I find assertions about what others feel to be arrogant in the
extreme, whether they are humans or animals.
I was once riding a horse away from a stable who was neighing to her
sister who was neighing back. A stable worker told me the two always
did that when one left.
A recent study found that monkeys grieve, sometimes heavily. Elephants
gather in a group around a dead comrade and sway their trunks.
You don't know what a cow or bull feels. Unless it's based on careful
study it's pure speculation to say what their experience is.
Sent from my iPod
On May 14, 2010, at 12:52 AM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Diana Manister wrote:
>> Dear Nancy,
>> I forget who took offense at my using the phrase 'animal sex' in
>> connection with the typist scene but I know it wasn't you.
> I didn't "take offense" at it, but I did dissent from someon'es use of
> the phrase. Certainly the typist did not act like a holstein cow in
> heat. One may argue about the precise description to give of their sex
> (of anyone's sex in life or fiction), but "animal sex" is just a
> descriptive phrase to use in such descriptios. A bull as it mounts a
> in heat is indifferent or detached in quite a different way than the
> indifference of either of the typiest or her young man. In fact, the
> bull is more of an automaton than either. As I pointed out in another
> post, purpose seems to operate in the sex of bonobos, since their
> sexuality is not governed by the heat cycle of the female. Sex for
> pleasure is certainly the most fully human of all the motives that can
> be brught it. Again, except for the bonobos, no animal does this as
> as I know.