see them, as also the moral dimension we give it.
“Evil powers” are
blamed. Men have used such evil powers against other humans too. In fact, in
the animal kingdom, there appears to be more equality in sexual encounters.
There may not be long-term relationships, but the act itself is not confined to
the male prerogative to ‘take’. In the human context, women who are adventurous
may be exciting, but they are termed “wild” by their partners too. Even a
progressive man would not fail to notice the uninhibited passion. It is,
therefore, seen as a departure from what is common human conduct.
Recently, a 750-year-old
stone tablet was discovered in Vasai, a far suburb of Mumbai, that suggests a woman
had copulated with a donkey.
The Times of India report quotes historian Shridatta Raut, of Kille Vasai Mohim, who chanced upon the tablet:
The Times of India report quotes historian Shridatta Raut, of Kille Vasai Mohim, who chanced upon the tablet:
“The stone dates back to the era of the Shilahara kings, who ruled Vasai around 1,000 years ago. It bears a few lines in Sanskrit that we are trying to decipher. Years of exposure to the elements and accumulated dirt have blurred the inscription, but we have read a series of ‘Shri Shri Shri Shri’, which shows that the tablet must have been commissioned by a senior courtier or perhaps a Brahmin. The stone bears an image of a donkey copulating with a human female, perhaps threatening transgressors that a similar fate would befall their women should their menfolk ignore the warning.”
This suggests that not only did humans a few centuries ago use women for procreation, but were not averse to the idea of bestiality as punishment. The female as wartime booty had become a fairly common occurrence. This ‘tradition’ continues. What is deemed as repugnant has been legitimised as machismo. For the male, woman is property is used to protect other property.
Is it much different from animals marking their territory?
© Farzana Versey
FV,
ReplyDeleteThought-provoking.
However, the news you refer to seems to be quite old.
F&F:
ReplyDeleteThanks. I worked back from the latter part, so the 'news' error. Have altered the sentence. Appreciate you pointing it out.
FV,
ReplyDeleteThat tablet bearing the picture of human-animal copulation may be new to those who are not familiar with medieval artifacts found strewn all over Maharashtra. But the particular graphic is not an uncommon occurrence. Those who understand Marathi may try this link.
http://borkarsagar.blogspot.in/2012/05/blog-post_14.html
But this is a new find. Sure, there are precedents, and I am curious about how they were perceived at different times in various cultures.
ReplyDeletePS: is there a pseudo-secular narrative somewhere?!
Hi Farzana,
ReplyDeleteLast I checked, Science insists animal ova cannot be fertilized by human sperm in the "wild". However, if reports of scientific "triumphs," various and sundry, are any indication, likely it can be accomplished in a laboratory setting (envitro and/or genetic manipulation, wherein the fertilized egg is then re-implanted into a female host). Perhaps the ewe was in an already expectant state when the owner acquired her? Alternatively, there's always the random factor argument, i.e. the mutation just happened to come out looking like a human face . . .
That said, most of us -- myself included -- are reliant upon Science to tell us not only what it can or cannot do (what's "safe" and what's not-so-safe, etc.) but also what is or is not possible naturally in the "wild". Personally, I lack the means and, in certain instances, the inclination to test such claims, so the foregoing (much as with religion) pretty much entirely depends on what sort of credibility one is willing to ascribe to the high-priests of Science. :)
>>Have religious mores made the human less animal?<<
Less "animal" in the sense of less susceptible to certain supposed primordial instincts, or less so in the sense of behavioral norms? Certainly an argument could be made that religious mores as taken may serve to restrain *some* adherents from reverting back to this alleged animal state; whereas more punitive religious/culural injunction (ostracisation, banishment or even death) seems more oriented toward helping certain "doubting-Thomases" from "back-sliding," as they say.
>>How would then one explain “unnatural sex”, which mimics to an extent animal behaviour when in heat? Humans do not have a period of being in heat.<<
Ah, but there is what's referred to as "the heat of the moment," which may be exacerbated not only by boredom, not only by the absence of a "natural" outlet, but also by opportunity. The lonely herdsman tending his flocks in remote pastures is pretty much a stereotype (who's gonna know?). Of course, there are ways of "cooling" that heat without the involvement of another, man or beast; however, for some (the law of diminishing returns perhaps more acutely felt by them), novelty and/or innovation seems an irresistable impulse.
Mark
Ps. Judging from Footloose's comments, Maharashtrians would seem to have been quite the notorious tax evaders. :)
Mstaab,
ReplyDeleteI am no authority on Maharashtra's history. Reconsider the high weightage you have ascribed to my views.
FV,
ReplyDeleteQUOTE: "..is there a pseudo-secular narrative somewhere?"
I would rather look at this ancient graphic as a prophecy, depicting what the pseudo-sekulaars will do to Mother India in times to come!
(Remember, you started it!)
Footloose,
ReplyDeleteFrom Farzana's Times citation:
"A bygone local king or chieftain, whose identity is yet to be ascertained, had most likely commissioned the carving as a warning sign either to keep intruders at bay or to ensure that tax collectors deposited their revenue, said the historians."
Your observation was that there were many such tablets and/or "medieval artifacts found strewn all over Maharashtra" of similar motif. Ergo, ascribing the preponderance of "high weightage" to the *historians* of Vasai, medieval Maharashtrians were either beset by burglars or beset by tax collectors. Some may wish to equate the two. :)
Mine was more a tongue-in-cheek comment on these worthy historians' "likely" interpretation of their "find" than on your sharp observations respecting Maharashtra artifacts.
Reg'ds,
Mark
F&F:
ReplyDeleteI would rather look at this ancient graphic as a prophecy, depicting what the pseudo-sekulaars will do to Mother India in times to come!
(Remember, you started it!)
Am I glad that you are now getting metaphorical...there is hope for one more reader for my humble poetry now.
Seriously, though, you insult Mother India, the symbol of 'shakti'. I am not surprised you see the ps as donkeys, but think of the possibility of the woman changing the game and giving it back, so to speak. I'd have expected some ammo from you. But then, you are very likely shy :)
PS: Of course, I started it. Shakti, remember?!
Hi Mark:
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts were more about the extension of scientific possibilities than the rendition of science.
>>Have religious mores made the human less animal?<<
Less "animal" in the sense of less susceptible to certain supposed primordial instincts, or less so in the sense of behavioral norms?...
Instincts predate behaviour. How to nip the former before it sees fruition is learned. Is it through religion or scientific idea of evolution?
There is also the more philosophical aspect of the blood of sacrificed animal for human religious exemption. But then, we do have examples of testing on animals before being ready for human consumption to gauge acceptability and resistance to outside intrusion.
Ah, but there is what's referred to as "the heat of the moment," which may be exacerbated not only by boredom, not only by the absence of a "natural" outlet, but also by opportunity. The lonely herdsman tending his flocks in remote pastures is pretty much a stereotype (who's gonna know?). Of course, there are ways of "cooling" that heat without the involvement of another, man or beast; however, for some (the law of diminishing returns perhaps more acutely felt by them), novelty and/or innovation seems an irresistable impulse.
Bestiality as innovation would be quite an irony for it is returning to the flock, so to speak :)
PS: Re.F&F’s stmt and your reading, I’d say Maharashtrians were either a bit paranoid or imaginative. (Did you read his comment on pseudos? He's got the kink right!)
Thanks for putting me back on topic, Farzana -- I had thought to touch on both; but I seem to have got somewhat carried away with the latter. :)
ReplyDelete>>Also, would we be able to stretch attraction to pets where the sexual act might never occur but the affection is a compensatory aspect, and indeed the nuzzling, caressing, licking are not too far from human foreplay?<<
As regards the "science" of erogenous response due to physical manipulation, my sense is that the *receptors* of such tactile pleasure in both sexually mature human males and sexually mature human females are not particularly discriminating as to the source of such manipulations. Aesthetic considerations (such personal or collective *ideas* as to the beautiful, the good and the true) and/or beliefs can (and do) serve as a counter to such arousals; however, it seems to me that, for most if not all sexually mature humans, there is a threshold (varying, to be sure) of arousal that, once crossed, all such counters (mental as opposed to physical) are thrown to the winds, so to speak.
>>Instincts predate behaviour. How to nip the former before it sees fruition is learned.<<
Just so -- albeit I remain as yet somewhat put off by the semantic baggage that has come to adhere to "instinct". For example, as regards the apparent cross between a man and a sheep, you cite the Turkish province governor as saying, "Evil powers caused this person to lose self control." While we might want to ascribe some agency involved in the *circumstance* in which the herdsman may have found himself, I don't think we want to confuse otherwise spontaneous or autonomic bodily responses to sensory stimuli (touch, sight, sound, smell, taste -- the latter four seeming more associative with the former) as being initiated by "evil" . . . [cont.]
. . . That said, and its "compensatory aspect" notwithstanding, lol, there is perhaps room to view such a powerfully persuasive "instinct" as thus being not a little coercive . . . to the supposed sole end that sufficient numbers of the species be perpetuated.
ReplyDelete>>Bestiality is when the lines blur. A human having intercourse with an animal is termed bestial. We refuse to see it from the animal perspective.<<
Keeping in mind that bestiality likely did not occur until animals were thoroughly domesticated (animals being naturally shy at the sight of humans, let alone touch), my uneducated guess is that the male of most domesticated species can be manually aroused to perform most anytime; whereas, as you note, females must first be "in season," as they say. Thus aroused to a certain threshold, however, one might suppose neither, as with humans, to be particularly discriminating as to the source of relief from that "itch."
>>Is [learning how to nip instinct before it sees fruition] through religion or scientific idea of evolution?<<
I am not at all certain our early forebears understood the causal relationship between intercourse and progeny as -- yet without reason for religious proscription against such pleasures -- they were likely quite indiscrimminately engaged in scratching their respective itches. Add to such profligacy what we might suppose as a similarity in feature common to close communities -- add to that some two or three months between conception and show (and/or feel) -- a reasoned connection between the two becomes less likely until animals were domesticated, segregated and closely, proprietarily observed, with certain correspondences as to *timing* noted. Indeed, in Genesis of the Old Testament, Adam is described as "knowing" Eve -- literally "seeing" or gazing at -- whereupon she conceived. Apparently folk then saw conception as arising from a peculiar gaze (of adoration, no doubt -- and thereby, perhaps, lending to the appearance of certain of his features in her child). Further into the text (Leviticus), carnal relations between man or woman with beast are proscribed in that "it is confusion". The text does not state whether it was expected that some *mixed* progeny would arise from such unions; or, if meant more literally, who in particular would become confused with mixed emotions and thus "defiled" by such unions -- man and woman, beast or both. Certainly it makes sense that when the satisfaction of such powerful "instincts" are thus obtained among a kind with whom one has little else in common, certain conditioned, associative confusions might arise. It doesn't take much to imagine the upset an insistent, sex-crazed donkey might create in an otherwise peaceful community. :)
M.
FV,
ReplyDeleteShy? Yes, very much so! Thanks!
Mark:
ReplyDeleteI'll keep this short, as I pretty much am in sync with your views.
1. Aesthetic considerations too allude to animal-like qualities, wrt pulchritude, machismo, and passion.
2. I do not endorse the chieftain on "evil". Nor do I believe in the semantics of instinct. Instinct is spontaneous. The followup is learned!
3. Re bestiality from the animal perspective, the female may need to be in heat, but I'm certain there is some discretion exercised in choice of partner.
4. It doesn't take much to imagine the upset an insistent, sex-crazed donkey might create in an otherwise peaceful community. :)
The peaceful communities are aware of such inbuilt ability for rising passions. What is upsetting is the 'space' (in humans, morality) gets defiled by the 'roughage ;-)
Thanks for taking this further...so to speak...