Avert your eyes or have a barf bag ready — and get Rick Santorum on the horn pronto.
Het man-on-dog action captured by wife. So sick that I just can’t print the more descriptive paragraph of the act (this happened in Tacoma, Washington) that is in the article.
A man accused of having sex with the family dog has been charged under the state’s new animal cruelty law, which makes bestiality a felony, a prosecutor said. Michael Patrick McPhail, 26, of nearby Spanaway, pleaded not guilty Thursday to one count of first-degree animal cruelty in Pierce County Superior Court.***
From Saginaw, MI, a story that, if you can believe it, tops the above.
A 44-year-old Saginaw man remains jailed today on charges of bestiality after he was seen engaged in sexual acts with a dead dog, Michigan State Police troopers said.Someone should send Daddy D, Lou Sheldon and Don Wildmon clippings.Ronald Kuch was arrested after police searched the area of Midland and Carter roads Friday for a man who ran away from a Bay County Animal Control officer. The entire incident was within view of a nearby day care center.
Other recent stories of citizens with a BIG problem:
* A man in Bainbridge, GA jumps a fence at a stockyard and porks a hog
* A Mesa, AZ fire battalion chief caught with his pants down in a barn assaulting a lamb
* A St. Gabriel, Louisiana seventeen-year-old was caught on tape committing unnatural acts with a horse.
Hat tip, Shakes Sis.
86 Responses to “Het man-on-dog round up”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
What makes one want to bone the farm-yard menagerie? I can understand, at least vaguely, why people do weird sexual things with other consenting adults, but how do you look at a dog and think “I want to have sex with Fido”?
The box turtle story is, I guess coming.
Yes, I meant to do that. Sorry.
Uh, ok:
The bestiality law, which took effect in June, was prompted by a case near Enumclaw in which a Seattle man died after having sex with a horse.
This is my favorite bit (from the lamb story):
Officials with the Mesa Fire Department, responding to Johnson’s arrest , said he’s been an exemplary employee for the past 26 years, adding that they are shocked and surprised.
I love how they added how shocked and surprised they were. What else were they going to say? “He’s been an exemplary employee for 26 years, but we all pretty much figured he was going to go nail a lamb sooner or later. No one around here is surprised at all.”
I love how the wife took pictures instead of freaking out. For the record, all this is evidence for gun control, because if I found my man torturing my pet that way, I can’t say for certain that having guns in the household wouldn’t turn out very, very badly.
And these pictures are not up on YouTube yet? Unbelievable!
What makes one want to bone the farm-yard menagerie? I can understand, at least vaguely, why people do weird sexual things with other consenting adults, but how do you look at a dog and think “I want to have sex with Fido�?
Three words–animals can’t talk.
Oh dear God, I was born and raised near Saginaw. This is exactly the kind of thing that gets it on the news. The last time I remember hearing of the area was about a decade ago, when a tanker blew up in the Saginaw River. Nothing good ever happens there. I was right to move far, far away.
Six more words–some people are just plain nuts!
I think Patricia got part of it but good–nowadays women and children are talking, and some guys have to find something else warm to discharge into, and animals can’t tell… But that isn’t all of it–some other folks have some obsession about animals that makes them want to do stuff like that. I think I once saw something about a company that makes…toys…that resemble animal parts, for those who are into fantasy. But like with porn, I’m not sure whether it’d harmlesly channel the urges of some people or just make them want the live stuff more.
I just hope someone in my town doesn’t do something like that–what a way to get one’s city put on the map!
…And what would have happened if that girl in Arizona HAD answered the door??
Eeeeeuuggghhh.
It’s hard to know what to write about tut-tutting articles like this; few people who comment on bestiality actually know anything about it.
Well I know a lot about it. Much of it from personal experience.
Yes, there are some people that are mentally ill and/or abuse and harm animals in various ways.
But there are also people - MANY people - who have a strong sexual attraction towards animals, to the point of it being their sole sexual orientation, and who treat all animals with care and kindness. And yes, some animals are not just willing, but actually quite enthusiastic about sex with humans. Unfortunately, these people’s lives are sometimes destroyed by uncomprehending law enforcement and a hysterical public that supports their persecution for a “crime” that is completely harmless. And that is just plain wrong.
If you want an understanding of bestiality as a sexual orientation, I suggest reading The Horseman, by Mark Matthews. It’s not the best written book in the world, but it’s absolutely accurate in depicting the life of someone who loves horses.
I don’t know why there is a wave of anti-bestiality hysteria these days; the number of news articles on the subject has gone up dramatically compared to a couple of years ago. But I can tell you that the prosecution of people who have caring sexual relationships with animals is misguided, destructive, and immoral. In a world where intelligent animals like pigs are raised in horrific, concentration-camp environments, it’s also the height of hypocrisy.
I love how the wife took pictures instead of freaking out. For the record, all this is evidence for gun control, because if I found my man torturing my pet that way, I can’t say for certain that having guns in the household wouldn’t turn out very, very badly.
You’ve gotta admit, though, having those pictures on hand would make getting a divorce decree much, much easier. “Your honor, I have some pictures here that will demonstrate why I should get custody of the dog, the children, and the house …”
sexual acts with a dead dog
A dead dog, for the love of shit? Because you can’t get a live dog to look at you?
We used to make jokes about homonymphonecropedozoophilia–you can’t get enough sex with young dead animals of your own gender.
More evidence that reality will eventually outdo anything we can make up.
Am I the only one out here (OK I admit I probably AM the only one) who reads things like this and thinks:
Ok. It’s true. ALL of them (men) are on the verge of whipping IT out and sticking it into the nearest warm thing, be it whore, toddler, kitty, hog, or lady. They actually CAN’T control themselves, just like Mr.Islam-who compares females-to-uncovered-meat sez, NOT EVEN IF THEY ARE RHODES SCHOLARS, and therefore: No male should be allowed to occupy public office, nor any position of Power, ever, anywhere.
“For the record, all this is evidence for gun control, because if I found my man torturing my pet that way, I can’t say for certain that having guns in the household wouldn’t turn out very, very badly.”
Exactly…
I felt the same way when I was in Florida with my granddaughter and a story came out about how an aquarium security camera caught a man sexually abusing a dolpin.
I was like “what the hell, throw him in the shark tank”…
We had visited the Seaquarium and some other places that featured marine mammals, so I was horrified to think that these gentle, intelligent, friendly creatures could be in the position of being sexually abused by people…
All I can say is too bad it wasn’t a stingray…
Tony:
You know, I’ve seen the exact same arguments made by people who think it’s perfectly OK to diddle six-year-olds.
So Tony, if you show me an animal that is legally capable of giving consent to sex with a human, and I’ll show you an animal you’re allowed to screw. Until then, however, stick to jerking off.
ra‧tion‧al‧ize [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] verb, -ized, -iz‧ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to ascribe (one’s acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
2. to remove unreasonable elements from.
3. to make rational or conformable to reason.
4. to treat or explain in a rational or rationalistic manner.
5. Mathematics. to eliminate radicals from (an equation or expression): to rationalize the denominator of a fraction.
6. Chiefly British. to reorganize and integrate (an industry).
–verb (used without object)
7. to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes: He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing.
8. to employ reason; think in a rational or rationalistic manner.
Also, especially British, ra‧tion‧al‧ise.
[Origin: 1810–20; rational + -ize]
—Related forms
ra‧tion‧al‧i‧za‧tion, noun
ra‧tion‧al‧iz‧er, noun
—Usage note Although rationalize retains its principal 19th-century senses “to make conformable to reasonâ€? and “to treat in a rational manner,â€? 20th-century psychology has given it the now more common meaning “to ascribe (one’s acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious causes.â€? Although the possibility of ambiguity exists, the context will usually make clear which sense is intended.
HTH.
“But there are also people - MANY people - who have a strong sexual attraction towards animals, to the point of it being their sole sexual orientation, and who treat all animals with care and kindness. And yes, some animals are not just willing, but actually quite enthusiastic about sex with humans. Unfortunately, these people’s lives are sometimes destroyed by uncomprehending law enforcement and a hysterical public that supports their persecution for a “crimeâ€? that is completely harmless. And that is just plain wrong.”
I think one comment said it best “animals can’t talk”…so until they can we don’t know what they feel about this type of activity. Not to mention the diseases you could be enabling to cross species barriers.
So I think it best whatever your inclination to simply leave animals out of it.
Find another recreational activity…
“Ok. It’s true. ALL of them (men) are on the verge of whipping IT out and sticking it into the nearest warm thing, be it whore, toddler, kitty, hog, or lady. They actually CAN’T control themselves, just like Mr.Islam-who compares females-to-uncovered-meat sez, NOT EVEN IF THEY ARE RHODES SCHOLARS, and therefore: No male should be allowed to occupy public office, nor any position of Power, ever, anywhere.”
Strawman…
“So Tony, if you show me an animal that is legally capable of giving consent to sex with a human, and I’ll show you an animal you’re allowed to screw.”
This argument fails to be convincing if one considers the legal status of animals when sex isn’t concerned.
Dan says:
You know, I’ve seen the exact same arguments made by people who think it’s perfectly OK to diddle six-year-olds.
And I’ve heard this argument, oh, what, about a thousand times. And it’s wrong. Animals are not children. They are perfectly capable of communicating their intentions. They say “yes” and “no” to all kinds of things and there is no ambiguity involved. And if it’s not obvious, trying to molest a large animal that doesn’t welcome that attention is extremely dangerous.
Out of curiosity, are you a vegetarian? Because by this argument, animals are emotionally delicate creatures with all the sensitivity of human beings. So it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that slaughtering hogs and eating them is JUST LIKE slaughtering and eating children. How do you “rationalize” eating meat? It’s not nutritionally necessary - you kill them and eat them for your pleasure.
I am reminded again of the pointlessness of telling the truth about bestiality. I’ve seen many positive, healthy human-animal relationships with my own eyes and I know what I’m talking about. I know what “denial” looks like and this isn’t it. But I can’t show you that; I can’t point to specific examples. But they are all over the place. It just isn’t talked about. What you see in the media is hardly representative - mostly, it’s the people who trespass or lack the good judgment to avoid getting caught that end up in the news.
But I don’t really give a fig for what anyone thinks about this. None of this would matter if it were not for the lives of good, innocent people being destroyed for a “crime” that is purely metaphysical. I’m not defending actual cases of animal abuse, or the acts of trespassing that were committed in some of these stories. I’m just saying, stop bothering people that aren’t doing any harm whatsoever.
Numad:
OK, I’ve changed a few terms, but the argument itself is identical.
Still not convincing?
But it’s all the fault of New Jersey and Massachusetts allowing teh HOMOS to marry!!!!!
“porks a hog”…
>Insert Beavis and Butthead snickering
“OK, I’ve changed a few terms, but the argument itself is identical.
Still not convincing?”
No, you’re just talking out of your ass. The arguments are nonsensical, and have no relation to reality, when the “few terms” are switched.
Uh, ok:
The bestiality law, which took effect in June, was prompted by a case near Enumclaw in which a Seattle man died after having sex with a horse.
No, seriously…some Boeing RF engineer had a unique hobby, one that would most likely get him banned from 4-H.
It ended…badly. And best of all, the dude’s friends captured it for posterity, on video.
(the link below is not safe for work, home, or anywhere else, for that matter…)
http://lbn.threat.tv/mrhands.mpg
Keep in mind that by Tony’s definition of consent, the above is perfectly normal healthy sexual activity that just happens to kill one of the participants.
I am an animal-loving vegetarian that doesn’t do anything sexual with animals, but my bf has a male animal fetish. Animals are NOT children. They are adults, with sexual urges. I do believe that there is some beatiality that is animal abuse, but definately not all. But when animals have no rights at all, and are reguarly SLAUGHTERED to feed humans, i think sex with animals is pretty low on the animal rights list of harms.
Keep in mind that by Tony’s definition of consent, the above is perfectly normal healthy sexual activity that just happens to kill one of the participants.
Um, no, it’s an incredibly dangerous sexual activity which is more like an extreme sport than anything else, and I would personally advise against it.
Really, do you think that just because I argue that bestiality is not inherently a crime, that I have no common sense whatsoever?
Also, the Eunumclaw case happened on July 2, 2005. I have a copy of that video from March of 2005. It might be the same guy, but what is shown on the video wasn’t the act that killed him - that, it appears, is just an urban legend.
And fwiw, it’s most likely that the video you linked to did not “end badly” at all. The human body is capable of amazing things when you practice at it… I’ve seen equally dramatic things at fisting parties. (Yeah, I get around.)
Yig, women have died many times as a result of having sex w/ men. Think we should make it illegal?
and “perfectly normal sexual activity” would probably exclude gays and lesbians and anal sex.
Come on, Miss Pam, don’t you know those are the exception and not the rule–at best. Probably, they’re just gays or Satan in disguise. Maybe both. :[
Some people will learn and some people don’t want to learn. I’d say the best we can hope for with the big Daddy D and those in his camp is the ever-increasingly ridiculousness of his stance in the face of a changing culture. And, of course, he’ll die one day (peacefully and of natural causes, let’s hope, as with all other folk).
OK, so now you’re implying that children can’t communicate their intentions. Or is the real problem that they’re better able to communicate their intentions than animals are? As Patricia said upthread, it’s a lot easier to project your own sexual desires onto a target than can’t speak and doesn’t even have opposable thumbs. Or any thumbs at all, as the case may be.
Bestiality isn’t illegal because “people just don’t understand” things like “communication” or “metaphysics” between humans and animals. (I’ve had pets my entire life, so I am perfectly aware of how well animals can communicate with humans. However, neither of my current cats has ever made a pass at me, and I doubt I’d be able to tell even if they had. Sure, “meow” can be a pretty expressive vocalization at times, but it’s not that expressive.) Bestiality is illegal because of sexual consent issues that are on rock-solid and completely unabiguous legal grounds, regardless of the non-sexual legal status of the parties involved in any particular case.
It’s just as illegal to have non-consensual sex with a sixth-grader as it is with a middle-aged woman, despite the fact that the law views them quite differently in contexts where sex is not an issue. You are indeed correct that animals are not human children, but neither are they human adults.
We eat meat because we are omnivores. That means we’re supposed to eat meat. We do not eat our own young because we are (usually) not cannibals. That means we’re not supposed to eat our own children. There seems to be some slippage between these two concept-areas here that is undermining your analogy.
Whether or not eating meat is nutritionally necessary in the strictest sense (and it’s tough to make a strong scientific case about that either way, regardless of what the PETA pamphleteers say about it) has no bearing whatsoever on the clear and indisputable fact that it is dietarily beneficial in many ways, nor is it even remotely relevant to whether or not you get to diddle a horse. Besides, food and sex don’t deal with the same legal or ethical concepts, so your analogy is doubly broken. And no, I don’t buy for a single second the assertion that animals are “emotionally delicate creatures with all the sensitivity of human beings,” any more than I buy any other set of self-centered anthropomorphic assertions about the outside world, be it “fate” or “God loves me” or nature deities or the Anthropic Principle.
“Bestiality is illegal because of sexual consent issues that are on rock-solid and completely unabiguous legal grounds, regardless of the non-sexual legal status of the parties involved in any particular case.”
Nonsense. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.
You’re arbitrarily picking between a notion of “natural law” and “rock-solid and completelt unambiguous legal” notions, that’s what you’re doing.
The notion of murder doesn’t exist where animals are concerned. That’s a rock-solid legal notion. I think it matters.
Dan:
You can’t legally keep children in a cage, nor can you use them for forced labor, nor can you kill and eat them. The legal status of children and animals are quite different.
Not that I’m disagreeing with you, but you really need to work on your analogies.
Numad:
OK, so you’re saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to have sex with someone/something who isn’t legally capable of giving sexual consent, a class that includes both children and animals (regardless, I might add, of their legal status when sex isn’t concerned).
Because of the animal/child analogies, talk of complex animal emotions, and mention of animal cruelty in the food business,
I’ll bet the farm that the zoophilia arguments are based on Peter Singer’s literature.
And for the love of gawd, try to familiarize yourselves with a list of common logical fallacies. Someone else’s hypocrisy or moral badness doesn’t prove that you’re right. That kind of talk reminds me of those “at least we’re not as bad as the terrorists/Saddam” rationalizations. Jesus.
Ack! Not just a troll but a PIG FUCKING TROLL! Geesh, plenty of 13 year olds would enjoy sexual relations with an adult human, too, but that doesn’t mean they CAN CONSENT. Let’s face it, animals can’t even assent!
That said, I’m surprised the freepers aren’t blaming the wives for this - after all, men won’t stray if they are accomodated in every possible way.
Dan:
“OK, so you’re saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to have sex with someone/something who isn’t legally capable of giving sexual consent, a class that includes both children and animals (regardless, I might add, of their legal status when sex isn’t concerned).”
No, I’m not saying that. You’re saying that because you’re fixated on that idiotic analogy.
What I was saying is that I disagree that children and animals are in the same class, least of all legally.
Why “regardless of their legal status”? That’s the heart of the matter. Children are nearly universally regarded as having legal personhood. That’s why it’s important that the law considers them incapable of legally consenting. If children weren’t legal persons, which is the case of animals, their consent wouldn’t matter a bit. But no one ever makes the case that children aren’t persons before the law, at least not in this century and the last.
My argument was that the fact that animals aren’t considered legal persons at any other time make the appeal to legal consent incoherent. It relies on their legal status otherwise. I don’t think you arbitrary, and sudden, decision that this legal status doesn’t matter makes the point moot.
Before anyone remarks upon it: I don’t think that anti-cruelty laws in general are incoherent with the notion of animals as non-persons. This just goes beyond them.
Um, wow, I didn’t know we had so many bestiality defenders round these parts. Maybe they came across the blog while Googling “panda + sex-positive + equality” or something. Yikes.
I’m reminded of the episode of South Park where Cartman becomes a NAMBLA spokeschild. Stan and Kyle are talking to the NAMBLA folks as they’re being arrested. “Dude. You have sex with children.” “Yes, but–” “DUDE. YOU HAVE SEX. WITH CHILDREN. You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you. Seriously.”
(And the wingnuts will probably say, “AT LEAST THE DOG WAS FEMALE! THIS MAN ISN’T A HOMOSEXUAL!”)
Um. Remind me to never let Tony or Numad pet-sit for me. Especially when they try to argue that the dog seduced them!
And though I’m surprised it even needs to be said …
Yes, animals are sexual. All living things that reproduce sexually, from insects to humans, are sexual.
However, animals do not have an emotional component to their sexuality. When a dog goes into heat, she doesn’t care what male dog comes along to relieve her. And if she’s not in heat, she’s not interested in sex. Sex for most animals is not the bonding experience that it is for humans.
You could probably argue that some of the other higher mammals, like bonobo chimpanzees or dolphins, do have sex for fun or bonding the way we do. However, I would not suggest trying to fool around with a chimpanzee against its will, because a chimpanzee can easily kill a human.
“Um. Remind me to never let Tony or Numad pet-sit for me. Especially when they try to argue that the dog seduced them!”
…what?
Oh screw this. I’m giving this thread up and returning to perfectly normal activities such as putting the stuffed head of animals on my walls.
I’ll try not to have sex with my chair, though.
Dear God in Heaven, genuine animal-fuckers have taken over a Pandagon thread!
“But when animals have no rights at all, and are regularly SLAUGHTERED to feed humans, i think sex with animals is pretty low on the animal rights list of harms.”
So, human beings decided not to give legal rights to animals. Therefore, human beings should be able to fuck animals with impunity.
Interesting logic you have there. Except (OPPS!) there are anti-abuse laws on the books. Oh, and inter-species sex is all but non-existent in natural world.
So the laws of both man and nature defy your shitty, pro-animal-abuse logic. Oh, and by this same shitty logic, anything short of slaughter is okay-dokey because some humans slaughter animals for meat.
Yes, you’re quite the animal lover aren’t you, Casey? Is Tony your boyfriend?
The two of you obviously have loads in common. . . And you both belong in a cell.
The question of sexual consent by children revolves not about legal personhood, but about legal adulthood. Children can’t legally give sexual consent because by statute, they’re not adults. Animals, not possessing legal personhood, also do not possess legal adulthood, ipso facto, and in fact cannot possess legal adulthood. No adulthood, no ability to legally consent. It’s the exact same reason minors and animals can’t sign contracts. (Whether or not a child is physically able to give verbal or expressive consent is completely irrelevant. A 16-year-old girl is perfectly capable of saying “yes” to sex — and certainly no less capable of it than an animal is — but it’s still statutory rape if an adult obliges her.)
So really, I was wrong. It’s not that children and animals are equally incapable of giving sexual consent under the law, it’s that animals are even less capable of it than children, since animals aren’t even a party to the social contract that defines the entire concept of “sexual consent” in the first place.
“The question of sexual consent by children revolves not about legal personhood, but about legal adulthood. ”
Legal adulthood is a subset of personhood.
Nonsense again.
Inanimate objects also don’t have adulthood, but it’s clear that their legal status pretty much excludes them from these consideration (no personhood). Hence why it matters. The considerations of consent don’t spring out of thin air. Not that I’m equating animals with inanimate objects, but the law puts them closer than I would.
Now I’m really giving up.
By definition, they are ANIMals, not INANIMals. So dildos not consenting doesn’t count the same way as a dog who is not too thrilled about the whole violation of her space to say the least.
Dead dog? Hmmm. You can have that. No consent issues there. ewwwww.
Regardless, there was a clarification of the law in Washington state that applies to the dog incident anyway.
BTW, a female dog in heat may actually care what male dog shows up. Wolves certainly do.
Did I not just say that in my last fucking comment, or is your reading comprehension really as atrocious as it seems to be?
No personhood, no adulthood. No adulthood, no ability to consent. No ability to consent, no sex. Period, end of story.
This is not that complicated.
I don’t know of any laws that criminalize sex with bookshelves or teakettles, nor do I know of any reason why stimulating yourself with an object clearly lacking in basic biological processes would have any ethical or legal repercussions at all, unless you’re getting your rocks off with someone else’s property. Not even in Texas. Maybe you do.
Since I’m in the mood to play devil’s advocate, I would present to you Zooskool, which has a section that gives step-by-step details to women about how to have sex with male dogs.
I blame the patriarchy.
Ms Kate:
“By definition, they are ANIMals, not INANIMals. So dildos not consenting doesn’t count the same way as a dog who is not too thrilled about the whole violation of her space to say the least.”
I know. My reference to inanimate objects had a specific point: the legal status of the something counts in determining rights and legal protection. I don’t think that’s a hugely controversial point.
I’m giving up on giving up.
Dan:
“I don’t know of any laws that criminalize sex with bookshelves or teakettles”
Well, there have been laws passed regarding sex toys, but that’s beside the point.
“Did I not just say that in my last fucking comment, or is your reading comprehension really as atrocious as it seems to be?”
You ignored the biggest repercussion of that fact: adulthood is a moot concept without personhood.
I’m not the one having comprehension problems.
“No personhood, no adulthood. No adulthood, no ability to consent. No ability to consent, no sex. Period, end of story.”
And like I said, that mindless use of logic seems to include inanimate objects. Sex toys have no personhood, so they have no adulthood, so no sex with inanimate object.
But you’ve tried to misrepresent my position, which was simple enough, from the first. So I don’t expect your response to this post will be any different.
I’d hope that one’s belief in the inherent dignity of animal life would extend further than just not eating them, perhaps to “not using them as a 22″ dildo propelled by 800lbs. of muscle”, but that’s probably wishful thinking. I doubt Tony and I could ever come to an agreement about all the things that do and do not count as inappropriate sexual conduct.
That animals aren’t legal persons, and so it is inconsistant to require legal consent for sexual contact with them is not seeing the forest for the trees. There are anti-cruelty laws, humane slaughter laws…all of which can constrain how one acts towards animals that one owns or controls. I’m sure that every legislature that could enact these sorts of laws would also consider bestiality legislation within their purview.
The vast majority of the electorate doesn’t consider sex with animals an act that trancends the issue of animal cruelty, they consider it (rightly) a pathology, regardless of what batshit loco utilitarianists think.
Casey:
Yig, women have died many times as a result of having sex w/ men. Think we should make it illegal?
No, but I am considering a $0.25 tax on moronic analogies. I figure I could wring a good hundred thousand bucks a year out of paraphiliacs who defend their sickness lifestyle on otherwise sane blogs.
Numad:
Except when it doesn’t. My point is that children and animals’ shared lack of the ability to consent EXISTS REGARDLESS (as in “independent of”) OF THEIR NON-SEXUAL LEGAL STATUS.
This is not that difficult a concept. The fact that animals and children share the lack of ability to consent to sex (among other things) is statutory, at least in the US. Appealing to their respective extra-sexual legal status is completely unnecessary in order to justify that, and as you are so aptly demonstrating, serves only to confuse the issue and make people angry.
You say “moot,” I say “inapplicable.” I don’t really see a significant difference. Regardless, I fail to see why “no personhood, no adulthood, no consent” should be a validation of bestiality, rather than a condemnation of it.
Why would it include inanimate objects? What is inherent in my logic that means inanimate objects can’t be a completely different category all of their own that has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with it? Be specific. Keep in mind that you’re the one who brought inanimates into this discussion, not me.
It seems to me that inanimate objects are pretty much irrelevant to the issue of legal sexual consent. In fact, I was perfectly happy to work under the unspoken assumption that the legal and ethical difference between living and non-living matter was blindingly obvious, but apparently I was wrong to take that for granted.
And as Yig just said, bestiality is just one tree in the forest (is the concept of “tree” mooted, Numad, if there is no “forest”?) of animal abuse.
http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/
Dan:
“Regardless, I fail to see why “no personhood, no adulthood, no consentâ€? should be a validation of bestiality, rather than a condemnation of it.”
I disagree with that logic. I think I had made that clear. I was trying to point out how that logic had no limits, if applied systematically, and that it led to absurdity (inanimate objects becoming the subjects of consent).
“What is inherent in my logic that means inanimate objects can’t be a completely different category all of their own that has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with it? Be specific. Keep in mind that you’re the one who brought inanimates into this discussion, not me.”
Well, you keep hammering at the notion that the matters of consent exist in a vacuum, regardless of the legal status of the something in question. Inanimate objects are in a completely different category, I agree, but that happens to be their legal status. Hence you have to refer to them to establish why consent is nonsensical when applied to inanimate objects. The same things would go for animals. Your logic, as expressed previously, contains the glaring error.
And you do refer to them, even if you say that it’s “blindingly obvious”. I’m really concerned by the apparent fact that you haven’t recognized that I was making an argument “to the absurd” to show the flaw in logic.
The better to insult me, right?
Nevertheless, altough I think my point hasn’t been given a fair examination (unless I’m just being very clumsy with english today), it seems obvious that we should agree to disagree in any case.
“And as Yig just said, bestiality is just one tree in the forest (is the concept of “treeâ€? mooted, Numad, if there is no “forestâ€??) of animal abuse.”
Yes, and that happens to be my position about all of this. Abuse or cruelty laws should be sufficient (or made sufficient if they aren’t). Laws that specifically apply to bestiality have often dubious rationales which render the whole effort arbitrary and quite the slippery slope.
I think this thread contains several examples of that.
Oh, for the love of…(bangs head on desk) Stop…Feeding…The Trolls.
Really, if they’re writing this stuff to get attention, they don’t deserve it, and if they’re for real, they’re as creepy as those guys who have “relationships” with blow-up dolls. It’s the same detachment from reality.
“serves only to confuse the issue and make people angry.”
You’re right on that, though.
My ultrathin issue with that one specific argument wasn’t worth the headache.
Sorry.
If it adds to the discussion any, zoophilia has been removed from the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Research supports zoosexuality as a genuine sexual orientation in the same way heterosexuality and homosexuality are sexual orientations. Research also shows that the Kinsey scale can be applied to zoosexuality.
A quote from Masters (1962):
“Where sadism is not present, there is considerable room for doubt as to whether there is any cruelty. It has always been noted in fact, by ancient historians and up through Kinsey in our own time, that animals tend to become affectionately attached (not only physically) to humans who have sex relations with them, and sometimes have even been known to forsake intercourse with their own kind in testimony to their preference for relations with humans. Whatever one may think of bestiality, this does not sound as if it were an act of cruelty so far as the animal is concerned.”
And, from AllExperts at About.com:
“Andrea M. Beetz, PhD. in her book ‘Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals’ (2002) reports: ‘In most [popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration.’”
Basically, the psychological community does not consider zoophiles to be “sick”. It would be wonderful if people would stop reacting before thinking and actually do some research.
I’m interested to see if any of the folks here arguing against beastiality from an ethical standpoint can offer real ethical arguments from experts, rather than just gut reactions, sarcasm, and logical fallacies.
Sigh…
Well, I might as well make a wrap up post to touch on some points above.
Pete Singer: I hadn’t heard of this guy until a couple of years ago, but when I did I found him pretty sensible, even though I don’t agree with all his conclusions. These arguments are not based on his work, though, my thoughts on the matter came about independently.
The “Zooskool” link - Although it contains some accurate factual information, this looks to me more like the elaboration of some straight male’s fantasy about women. I suppose many people on this thread would laugh if I called it “creepy”, having been called that several times myself, but this is a pretty weird site. Sites like this are frankly discouraging to me, because I don’t think they’re an honest expression of what bestiality is about.
Trolls: I am not trolling. I am completely serious about what I’m writing here. I am writing to address a genuine injustice and an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty. However, in doing so, I am reminded of how futile it is; the depth of misinformation and propaganda on this subject seems impossible to overcome. As it was with homosexuality fifty years ago.
What you are seeing here is the beginning of a witch hunt. Witch hunts are rooted in a mix of ignorance and hostility towards the unknown, and they are always prosecuted with righteousness and “moral clarity”. It’s not clear if this particular witch hunt will take off, but after watching bestiality on the news and on the Internet for more than fifteen years, it seems that something is in the wind. If those of you experiencing moral outrage want to see yourselves in the mirror, I suggest reading a book about the 50’s gay panics, such as The Boys of Boise, or Sex Crime Panic. You might find it revealing.
I’ll end this with a comment about myself. I identify primarily as a gay man, but really, my sexuality is all about Big And Hairy, and it just happens that large burly men fit the bill most conveniently. So do horses; alas, that’s about a thousand times harder for a city dweller to arrange. If you were to meet me, you’d find that I was personable, responsible, well-balanced, outgoing, and easy to get along with.
The bestiality issue is not a subject of denial for me; on the contrary, it has inspired me to dig deeply into the roots of ethics and morality and take a hard, critical look at conventional received wisdom. I could go on at quite some length on this subject, but the bottom line is this: if I felt that bestiality were immoral, I would say so. But I don’t, and that is just one of many, many points where I disagree with the man on the street. What is immoral is whipping up fear and anxiety against vulnerable, harmless people and using it to destroy them for no good reason. For that, I have nothing but contempt.
This thread brings up a interesting and difficult question: if people are advocating criminal acts on a blog, is it incumbent on us to report them?
We’re obviously not talking about smoking pot or some other victimless crime here; these are heinous acts of abuse. And there are people above who are clearly, personally involved. Sure, they won’t quite admit it; but it doesn’t take a genius to see through their propaganda.
So what is our responsibility? When is the line crossed and what do we do about it?
PS: To Bill S. I’m not feeding trolls here. I’d like to hear back from people who are not advocating animal abuse and I assure you I will no longer respond to those who do.
Amanda, can you please make a statement that you’re totally creeped out by the sentiments expressed here? Because I do not want some freeper taking the comments out of context and posting elsewhere that Pandagon is in favor of … oh, I think I need to bleach the keyboard just thinking about it.
This thread brings up a interesting and difficult question: if people are advocating criminal acts on a blog, is it incumbent on us to report them?
For the record, I am not advocating criminal acts. There are many states in the US where bestiality is not illegal. I have not broken the law myself. And I would suggest to anyone that they remain within the bounds of the law, whether bestiality is illegal in their state or not.
kxc:
Basically, the psychological community does not consider zoophiles to be “sick�. It would be wonderful if people would stop reacting before thinking and actually do some research.
When you say “psychological community”, do you mean “people who bought a copy of the DSM-IV at a yard sale” or do you mean “people with medical licenses who have actual experience in clinical practice or criminal justice”?
There is, you see, a slight difference.
As for your wish for me to do “some research”, I must decline with apologies. I can’t stomach reading about animal abusers of any stripe, let alone the ones who are so warped they believe their own elisions about what normal, caring, unfairly maligned individuals they are.
I’m interested to see if any of the folks here arguing against beastiality from an ethical standpoint can offer real ethical arguments from experts, rather than just gut reactions, sarcasm, and logical fallacies.
A “real ethical argument from experts”? You mean, like:
>To:
>Randy Cohen, Ethicist
>New York Times
>
>From:
>Concerned in Walla Walla
>
>Dear Ethicist,
>
>Last week, my husband and I caught our sixteen-year old son standing on a haybale in >the barn, balls-deep in Petunia, the family mule. We were shocked, but little Jimmy >says that not only does Petunia like it, insofar as she hasn’t yet punted his narrow ass >through the back of the stall, but that a respected faculty
>member at Princeton University says that it’s OK so long as the mule doesn’t sue.
>
>What should I do?
>
>Signed,
>
>Concerned in Walla Walla
>
>From:
>Randy Cohen
>Ethicist, New York Times
>
>Dear Concerned,
>
>You have an ethical obligation to get Jimmy to a shrink, stat.
>
>Sincerely,
>The Ethicist
Oh wait, that was gut reation and sarcasm again.
See, some of us don’t have to carry out tortured exercises in multivariate moral calculus to answer the “is screwing animals wrong?” question for ourselves, or for you either Casey. Trust us, “no” is always the right answer.
Ms Kate said:
The 3rd comment on the story at the link Amanda provided at the beginning of the post:
“I guess the wife must not be much of a prize.”
Completely fucking ridiculous.
“Fucking animals is wrong because it hurts animals” doesn’t mesh at all with “I’ll have the triple cheeseburger combo.” This is a simple case of ignorant legislation of ignorant opinions.
When eating animals is recognized as “obviously wrong”, I’ll be willing to listen to claims and arguments (not that any argument has been provided) that fucking animals is wrong.
(Not a dog-fucker. Just a philosopher.)
I don’t understand why we should to ignore the snon-sexual legal status of the parties involved?? it seems important to me. you can’t just be like, oh throw at your argument, it’s irrellevant without explaining HOW the fuck it’s not relevant.
if they can’t consent to sex, can they consent to being killed?? how can you claim it’s perfectly moral to KILL animals in MASS amounts but extremely immoral to the point of being ILLEGAL to have sex with them?
i have definately had male dogs and goats make passes at me, and i am not into beastiallity at all.
for the record, i do not condone any sexual activity with animals, i just think slaughtering them for your personal pleasure them is far more cruel. and that’s not only legal but PROFITABLE, and much more commonplace.
why do i belong in a cell? what crime have i commited?
everyone who is saying “oh it’s just SICK, it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong” sound like the right-wing asshats who say that about gays. i just don’t think we can just make a law outlawing sexual activities that aren’t hurting anyone. i believe in anti-cruelty laws and think those should be enough to arrest ppl who are hurting animals.
so basically you can’t give us a reason it’s wrong, it just is??
please. this is the SAME crap i get about why i should believe in jesus, and not have anal or oral sex, and not have sex before marriage, and people shouldn’t be gay. no reason needed, it’s “just wrong”. clearly.
ugh. pandagon is my favorite blog, and i’m suprised to see how people here can’t see their reactions to this are JUST THE SAME as conservatives to gay people!!
sex should not fucking be legislated. animal cruelty, fine, rape, fine, those laws should be enough to arrest ppl who are actually hurting someone.
I don’t think that’s the same thing at all. Let’s sweep aside the gigantic ICK factor for a second. Even if Fluffy shows signs of physical pleasure while you’re having sex with her, who’s to say that she wouldn’t rather it didn’t happen? I mean, life is not “Lady and the Tramp”: dogs have sex with each other out of biological urges, not love or affection. They’re not the best at reasoning: what kind of sex life can you have with a being that chases its own tail for hours?
And if the human-animal sexual connection is so strong, why don’t the animals ever initiate anything? I love my cats dearly and they seem quite attached to me, but neither of them has ever sprawled out in the middle of the bed, winked and tossed me a Trojan.
I agree, Casey. It’s pretty disgusting that some of the commenters are falling right back onto the same argument forms (if they may be called that) they decry as invalid when used by a conservative.
Maybe there are some compelling state interests in curbing beast-fucking. Let’s consider some candidates:
1) Beast fuckers ought to be stopped, because it is harmful to the beasts.
Reply: Chicken, cow, and pig corpses are piling up in American intestines as we speak. This seems like a more pressing problem. Please examine your eye for any errant planks before operating on the splinters of others.
2) Beast fuckers ought to be stopped, because it is a sub-optimal way of life for the beast fuckers.
Reply 1: Fuck right off, with that! If fucking a cow is your idea of a party, I’m not going to join you, but I can’t imagine the sort of confusion that would lead to my trying to put a stop to your good time because it’s better for you.
Reply 2: Okay, fine, maybe it is a symptom of some deeper psychological problem the beast-fucker has that requires treatment. So… maybe we should get them treatment? I’m not a clinical psychologist, but I’m relatively certain that a prescription for up to ten years of anal rape in prison (the penalty for first degree animal cruelty in Washington state) would be a lawyer’s wet dream for a malpractice suit.
3) Beast fuckers… EEEWWWW!
Reply: Different strokes for different folks. Get over it.
Yig:
The DSM-IV is the most commonly used book in the United States for diagnosing mental disorders. The fact that zoophilia has been removed from the DSM-IV is an objective fact that remains unchanged no matter where the book was acquired or who reads it. And just so you know, it isn’t just ’some book’. Psychologists generally regard it as their Bible.
As for your insistence that zoosexuals are animal abusers, I’ve already demonstrated to you that such a claim is wrong. There’s no doubt among professionals that some people who have sex with animals abuse them (just as there is no doubt that there are some people who abuse their human partners), but those people are not the rule. Their problem is not that they have sex with animals, it is rather that they are abusive towards their sexual partners (sadism).
Also, I thought I asked for an ethical argument. You only gave me a conclusion, with no premises to support it. Anyone can state their opinion, but legitimate arguments require support.
For an example of a legitimate argument with supporting premises, please read Peter Singer’s article here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001—-.htm
By the way, Peter Singer is a very prominent Utilitarian, or, as you might call him, someone who has engaged in “tortured exercises in multivariate moral calculus”. And it’s true, you don’t have to think very hard on these issues, but maybe, just maybe, you should.
I guess the comment formatting messed up that link. That’s supposed to be three “-” after 2001. Sorry for the problem.
A kid at my school actually did his senior honors thesis a few years back on this exact topic. It’s sort of legendary in our school, because who the hell is so interested in zoophilia that they dedicate an entire year of their education to studying it on their own? Anyway, the thesis repeatedly referenced Singer’s Animal Liberation. When I saw that suddenly it all made sense.
Well said Dennis.
Kim:
Think Betsy likes being a burger? Maybe she would rather that didn’t happen. At least Fluffy is getting physical pleasure. Think Betsy enjoyed (physically or mentally or AT ALL) being sliced at the throat?
i have no idea, but it is not my place to judge. what kind of sex life could anyone have with a republican who will only have sex w/ you in the missionary position?? beats me, but if you want to go fuck republicans, i’m not gonna stop you. and i have sex w/ ppl out of biolgical urges all the time, with no love or affection involved. should this be a crime??
You CAN’T be serious? You’re comparing sex with a being that eats its own vomit and can never master the ability of speech/communication to sex with a sexually unadventurous human?
Personally, I think that’s a sign of stunted development. Every sex act certainly need not be earth-shattering lovemaking, but to be intimate with someone you don’t like at all is unhealthy. (And I say this from experience: I was once an exotic dancer, and having to behave sexually– not even going through the actual sex act– towards people I didn’t find attractive and couldn’t stand personality-wise drove me nuts.)
If you’ve got a biological urge, whack off. I think a pretty reliable general rule to follow is to never have sex with any living being that would never have initiated sexual contact. (A dog will never come onto you, a child will never come onto you, etc.)
Back to the “eww! that’s gross!” argument. many ppl find anal sex gross, or rim jobs gross, and anal is dangerous as well, but i don’t think that should be illegal, do you?
anyway, i find republicans about as repulsive sexually as dogs. and what about other animals, like horses, that don’t eat their own vomit? what the fuck does this “eww” factor have to do with ANYTHING?! so it’s gross, but should it be a CRIME?!
Um, i have had a dog try to have sex with me. being that i’m not into dogs myself, i pushed it off. But to claim a dog will never come onto you is stupid.
And whether you think i have “stunted development” for my sex acts is irrevlevant. ppl think that about gays as well. but should i go to jail for this was the queston. in any case, i’ve at least “liked” the guys i’ve fucked, at least as far as i knew them. i ahve no idea if casual sex is unhealthy or not, but should it be illegal?!
ppl who fuck animals might have some psychological problem, i don’t know. but that still doesn’t mean they deserve to go to jail. (unless there is animal cruelty or abuse, of course.)
Why? what if i want to go fuck a guy? i don’t see how it’s any of your business how i deal w/ my biological urges as long as i’m hurting no one.
I tend to differentiate between a dog wanting to hump a leg/chair/stuffed animal/anything and a genuine sexual overture. The former is just an instance of a being who can not reason enough to understand the concept of masturbation as a private act. Somehow I doubt the dog has been sitting around, pining away for YOUR sweet sweet leg. And if presented with a female of his own species, he’d not give your leg another look.
Would you argue that it’s alright for developmentally “normal” people to engage in sex acts with the developmentally disabled? In both that case and the case of animals, there is a pretty large intellectual chasm between the parties. And the law dictates that the dev. disabled can not consent. Surely, if some humans are off-limits, animals must be.
Basically, human sexuality is more than just mindless fucking. People have likes and dislikes, fetishes, etc. Animals just don’t have that dimension, and I can’t help but feel like it’s the same as raping the disabled or a child.
Kim,
You can’t eat developmentally disabled humans, either. The bottom line is, animals are mere objects in our culture. Animal welfare does not fly as a justification of anti-bestiality legislation. In trying to claim that it is, you’re unwittingly committing to a much wider project of extending legal rights to animals. Insofar as you accept that, we can have a discussion (and, due to the placement of my own sympathies, we’ll probably find a lot of common ground!) However, insofar as you fail to accept that, everything you’re saying amounts to confused, self-contradictory kooky-talk.
I’ll pretend that you accept the animal rights project to which you must commit if you want to follow this line of argument, and respond to an argument you make.
Suppose your premise is correct, and that the developmentally disabled cannot consent to sex. This obviously applies only to the severely developmentally disabled, else our President would not have children. (Come to think of it, maybe somebody should call a lawyer…) Kidding aside, why would it be immoral to have sex with a human who is so severely developmentally disabled that they don’t understand what sex is? Well, there are a couple of possibilities:
1) the developmentally disabled individual could be physically hurt.
2) the developmentally disabled individual could become pregnant, or contract an STD they are ill-equiped to manage.
3) the developmentally disabled individual could be emotionally hurt.
I take this to be an exhaustive list of the reasons for which screwing the mentally disabled might be wrong. If you’ve got others, offer them up.
1 is no real problem, since it could be covered under other laws. The bad thing isn’t the screwing, here, but the hurting… and I take it that hurting a disabled person in the absense of screwing would be wrong/illegal… screwing could do nothing to right that wrong, so no legislation or special moral principle is required here. I take it the same would be true in cases of human-animal sex, even if animals are regarded as rights-beareres, so no special problem there.
2 is a real problem. So, maybe we ought to have laws in place whereby folks could be prosecuted for infecting or impregnating the disabled. However, it’s not clear how this sort of problem could provide support for anti-bestiality legislation, since humans cannot impregnate animals (except for, perhaps, certain apes), and generally disease-causing microorganisms do not infect easily across species.
3 is interesting. It seems like there is going to be a pretty narrow range of mentally disabled persons for whom this would be a problem. If the person is too high-functioning, we would want to attribute a meaningful capacity to consent. (Forrest Gump?) However, if the person is very low-functioning, it seems that emotional harm of this sort is impossible. So, what needs to be shown to support anti-bestiality legislation for this sort of reason is that animals, too, fall into this narrow range of mental functioning. Good luck! I don’t think you’ll be very successful, except again with some apes.
So, why should an animal-lover look down on and restrict the behavior of the… animal-lover ?
Legality != Morality. The fact that various industries routinely abuse animals in various gruesome ways on a mass scale doesn’t excuse animal abuse on a smaller scale. Someone else commiting a moral crime a whole. And yes, animal rape is, by definition, abuse.
The fact that factory farms are a big social problem and this kind of animal abuse usually is isolated incidents is true, but no one here is arguing that we need to devote vast resources to stop the sexual exploitation of animals, we’re saying that it is wrong.
The fact that animals can sometimes communicate in rudimentary terms with people doesn’t mean that they can communicate (if they can even understand) complex emotional concepts like sexual consent, preferences or a desire to stop. If animals can comprehend these concepts at all, we lack a common language, so communication with them is guesswork (no matter how “sure” you think you are of an animal’s intent).
Using Pete Singer’s own arguments - even if you don’t think of animals as being full moral persons, I think it’s just to agknowledge that they have at least SOME ethical value, and arguing that a lack of legal or ethical personhood makes rape okay is, in my opinion, unjust. Sex without consent is rape, regardless of how the law defines it.
The fact that animals lack legal personhood is wholly irrelevant, espicially since you people don’t seem to think that this legal status is right. It’s morally wrong to abuse animals, regardless of how the state defines them.
The correct analogy would be “Why? whatif I want to go rape a guy?” We aren’t talking about consensual sex.
In other words, you’re saying that rape should be allowed because murder is a more pressing problem. That is absolutely appalling.
Because that person has a right to control their own body.
“labyrus Oct 30th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Kidding aside, why would it be immoral to have sex with a human who is so severely developmentally disabled that they don’t understand what sex is?
Because that person has a right to control their own body.”
Exactly!
Amazing that anyone has to spell that out.
Because that person has a right to control their own body.Fair enough. But this seems only to prohibit having sex with the person against their will. If the person is receptive, then what is the problem? I don’t think an account of the wrongness of this sort of behavior can be given without attributing capacities to the person that they will never have. If no account of the wrongness can be given, then what reason do we have for accepting it?
“But…but, if we can EAT them, why can’t we FUCK them?”
What a stellar defense.
If a person doesn’t have the capacity to make decisions concerning their sex life, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH THEM. It’s that simple! Children don’t have the wherewithal to make those decisions, so you can’t have sex with them. The developmentally challenged can’t make that choice, so you can’t have sex with them. Animals can’t speak or make those decisions, so you can’t have sex with them.
It’s not about your pleasure. It’s about their right to not be raped.
And really, who — other than an abusive sociopath — is going to have sex with an animal? Who else wants a partner that can’t talk back, can’t tell anyone what’s going on and can be conveniently disposed of when the person is tired of fucking them?
YOU don’t get to be the judge of whether someone with a severe mental illness is being “receptive”. You also don’t get to be the judge of what they do or don’t understand. Sexual abuse of disabled people is surprisingly common and can often lead to deep psychological scars, regardless of what the rapist assumes about the victim’s capacity to understand the situation.
Being a bigot against the mentally handicapped is one thing (and a pretty sick thing at that), but using your bigotted views to try to excuse rape is beyond the pale.
Well, I don’t think many people are reading this thread anymore… but after a few days of thought, it’s certainly affected my thinking on the subject.
I suppose that the reflex to defend people with radically different sexualities or views of the world was learned from the feminist movement. So it’s a great surprise to me to find not just a little, but almost universal intellectual rigidity and closed-mindedness on this subject on a feminist blog. What I have taken from this is that if you are a person who is fundamentally different from other people, feminists are not your friends.
I’m increasingly aware of the flip side of my reflex for justice - there is a side of me that wants bestiality to be criminal, because in being criminal, it creates a space in which transgressively minded men can bond with each other. Bestiality becomes not just another sex act, but an induction into a community of genuinely independent thinkers, people who decisively reject arbitrary and unjust moral standards in favor of their own. Since I already prefer the fringes of society to its center, this is a very easy attitude to take.
I accept the unlikelihood that bestiality will ever follow in the footsteps of uppity women and homosexuals, and will never be transformed from something criminal and “beyond the pale” into something ordinary and familiar. And given that unlikelihood, I am inclined to focus more on embracing its transgressive nature for its own sake, as a key to the ultimate treehouse, “no gurlz allowed”.
Tony, Rape isn’t a sexual orientation, whether it’s of animals or people. It’s a crime and should (and will) be treated as such by me and other reasonable people.
The fact that you get off on illegalism is irrelevant to the argument of whether it’s right or wrong. I don’t think that believing that animals shouldn’t be sexually exploited is an arbitrary or unjust moral standard. If you want to enjoy breaking the law and being at the fringes of society, shoplift or something. Don’t rape animals. It’s wrong and people are telling you so.
I am the mom of an autistic daughter. Dennis, you touched upon a few of the reasons I sleep badly at night and I worry for her. Discussing theoreticals is one thing- it’s another when it’s your own kiddo, who looks up to you to be her advocate and her support system.
Trying to equate eating meat with fucking an animal is easily the most insanely twisted and repulsively deliberate confusion of two events imagineable. Like mixing oranges and Mack trucks- both are on the same planet, and that’s about all they have in common.