Can someone explain to me why it is a criminal offense to have sex with animals but entirely legal to kill and eat them? Surely laws against bestiality don't reflect concern about the rights of animals, (who would probably opt for sex over death.) I don't mean to denigrate meat eating (I'm a carnivore;) I do mean to point out the absurdities of imprisoning people for "buggery."
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic
technology Pac Rat
The fight to save video games from bit rot
china Cyber Warriors
The battle to protect our infrastructure from hackers
column Prison Porn
"Lockup" is exploitative and debasing
VOICES
The Latest From Leon, Ctd 2.9.10 8:41 P.M.
Shoe, Meet the Other Foot, Part II 2.9.10 5:19 P.M.
Procedure-Propism 2.9.10 4:47 P.M.
Live From Death Row 2.9.10 4:00 P.M.
Tonight’s aviation-mishap report 2.9.10 8:49 P.M.
The Middle East Comes to Irvine 2.9.10 4:38 P.M.
Liberal condescension 2.9.10 1:48 P.M.
Wendy Kaminer
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I agree, it certainly is absurd to call sex with an animal that causes no injury pain or harn "animal cruelty-abuse" when on the other hand we kill them.
A recent case involving a man doing nothing more than having a calf orally contact his penis was initially charged with animal CRUELTY! It was more or less laughed out of court as the charge was dismissed.
Someone needs to keep a straight face and explain how thats "cruelty" when the same calif is raised in a "box" unable o turn around or lay down, is trucked in a jammed full semi across the country, and then has its head bashed in or throat cut while still conscious, but THAT's ok because it's just hamburger.
What it all boils down to Wendy is religion, religion is behind this absurdity because it makes no sense, just like religion doesn't.
I can prove that the law is not about protecting animals but satisfying religious right wingers. The language of the knee-jerk bills proposed in various states in response to the one or two cases in a year of bestiality the state sees typically includes this giveaway line:
"...animal, either living, or DEAD..."
Capitals are mine for emphasis, so pray tell me and our fine readers how a law protecting a DEAD animal from "sex abuse" protects said animal!
It doesn't, because the law is not about protecting animals it's about the church and religious fanatics controlling sexual activity they dislike even when it's proven that for the most part this activity is harmless. In the old days it was called "crimes against nature" but see, "nature" as you know can't be cross- examines, testify in court, or take the oath and be sworn in, yet amazingly this wording/law is still on the books in some states.
The same fools who want a law to protect DEAD animals from the horror of sex abuse happily eat their steaks and hamburgers whilst proclaiming a woman being mounted by a male dog is forcing the dog and abuse!
What is even funnier is reading comments on other articles such as this one and seeing people make clueless claims that animals cant consent to sex. At the same time they claim rightly so, that animals are sentient creatures, but at the same time they claim they cant consent to sex.
Hello? does anyone catch the idiocy with that? if the animal is sentient then they can make their own decisions and know what they want, dont want like and dislike. If they are not sentient then it doesnt matter, since not one thing humans do to animals is with their consent!
Funny how not one thing humans do to animals in any way involves asking for their consent, but somehow sex is different and we need to get consent from the animal, but they cant give consent and can't talk, yet they are sentient creatures with a brain and can easily defend themselves, go figure!
Somehow animals consent to sex with one another and have for millions of years, yet they cant figure out how to consent with a person.