Join 3,363 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Of Course, of Course
November 3, 2011 8:51 AM   Subscribe

Jasha Lottin says she can't understand why people are so interested in why she bought a horse, killed it, gutted it, then posed naked for photos inside the carcass and posted them on the Internet. (NSFW)

The reason for climbing inside the animal was later explained to deputies as Lottin's desire to "be one with the animal."

That and her love of Star Wars.
Lottin said in the movie Star Wars the character Han Solo cut open and animal with his light saber and placed Luke Skywalker inside the animal. This was due to Luke freezing to death in cold weather. Lottin said there was nothing religious about what she did and didn't intend to offend anyone.
"At some point in your career you say yeah I've seen a lot of bad stuff -- you see this kind of picture and you realize maybe you haven't seen everything, " said Washington County Sgt. Dave Thompson.
posted by modernserf (251 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite

 
You can't fix crazy.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:53 AM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


I wish I could have made a pun involving the [more inside] link.
posted by modernserf at 8:55 AM on November 3, 2011 [47 favorites]


I'm afraid to open that link.....
posted by HuronBob at 8:55 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm not clicking on any of those links until someone puts a NSFW/NSFL tag on them. Are the links to news stories, or am I going to see the actual pics (which I'd like to avoid).
posted by foggy out there now at 8:56 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


That was the worst bachelor party EVER.
posted by theodolite at 8:56 AM on November 3, 2011 [20 favorites]


Jasha Lottin says she can't understand why people are so interested in why she bought a horse, killed it, gutted it, then posed naked for photos inside the carcass and posted them on the Internet.

Yeah, she can't understand people are so interested in the stunt she cooked up for attention. Right.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:57 AM on November 3, 2011 [43 favorites]


The first link includes the photos, the second one does not.
posted by modernserf at 8:57 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


If by people, she means "clinical psychologists" I don't think it's much of a mystery.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:57 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Just don't scroll down and you'll be (mostly) OK.
posted by Obscure Reference at 8:58 AM on November 3, 2011


(Clearly, I can say this only because I scrolled down.)
posted by Obscure Reference at 8:58 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Boy......The fact that Lottin has no clue why anyone would be unsettled, combined with her assertion that the whole thing was "spontaneous", is as disturbing as the photos themselves. She seems unwell if what she's saying is true. Definitely needs a NSFL tag. Creep.
posted by but no cigar at 9:00 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


I'm not clicking on any of those links until someone puts a NSFW/NSFL tag on them. Are the links to news stories, or am I going to see the actual pics (which I'd like to avoid).

I've already seen these without context and am desensitized to them, so I'll help you out.

The main link is NWS (and definitely not horse safe! I'm very sorry...). The initial page-load (depending on your resolution) has a picture of her head peaking out of the gore. Scrolling down will show you a disembowled horse and a naked woman.

The second news link is totally work safe and gets to most of the details of the case.
posted by codacorolla at 9:00 AM on November 3, 2011


Horse hearts are huge.
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:01 AM on November 3, 2011 [17 favorites]


Yeah, I don't understand why people would be interested in that either.

Jasha Lottin is a lion, right?
posted by DU at 9:01 AM on November 3, 2011 [7 favorites]


..AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN...on..
Oh, just leave.
posted by obscurator at 9:03 AM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


I don't really care if people want to smother themselves in road kill, but I do hope that the horse died humanely, and the entire thing sounds kind of sociopathic and wasteful.

For once though, I'm not going to read the link, so forgive any unfair assumptions I've made.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:03 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


The second news link is totally work safe and gets to most of the details of the case.

Thanks codacorolla.
posted by foggy out there now at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2011


What the hell is it with Washington State people committing strange acts with animals?
posted by KokuRyu at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2011 [7 favorites]


After posting the photos online, angry readers at 4chan apparently started harassing Lottin and Frost to the point where they pulled their Facebook profiles offline

I almost feel bad for her.

Why exactly was the horse scheduled to be euthanized? I know many people have a different relationship with working animals but it really is a shame to euthanize them.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2011


TFA sans gory pics:

Jasha Lottin says she can't understand why people are so interested in why she bought a horse, killed it, gutted it, then posed naked for photos inside the carcass and posted them on the Internet.

"No idea why people care," she tells Seattle Weekly.

Lottin, a 21-year-old aspiring model and nudist from Portland was questioned at length by Washington County Sheriff's Deputies recently after she posted on the Internet gory photos of herself naked inside a horse that she bought, shot, gutted, posed naked inside of, and ultimately ate.

Joshua Washburn, a North Carolina man, had come across the pics online at the website 4chan and reported them to deputies.

Those sheriff's deputies recently concluded that no animal abuse had been committed and therefore no laws had been broken.

Regardless, since Lottin wanted to publish the photos herself anyway, here they are uncensored as provided by the WCSO.

We'd recommend people not look at them while eating.

According to a police report Lottin and her friend John Frost had purchased a 32-year-old dying horse in Richfield, Wash. Shortly after buying the animal Frost shot it in the head with a .300 Winchester Magnum hunting rifle (the horse had apparently been scheduled to be euthanized already), then the two skinned and gutted it before finally beginning their photo shoot.

The reason for climbing inside the animal was later explained to deputies as Lottin's desire to "be one with the animal."

That and her love of Star Wars.

From the police report:
Lottin said in the movie Star Wars the character Han Solo cut open and animal with his light saber and placed Luke Skywalker inside the animal. This was due to Luke freezing to death in cold weather. Lottin said there was nothing religious about what she did and didn't intend to offend anyone.
Washington County Sheriff's Office Sgt. David Thompson tells Seattle Weekly that while the case is "truly bizarre", deputies aren't interested in telling people what weird stuff to put or not put on the Internet.

"We've definitely never seen anything like that," Thompson says. "People do bad stuff to people and animals, but in this case it appears that animal was put down humanely, so there's really nothing to compare it to. It's just bizarre."

After posting the photos online, angry readers at 4chan apparently started harassing Lottin and Frost to the point where they pulled their Facebook profiles offline.

Reached by phone yesterday Lottin refused to comment other than saying she doesn't understand what all the fuss is about and that the reason she did what she did was "just spontaneous."
posted by Doofus Magoo at 9:05 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


Even without clicking on the links, I've now lost the happy glow I got from watching the starlings in this earlier post.
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:05 AM on November 3, 2011


This seems silly, but again, unless you're a vegetarian, I can't see why this bothers you, assuming the horse was killed humanely, which it apparently was.

I don't find this any more disturbing than your average butcher shop, which contains dozens of dead animals in various stages of dismemberment. As a vegetarian myself, I find butcher shops a little off-putting, but not something to freak out over.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:05 AM on November 3, 2011 [23 favorites]


You know, it's not George Lucas who made me tired of Star Wars...
posted by Legomancer at 9:06 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't really care if people want to smother themselves in road kill, but I do hope that the horse died humanely, and the entire thing sounds kind of sociopathic and wasteful.

For better or worse, she purchased a dying horse that was scheduled to be euthanized, put it down humanely using a rifle, and then did Weird Stuff With It after it was dead. So, there's not really animal cruelty going on. Just General Weirdness.
posted by verb at 9:06 AM on November 3, 2011 [25 favorites]


What the hell is it with Washington State people committing strange acts with animals?

Portland is Oregon.
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:06 AM on November 3, 2011 [16 favorites]


I mean, if you're gonna troll PETA, go all out. Yeah, climb in that thing, post pics, and say it was for the lulz.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 9:07 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


None of that was any more shocking or weird than artists around the world have been doing for a century or so now.

What does seem weird to me is that whenever something like this happens outside the clearly delineated bounds of performance art, people rush in to be offended and make pronouncements about mental health.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 9:08 AM on November 3, 2011 [22 favorites]



The reason for climbing inside the animal was later explained to deputies as Lottin's desire to "be one with the animal."


Oddly enough, I was recently reading the Wiki page about serial killer Ted Bundy and he expressed similar sentiments about his victims. I'm not saying Lottin is a psychopath and nor should anyone else in the thread, but the this desire to be one with an animal by killing it and climbing inside it and then eating it is unusual, to say the least.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:08 AM on November 3, 2011 [6 favorites]


I agree that this is not cruelty, but definitely it scores high on the weird-o-meter.
posted by Forktine at 9:08 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


She has been in the news before.
posted by LarryC at 9:08 AM on November 3, 2011 [7 favorites]


So, let us say that the horse was killed for an unrelated reason. Why is it inherently more immoral to lie in the horse than to eat it?

(I note that as a meat eater and someone who has scavinged for animal pelt in -25c temps then worn it).
posted by jaduncan at 9:09 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yeah, she can't understand people are so interested in the stunt she cooked up for attention. Right.

I assume she's saying she can't understand why people (4chan) got so upset about it they harrassed her off of facebook, or whatever they did.
posted by dng at 9:10 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


What the hell is it with Washington State people committing strange acts with animals?

Washington County, Oregon. Also known as my current location.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 9:11 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


If she broke no laws, then she's free to pursue her own happiness.

*shrugs*
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:12 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]




This seems silly, but again, unless you're a vegetarian, I can't see why this bothers you, assuming the horse was killed humanely, which it apparently was.


Living on the edge of bush country, I find it pretty unsurprising really. All kinds of disrespectful things happen to dead animals. Usually more in the name of dark humor than art, but whatever. Even at the best of times, it's hard to turn a living breathing animal into meat without making some mess.

I guess if this happened here there'd be more empty Budweiser cans and less media.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:12 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


I think it's pretty obvious that Jasha Lottin's "No idea why people care" is similar to my "I have no idea why you wouldn't use your hands to eat chicken." It doesn't mean "I actually am incapable of thinking about it," it means, "I think it's silly."

And, well, I think it's silly, too, Jasha. I think you humanely killed the animal and you can do whatever the fuck you want to it. I think it's a sign of an unhealthy relationship with dead animals that we're more okay with someone eating horse tartare than seeing someone do what you did. Just a disconnect from the real material facts of the situation.

Also, horse tartare is delicious.
posted by liminalrampaste at 9:12 AM on November 3, 2011 [9 favorites]


This reminds me of the infamous video involving a dead bear, a redneck and his female companion...


But really - the horse was already listed for slaughter, they were presumably nice to it beforehand and the entire thing is more 'shocking art' than anything else. Or it would be, if she didn't do it for George Lucas. I'm disappointed they didn't at least eat it.

Here's a link to some rather radical stuff - including human skin spliced with spider silk, genetically altered embryos being made into omelets and, of course, a naked woman in sexual poses with a dead pig


Hmm. Yes, that'd be NSFW links there.
posted by Cheradine Zakalwe at 9:13 AM on November 3, 2011


The pics of them holding the heart disturb me more than the nudist pics.
And she really is kinda cute. Blood and guts don't bother me for some reason.
posted by Folkways at 9:14 AM on November 3, 2011


The pics of them holding the heart disturb me more than the nudist pics.

LOTTIN:
I LOVE YOU, GEORGE LUCAS!!!

LUCAS:
GAHH!!! Don't DO that!
posted by AugieAugustus at 9:17 AM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


Right. I went to an "experimental puppetry" showcase and one of the shows involved two two women rubbing steaks on themselves. That was in the basement of a church. I was only disturbed by the lack of puppets. I guess it was so experimental they decided they didn't even need puppets.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:17 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


if they ate the meat I sincerely hope they got solid info that the horse wasn't given wormer, etc. That stuff is not good for you.

I would rather the horse had been put down by a vet with a nice 'lullaby' (tranq) first, but hopefully the horse didn't suffer. At 32 and dying, transporting etc. is not that comfortable for the horse.

Overall, not a big fan of this.

Also, being 4channed:
>implying that this is not lame shock art
posted by drowsy at 9:17 AM on November 3, 2011


If she were Damien Hirst this would be art and worth several million.
posted by Segundus at 9:17 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


May the horse be with you.
posted by mosk at 9:18 AM on November 3, 2011 [23 favorites]


Then again, if she were Gunther von Hagens it would be the start of a new touring show.
posted by Segundus at 9:19 AM on November 3, 2011


The only thing I get from this article is the thought in my head of "how can I contact her so I can get some horse meat?" I really want to try some horse.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 9:20 AM on November 3, 2011




Right. I went to an "experimental puppetry" showcase and one of the shows involved two two women rubbing steaks on themselves. That was in the basement of a church. I was only disturbed by the lack of puppets. I guess it was so experimental they decided they didn't even need puppets.



If this is anecdote time... I once found a pile where poachers had illegally dumped more animals than some people see in a life time.

There are some interesting photographs, but I neglected to get naked or submit the resulting pictures to the media.


...if they ate the meat I sincerely hope they got solid info that the horse wasn't given wormer, etc. That stuff is not good for you.


I find that part highly suspect anyway. Who eats 35 year old meat from an animal raised for another purpose? That sounds just god awful.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:20 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Why is it inherently more immoral to lie in the horse than to eat it?

Don't play with your food.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:21 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


A girl with long blonde hair eats a horse heart with her boyfriend "John Frost"? Be honest, this is Song of Ice and Fire fic, yes?
posted by milk white peacock at 9:21 AM on November 3, 2011 [12 favorites]


If she were Damien Hirst this would be art and worth several million.

If she had any talent, she wouldn't have to pose naked inside a horse to get attention.
posted by pracowity at 9:21 AM on November 3, 2011 [12 favorites]


Uhhhhhhhhh......

*Turns off Internet for a while*
posted by chillmost at 9:23 AM on November 3, 2011 [7 favorites]


Methamphetamine's a hell of a drug.
posted by R. Schlock at 9:24 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


Then again if she were Italian she'd have pastissada.
posted by Segundus at 9:24 AM on November 3, 2011


Washington County, Oregon. Also known as my current location.

Oh, it's Oregon. That explains everything!
posted by KokuRyu at 9:25 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Washington County isn't Portland. It borders Portland, but it is definately not Portland. Let's be clear about that.
posted by Skwirl at 9:25 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Don't lie, Skwirl! Parts of certain Portland zip codes are in Washington Co! OK, you're 99.9% right.
posted by peep at 9:30 AM on November 3, 2011


must find that I HATE ATTENTION HORSE macro.
posted by elizardbits at 9:30 AM on November 3, 2011


Yeah the pictures are crap too. Worst art project ever.
posted by book 'em dano at 9:32 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's not so much the poses themselves--as others have noted, there's way more bizarre stuff out there, including much of the work of Joel-Peter Witkin (if you do a GIS for his work, be prepared for some serious NSFWness, including naked woman + horsecock)--as it is her slightly-unhinged smile. That girl ain't right.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:33 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Humanity has never lost its ability to disappoint.
posted by tommasz at 9:35 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I eat meat so this makes me a MASSIVE hypocrite, but....

Disrespecting the corpse of the horse while grinning makes me sad.
posted by Summer at 9:35 AM on November 3, 2011 [7 favorites]


So, let us say that the horse was killed for an unrelated reason. Why is it inherently more immoral to lie in the horse than to eat it?

Is it bestiality if it's dead?

Just asking.
posted by pianomover at 9:42 AM on November 3, 2011


It's necrobestiality
posted by dng at 9:43 AM on November 3, 2011 [6 favorites]


Meh, it's her horse, there was no cruelty involved and it looks like they had fun. Pretty much the opposite of my idea of fun, but each to their own.

I really want to try some horse.

It really annoys me that horse meat is pretty much impossible to buy in the UK. Yummy, healthy stuff, and I just don't understand the taboo. Supposedly it's because we as a nation are great lovers of horses - but rabbits, for example, are way cuter, commonly kept as pets, and no one seems to mind their adorable corpses hanging in butchers' windows.
posted by jack_mo at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2011


It puts the liniment on its skin...
posted by atrazine at 9:45 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Maybe this has already been said but, acquiring, killing and butchering a horse is alot of planning for a "spontaneous" act. Also why would you roll naking in something you are planning on eating? How high are you?
posted by Gwynarra at 9:50 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


You don't eat work animals for the same reason you don't just kill and eat employees instead of laying them off or firing them. There's too many of them to properly store in a cold locker, and the meat isn't very good anyway.

A little more seriously, I am not even against sport killing, but there is a certain facade of dignity between the prey and the hunter. Killing an animal and crawling inside it's corpse...well, why not just find an unclaimed human body down at the morgue and crawl inside of it?

Oh that's right, she didn't want to be "one with the creepy unwanted homeless bum". She wanted to be "one with something" that has a proud spirit and history.

So, like some other artistic endeavors or crowning achievements, this is essentially narcissistic and selfish.
posted by Xoebe at 9:52 AM on November 3, 2011 [12 favorites]


It's necrobestiality

TOTALLY!!
posted by pianomover at 9:53 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Rule 34. No exceptions.
posted by valkyryn at 9:54 AM on November 3, 2011 [6 favorites]


You know, the naked human body will just make the meat spoil faster. P.S. I also have a problem with hunters posing with the animal they just shot. I love game and jump at a chance to eat moose. Also, I can totally see why someone would do that, especially if they are hunting something challenging. However, you will never catch me doing it. For this reason, I don't like this chick.
posted by Foam Pants at 9:56 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


People are tripped up on the ethics here. Now, if all you believe in is utilitarianism, then, yeah, game on. Double utility from the killing and the eating and the naked frolicking.

I think the value that is being violated that is causing outrage is one that is widely believed but is not often articulated. Basically, solemnity -- we should not revel in the death of another creature and we sure as heck should not violate its corpse for fun and games.

This is a similar value as the one that may allow for killing an Osama Bin Laden but is disgusted by the popular revelling in it.
posted by Skwirl at 9:56 AM on November 3, 2011 [30 favorites]


She DOES look sweetly happy, all nestled up in her horsebag...
posted by Theta States at 9:57 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


And I thought they smelled bad.. *huff* on the outside.
/sorry
posted by pyrex at 9:57 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Uh, she says she has no idea. That's different than actually not having any idea. You can't have people pointing out "controversial aspects" and still say you have no idea. You have an idea, people are telling you, regardless of whether you value that perspective or not.
posted by rhizome at 9:58 AM on November 3, 2011


I don't find this any more disturbing than your average butcher shop, which contains dozens of dead animals in various stages of dismemberment.

Generally we don't go in and roll around in the display case acting like wallowing dogs.

I've humanely put down (too many--sigh) old or severely injured in my lifetime. It's necessary, not always easy with one you care for, and should be done with dignity.


Stupid attention whore.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:59 AM on November 3, 2011 [8 favorites]


She's certainly no worse than Lady Gaga.
posted by vanar sena at 9:59 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


lupus_yonderboy: “This seems silly, but again, unless you're a vegetarian, I can't see why this bothers you, assuming the horse was killed humanely, which it apparently was.”

What does vegetarianism have to do with this at all? It may please vegetarians to think so, but vegetarians do not have a monopoly on a decency or respect for things that were once alive. Does "vegetarian" suddenly mean "does not kill animals and then pose naked inside of them?" If so, by god, I am a vegetarian, and I sure hope everyone else is too.

The fact that I eat meat doesn't preclude my sense that people owe animals respect and dignity. This is really fucked up, and this woman should be ashamed. End of story.
posted by koeselitz at 10:00 AM on November 3, 2011 [15 favorites]


Also: George R. R. Martin had apparently never seen a stallion heart when he wrote Game of Thrones, 'cause there ain't no way a single person could eat an entire one of those in one sitting, cooked or no. Thing's gotta weigh at least twenty pounds.
posted by valkyryn at 10:02 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


What xo13e said and not reveling in the death of another creature. Up until about five minutes ago people routinely asked horses and dogs to go into battle along side us and expose themselves to rocks, pointed sticks, and eventually cannonfire. I seriously cannot understand how adults can not see that this is a vast difference in kind when compared to to our relationship with chickens.

And of course, I think it's pretty well understood that people who desecrate the dead are already having thoughts about making things dead for kicks.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:05 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


The brief moment I spent looking at the first few images of her and her s/o posing with the animal parts and smiling speaks to a callous disregard for the animal's dignity. It reminded me of the few people who did similar things in gross anatomy with the cadavers. She's either just young and stupid, sociopathic, or some of both, but giving her a pass in the name of art is bullshit.
posted by docpops at 10:09 AM on November 3, 2011 [9 favorites]


May the horse be with you.

Yes, yesss... get in to the dark side of the horse.
posted by loquacious at 10:11 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


Don't be at a dead horse.
posted by Anything at 10:14 AM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


I don't get it. I wouldn't do it. But no laws were broken, no animals were abused, and, in order to see the images, you have to actively choose to do so.

Pillorying the woman with insults doesn't demonstrate you have better taste, or are more sane, or you understand art better than the woman. It just demonstrates that you don't know how to leave something alone that isn't to your tastes.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:27 AM on November 3, 2011 [11 favorites]


Generally we don't go in and roll around in the display case acting like wallowing dogs.

You've never seen the original video for Fleminem's Without Meat (link is to audio only version) I take it.
posted by nomisxid at 10:27 AM on November 3, 2011


She killed a horse for art? Thanks, dumbass. I can only hope something unwelcome finds a home inside her, like a weasel or a wolverine, so she can experience the complete cycle.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:31 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Having grown up in Kentucky, I must have a soft spot for horses (even though I'm turned off by the elitist culture around the horse industry). I don't even like the thought of eating one, personally, although I don't condemn it.

So maybe I'm biased, but I can't stop thinking about how we'd feel if it had been a human being who volunteered to be euthanized for this ... display.

We'd think that was batshit insane.
posted by edguardo at 10:32 AM on November 3, 2011


We'd think that was batshit insane.

Or we'd have it tour science and art museums for decades.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:34 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Generally we don't go in and roll around in the display case acting like wallowing dogs.

Now you've reminded me of Dogs in Elk.
posted by rewil at 10:35 AM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


We should ban everything that we find gross or icky or disrespectful. Who is with me?
posted by Ayn Rand and God at 10:36 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


We've gone this far without a Freddy Got Fingered reference? For shame.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:36 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't think anyone is talking about this as a censorship issue, Ayn Rand. Personally I think it's good when people display their more worrisome traits so there's more opportunity to steer clear of them or sequester them, much as I am grateful for Disneyland as a place to aggregate knuckleheads that would otherwise despoil the open spaces. Her images are too banal and stupid to even qualify for censorship.
posted by docpops at 10:39 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


We should ban everything that we find gross or icky or disrespectful. Who is with me?

Until a good argument convinces me otherwise, I think the damage suffered to the reputations of people like this girl should be sufficient.

We think she's a creeper. Now plenty of nice people won't go on dates with her, no matter how cute she is. She won't get hired for jobs she might conceivably want. She wouldn't be most peoples' first pick to watch their kids. The list goes on.

I hope she was ready for all that, because I think those are all fair responses to this.
posted by edguardo at 10:39 AM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


That and her love of Star Wars. --- The world's hatred for George Lucas is manifesting in so many different ways.
posted by crunchland at 10:42 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


the reason she did what she did was "just spontaneous."

Well, that and the tremendous amounts of high-quality, artisanal meth.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:48 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


If she had wheels, she'd be a tram.
posted by acb at 10:50 AM on November 3, 2011


Doofus Magoo: " The reason for climbing inside the animal was later explained to deputies as Lottin's desire to "be one with the animal.""

o.O
posted by zarq at 10:51 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm more grossed out by the whole health thing. Who knows what kind of shit that horse could have had in its blood? I mean, yuck.

As for her saying "I don't know why this is getting any attention," okay, lady, you claim to be an artist, so I'm sure you're not mystified or freaked out to see the press running with this.

I don't see anything she did here being inherently wrong, just kind of squicky, but it seems like a pretty obvious stunt to get some kind of attention and for her to claim otherwise seems disingenuous.
posted by Fister Roboto at 10:54 AM on November 3, 2011


"No idea why people care," she tells Seattle Weekly.

Then why'd you do it?
posted by DBAPaul at 10:54 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


" The reason for climbing inside the animal was later explained to deputies as Lottin's desire to "be one with the animal.""

...What, had she just come from watching Freddie Got Fingered?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:54 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Probably a more dignified end than most horses that are sold for slaughter get.
posted by the_artificer at 10:55 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yes, I've frequently lamented not being able to tweak the [more inside] as well, modernserf.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:58 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't think anyone is talking about this as a censorship issue, Ayn Rand.

I can't believe you just wrote that sentence. And this is why we shouldn't be allowed to choose our own names.
posted by Theta States at 11:02 AM on November 3, 2011


Has anyone figured out what "posted on the Internet" actually means in this case? Were did they appear before the news started putting them online? Where did 4chan find them?
posted by Dano St at 11:03 AM on November 3, 2011


That was a lot of work for what turned out to be pretty uninspired, boring photos. I'm with her: I don't get it.
posted by heyho at 11:04 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Anyways, I am pretty sure this is how PETA views most omnivores.
posted by Theta States at 11:07 AM on November 3, 2011


@Sticherbeast

Sorry, I ran back from lunch to mention Tom Green, but I guess the moment has been lost.
posted by Stagger Lee at 11:08 AM on November 3, 2011


Am I the only one that thinks this article is misleading? It seems everyone is just assuming that the act of getting in the horse was premeditated, which, to my knowledge, wasn't confirmed anywhere in the story. In fact, in the article itself she says that the act was spontaneous!

In fact, it's possible that she bought the horse to eat it initially, and then as she was killing and skinning it, she decided to frolic in its corpse.

Just sayin', it's totally possible.
posted by Qberting at 11:08 AM on November 3, 2011


This is... icky, but I don't actually find that I care, at all. I've a friend who collects roadkill, buries it, and digs up the skulls and things once it's rotted away. Not quite on the same level, but still a bit weird. Who am I to judge, though?
posted by BungaDunga at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2011


Now that we've seen your...
[X] animal cruelty
[ ] bigoted rant
[X] family photos
[ ] momentary aphasia
[X] performance art
[ ] publicity stunt
[ ] sex tape

...and you've been dealing with an avalanche of...
[ ] death threats
[ ] fan mail
[X] hate mail
[ ] mockery
[ ] marriage proposals
[X] reporters camped out in your yard
[ ] spoof videos

...you're probably wondering why. To be frank, it's probably because you're totally...
[ ] banal
[X] crazy
[X] creepy
[ ] evil
[ ] heart-warming
[ ] hilarious
[ ] hypocritical
[X] oversharing
[ ] schadenfreude-y
[ ] sexy

The best you can do now is to...
[X] hide out in your house and let it all blow over
[ ] sign a book deal
[ ] deliver a heartfelt public apology
[ ] accept a job as commentator on a major cable news network
[ ] keep on keepin' on, you crazy lovable bastard

Love,
The Internet
posted by ourobouros at 11:13 AM on November 3, 2011 [47 favorites]


I know all about the horror of factory farms and where my leather and milk comes from and I understand that we are shitty to animals non-stop around the clock on a vicous scale and that I am no better than the next person, but I still think there's something very lame and deflating about eviscerating and delighting in an animal's corpse just to add more fucking Star Wars fan art to the internet.
posted by SharkParty at 11:13 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


An anonymous comment at chanarchive.org fwiw:
Just so everyone knows, There was no pagan ritual involved. The horse was over 30 years old, and was blind, and was starting to get foot rot (among other problems). It had lived a full and happy life with the woman who had raised it from a colt. The slaughter was EXEMPLARY of a humane killing. She was petting the horse and talking to it when he shot it with a .300 win mag from 30 yds in the brain box.

Since they couldn't carry the whole dead horse away to the burial spot (which is where you can't shoot), they had to cut it up and carry it away. She was wearing semi-nice clothes, so she stripped to avoid bloodying them. Blood washes out of blonde hair just fine, btw.

so please everyone. Leave poor Jasha alone. She's a super sweet girl. A good hugger, too. :D
posted by Dano St at 11:19 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


What the hell is it with Washington State people committing strange acts with animals?
Dunno, but I bet I know which one the horse would rather.
posted by Wolfdog at 11:20 AM on November 3, 2011


This procedure-- slaughtering and skinning a bull, then tucking yourself into the ribcage for an extended period-- appears as a ritual designed to invoke divine inspiration in R. A. MacAvoy's great fantasy novel set partly in medieval Ireland The Book Of Kells, under the name "the wattles of knowledge", as I recall.

I think the claim that this was done as a lark is disingenuous in the extreme.

It was a magic spell; I wonder what she was trying to achieve.
posted by jamjam at 11:25 AM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


man I would definitely not be standing there petting a horse if someone was 30 yards away aiming a gun at it!!!
posted by SharkParty at 11:25 AM on November 3, 2011 [9 favorites]


That and her love of Star Wars.

Crazy artists butchering horses and lying naked inside them to show their love is too good for Lucas.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:27 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think the claim that this was done as a lark is disingenuous in the extreme.

It was a magic spell; I wonder what she was trying to achieve.



MUST ... DESTROY ... JAMJAM ... MUST ... DESTROY ... JAMJAM ...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:27 AM on November 3, 2011


Might've been the hide you got into-- I'm not totally sure, and I don't have the book.
posted by jamjam at 11:29 AM on November 3, 2011


Should've previewed.

Looking for an excuse, I see; nothing I didn't know already, though.
posted by jamjam at 11:33 AM on November 3, 2011


i guess i don't see the huge difference between this and the pictures my cousins post of their hunting parties - i mean, they're clothed (mostly), and they don't climb inside the bodies, but all the gore and smiling and delighting in the death of the animal they just shot is all there. i wonder if all the "psychopathic smile" stuff in this thread is because she's a skinny blond girl.
posted by nadawi at 11:37 AM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


It's too bad a horse can't buy Jasha Lottin, kill her, gut her, then pose naked for photos inside her carcass and post them on the Internet.
posted by freakazoid at 11:39 AM on November 3, 2011


Madawi, I have to admit I would have trouble with your cousin's pictures too.
The only possible redeeming factor might be that their hunt was challenging and so they are smiling in pride. There is no such possibility here.

I get what people are saying as far as no laws were broken etc.
However, I agree with those who say that people in this girl's life may judge these actions for a long time. I am ok with that.
posted by Librarygeek at 11:42 AM on November 3, 2011


Creepy, gross and Icky. But I don't understand why 4chan would go after this person and not the Lawyers at the Forclosure firm that dressed like homeless people for their Halloween party. I think the Lulz to noise ratio would be better.
posted by Mcable at 11:42 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


It's too bad a horse can't buy Jasha Lottin, kill her, gut her, then pose naked for photos inside her carcass and post them on the Internet.

Somebody mentioned that maybe vegetarians are less offended by this than others, and that seems to be the case with me as well. Because, let's say you had a chicken sandwich for lunch today. I would find it puzzling if somebody online said that it's a pity that a chicken can't behead you, cook you, and then put you between two slices of bread for an enjoyable mid-afternoon meal.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:43 AM on November 3, 2011 [7 favorites]


Also, those dead horse pictures made me think of Abu Ghraib for some reason.
posted by Mcable at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Weird, but at least the horse didn't suffer.
posted by benzenedream at 11:46 AM on November 3, 2011


Aren't lions already naked?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:48 AM on November 3, 2011


Bunny Ultramod: “Pillorying the woman with insults doesn't demonstrate you have better taste, or are more sane, or you understand art better than the woman. It just demonstrates that you don't know how to leave something alone that isn't to your tastes.”

I'm not saying the woman should be pilloried with insults; and I know that "internet justice" is generally anything but. I don't think vigilanteism should be encouraged, either. However: do you really think dignity is a matter of taste? It seems natural to ask: what if this were a human being's corpse? Would you find that objectionable, or would you say it's a matter of taste? Is necrophilia morally wrong, for instance? Or is it just a kink I don't share with necrophiliacs, a kink I should respect since it's just a matter of taste?

I agree that taste and morality should be clearly and carefully distinguished; but I think a dead body deserves a certain kind of respect and dignity, whether it's an animal or a human being.
posted by koeselitz at 11:49 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
posted by fiercecupcake at 11:50 AM on November 3, 2011 [9 favorites]


It seems natural to ask: what if this were a human being's corpse?

I'm wearing leather shoes right now. It's not human leather.

There is a distinct difference between what we find allowable to do with animal remains and human remains. I suppose it could be argued that she is somehow defiling the horse's corpse, but that does seem to me that this is a matter of personal taste regarding dignity (and I sure wouldn't do it). But, then, it could also be argued that she's simply wearing a very poorly made horse-hair coat.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:54 AM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


I think I'd be okay if she just cuddled inside the corpse to see what it was like. I'm less okay with the pictures, because the grin on her face suggests that's exactly why she was doing it.

Though I'm surprised PETA haven't hired her for a new campaign yet.
posted by Kaleidolia at 11:56 AM on November 3, 2011


You people are all just jealous because you didn't think of this first.
posted by mazola at 11:58 AM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I guess I just don't see the degradation, especially in light to what we do to animals everyday without thought. The photos seem almost celebratory to me. The gleaming eyes and smiles while they pose with the heart, for example, are rather creepy of course but I see more "wow, can you believe how amazing this bit of anatomy is!?" in them than "look how I've destroyed this thing!"
posted by Dano St at 11:58 AM on November 3, 2011


Ron Paul would probably not object to this.
posted by Daddy-O at 12:03 PM on November 3, 2011


I think I'm more surprised at the woman whose "much-loved" horse this was, who didn't mind seeing it put down by being shot in the head. There are more humane ways to go.
posted by OolooKitty at 12:04 PM on November 3, 2011


Living beings shouldn't be playthings, alive or dead.

No one has talked about the disrespect for another human here: the one who "raised the horse from a colt." Many rural folks are matter-of-fact about the life and death of animals, but that generally doesn't extend to seeing their former companion used as a prop by a couple of jackasses.
posted by maxwelton at 12:04 PM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


field dressing animals is gory, and often jovial.

is this a psychopathic smile?
posted by nadawi at 12:07 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I can't decide: is this a more disturbing act than Lucas making the prequels?
posted by apranica at 12:07 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm going to have to argue with people suggesting that lethal injection (death by asphyxiation) is kinder than a single bullet (usually not actually a bullet). There's plenty of evidence that shows that doing it to humans is not 'humane', let alone horses. So what you're actually saying is "that mode of causing death is less traumatic for me, the viewer, than that other mode" - the horse would prefer something instantaneous, trust me. That's the real angle here that worries me - shooting an animal with a hand-gun seems unprofessional and lucky to not have gone wrong (a 750kg animal thrashing around is not safe). There's a reason its a niche job, done by professionals. Who don't use handguns.

And yes, I've held a horse when it was put down. Top tip: hold the reigns from the front, not the sides, the animal goes down instantly if a professional does it. Brain death is instant, physical death takes a couple of minutes longer.
posted by Cheradine Zakalwe at 12:14 PM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


...She was petting the horse and talking to it when he shot it with a .300 win mag from 30 yds in the brain box.

Not that I know much about putting down horses, but doesn't it seem a little odd to be standing next to the horse while a shooter takes aim from 90 feet away? I'd want at least a bulletproof vest and helmet. Shades of Burroughs...
posted by jenkinsEar at 12:16 PM on November 3, 2011


Dano St: “I guess I just don't see the degradation, especially in light to what we do to animals everyday without thought.”

This is not to pick on you, Dano St, since I'm aware this isn't your main point, but – I see this argument a lot in this thread, and I don't think it makes sense. People have been saying things like 'well, if you're not a vegetarian, what's the big deal? This happens to animals all the time.' Well, yes. Fine. Lots of terrible things happen all the time. That doesn't make them less terrible.

Bunny Ultramod: “There is a distinct difference between what we find allowable to do with animal remains and human remains.”

It doesn't seem like you're arguing that there's "a distinct difference" between our compunctions where animal corpses are concerned as opposed to human corpses. It seems like you're arguing that there are no compunctions at all whatsoever when it comes to treating animals with dignity. I guess you're free to have that belief – but is it not conceivable that others would believe in slightly more absolute standards in this area?

nadawi: “field dressing animals is gory, and often jovial. is this a psychopathic smile?”

Gore isn't necessarily offensive to dignity. If I have a heart attack and die, I sure hope there are surgeons cutting me open to try to save me. Field dressing is a dignified act insofar as it is a necessary and beneficial thing, in that it entails actually using all the parts of the animal. I know it's probably hard for people who don't hunt to accept, but yes, there is a respectful way to do it.
posted by koeselitz at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


Not that I know much about putting down horses, but doesn't it seem a little odd to be standing next to the horse while a shooter takes aim from 90 feet away? I'd want at least a bulletproof vest and helmet. Shades of Burroughs...

Yeah, this is so far out of safe gun handling that I suspect it's fabricated. A bulletproof vest isn't going to do diddly, I don't think, against a .300 rifle round from what amounts to point-blank range.
posted by maxwelton at 12:20 PM on November 3, 2011


Seriously, I think what's most disappointing is that as an artist, she really has no substance at all. If you're going to do shock value, at least have some sort of thoughtful reason for your actions, or just go ahead an accept the scorn that's being heaped on her.

By the way, even though it wasn't real, my recollection is that Han Solo slit open the animal TO SAVE HIS FRIEND'S LIFE BY PREVENTING HIM FROM FREEZING TO DEATH IN A BLIZZARD. The intentions were kind of honorable.

So unless she had a dying, frozen best friend up in there in that carcass with her, she just did it for purely selfish motivations. Spontaneous indeed.

It's not weird. It's just one of those things where you just sort of shake you head in disgust, in just sort of disappointed in other human beings' behaviors sometimes sort of a way.
posted by anitanita at 12:21 PM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


...She was petting the horse and talking to it when he shot it with a .300 win mag from 30 yds in the brain box.

OK, she's batshit crazy, and so is the guy.

30 yards is 90 feet -- more than the width of a football field. The .300 Winchester Magnum is a high-powered round that travels at Mach 2. You use it for hunting moose. It can go right through a horse. Or rebound off a skull and still have enough energy to go right through you.

I don't care if you're Carlos Fucking Hathcock himself. There's no fucking way anyone should stand next to a horse while someone (possibly high? certainly insane.) shoots it from 90 feet away with a Magnum cartridge.

Fuck. You.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:25 PM on November 3, 2011 [13 favorites]


Yeah, CoolPapa, those details sounded outrageous to me as well. All I could think of was Burroughs playing William Tell with his soon to be deceased wife.

It's total lunacy.
posted by Stagger Lee at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2011


I've heard about this all over the place, and I think it's time for the story to be done, because now we're just beating... a... oh, nevermind.
posted by no relation at 12:31 PM on November 3, 2011


Small blonde girl?
posted by mannequito at 12:32 PM on November 3, 2011


Lots of terrible things happen all the time. That doesn't make them less terrible.

Agreed, but the difference here is the outrage: "she's crazy|drugged|deserves_terrible_things_in_return". If one doesn't say these things about the local butcher or the family bacon aficionado, then why say them about her?

"She desecrated a corpse and the butcher did not" is a perfectly valid answer to that question. But it's not one I agree with in this case. "Being one with the horse" makes enough semblance of sense to me that I can see her doing this out of a kind of love.
posted by Dano St at 12:33 PM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


[X] hide out in your horse and let it all blow over

FTFY.
posted by no relation at 12:34 PM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


I actually think tracking and killing animals for sport unless you actually live off of that meat is pretty messed up too, so...
posted by SharkParty at 12:35 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Not that I know much about putting down horses, but doesn't it seem a little odd to be standing next to the horse while a shooter takes aim from 90 feet away?

Guys, if you'll note the source of the quote Dano posted, the one with the "from 30 yards away" stat, you'll see it's from "Chanarchive". Sounds like that's a subset of 4Chan, and thus this may be a hoaxed response.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:35 PM on November 3, 2011


Yeah, not sure how much, if any. credence to giveto the "30 yards away" story. I did think the bit about chopping the horse up to bury it was a plausible explanation of how this could have occurred "spontaneously" (though it doesn't explain why they bought the horse in the first place).

Also of dubious source (chanarchive and reddit): Q:Were did they appear before the news started putting them online? A: the facebooks of Lottin and/or Frost.
posted by Dano St at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2011


30 yards is 90 feet -- more than the width of a football field.

A football field is actually 53.3 yards or ~165 feet across.
posted by ofthestrait at 12:52 PM on November 3, 2011


hide out in your house and let it all blow over
I did not read that word as "house" on first glance.

<shudder/>
posted by roystgnr at 12:56 PM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Lottin said in the movie Star Wars the character Han Solo cut open and animal with his light saber and placed Luke Skywalker inside the animal.

Great. Now Lucas is probably going to edit this out for the next edition.
posted by SpacemanStix at 1:04 PM on November 3, 2011


It really annoys me that horse meat is pretty much impossible to buy in the UK.

I feel the same about dogs and cats. I was excited to see skinned cats at a market in Vienna, but then they turned out to be rabbits.

Having had pet rabbits, the dog/cat ban seems fairly arbitrary.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:06 PM on November 3, 2011


I think the point is being missed by some, and all too often is in the age of exposure;

She put the pictures up for other people to see.

There was no cruelty; the horse was dead (according to the suspicious story that it was shot from 30 yards). If she was going to dismember the horse naked (a little weird, but OK) and then just spontaneously decide to get all up in it (getting weirder) and then take pictures (really starting to lose me at this point), but then she decides that she should show them to other people online.

That’s the part where it crosses over into psycho "I don’t know where the boundaries are" territory.

>What does seem weird to me is that whenever something like this happens outside the clearly delineated bounds of performance art, people rush in to be offended and make pronouncements about mental health.<

I’m not sure what your saying. People think this kind of stuff is OK when it’s called performance art? I don’t find that to be the case. I pretty much dismiss, mock, and otherwise deride anything that is clearly defined as Performance Art. I would think much less of this stunt if it took place on a stage somewhere.
posted by bongo_x at 1:07 PM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Isn't wearing nothing but leather technically the same as "posing naked inside an animal carcass".
posted by seanyboy at 1:07 PM on November 3, 2011 [8 favorites]


Chanarchive

Does what it says on the tin. An archive of notable threads. Imagine if metafilter posts only lasted for 15 minutes. Some might think it is a shame to let all the awesome just dissapear into the ether and create a way to save them online. So it is with chanarchive. I'd say the quote was as reliable as anything else on 4chan, which is not at all.

I also don't buy that he shot it from 30yards while she comforted it. Why would they cut it up to move it. Lead it over to where they are going to bury it and then shoot it.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:09 PM on November 3, 2011


Life in general is sort of fucked up. Eating meat, sex, etc...

Apparently when you repackage it, people go into a batshit rage because now the blinders are off.
posted by colinshark at 1:13 PM on November 3, 2011 [8 favorites]


Another Weirdo.
(picture of woman posing sexily whilst covered in the skins of various victims. Probably NSFW / NSFL. What do I know)

And then there's Bacon Clothes and Meat art.

As well as the aforementioned lady gaga, you don't have to go far to see lots of weird meat and animal based stuff.
posted by seanyboy at 1:20 PM on November 3, 2011


If you want to get an idea of what the images look like, but you're squeamish or you have strict work policies, then this should give you an idea. The linked image is Completely Safe For Work.
posted by seanyboy at 1:24 PM on November 3, 2011


It seems natural to ask: what if this were a human being's corpse?

Yes, still a matter of taste.
posted by barrett caulk at 1:41 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


And another weirdo.
posted by crunchland at 1:52 PM on November 3, 2011


I started off with thinking the cruel bitch.. But then after reading the meta blurb, and then the article header, and getting into the actual story content I discover the horse was on deaths door and about to be killed humanely anyway, and my internal jury started to split their vote on this one.
If it was a healthy horse with many years of life left then, yes that is very wrong. But now we are talking about a horse already planned to die, gets used for some very creepy "art" instead.
I think there is something broken within her to think this is a good idea, in the same way most of us if we see a dead pet on the road we do our best to avoid it, as even though it's dead, smashing it more is well wrong.. She sounds like the person who aims their car right for poor dead whiskers and then takes a photo of it and says look at me I did good..
What the article did well, like all media is it tries to sell you the knee jerk reaction this lady killed a perfectly good horse, until you read the full thing. And that is what I really dislike about the whole news media delivery method.
posted by Merlin The Happy Pig at 1:58 PM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


Dogs in elk.
posted by plinth at 1:59 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


. It seems like you're arguing that there are no compunctions at all whatsoever when it comes to treating animals with dignity. I guess you're free to have that belief – but is it not conceivable that others would believe in slightly more absolute standards in this area?

Whoah whoah whoah. I have compunctions. I haven't eaten meat since I was 16. I am saying there are no universal compunctions.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:04 PM on November 3, 2011


The Aristocrats!
posted by Skwirl at 2:09 PM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


The fact that they received angry responses, harassment and [apparently] death threats seems an overreaction that is out of proportion to what they did.

I mean, if they killed a fox and wore the fur no one but PETA would complain. If they killed a cow and ate it no one but some vegan's would complain. But killing a horse and then climbing inside? OMG the horror!

Crazy, yes. But not illegal and only questionable because it is far out.

So why are some people mad?
- The death of the horse? It was to be euthanized and was humanely killed.
- Posing nude in the carcass? Okay but all that says it they are weird.
- Posting the images for people to see? Okay, so they are exhibitionists.
- Bad art? Okay, I can see people being mad about the aesthetic value of the work - but not that mad.
- Sets a bad example for our youth? I don't expect kids to copy this behavior because it is too odd for most to even consider.
posted by Rashomon at 2:09 PM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Did she finish the entire horse heart? The world will tremble if she did. Her son will be the Stallion Who Mounts the World.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can't wait for the homage to the sarlacc pit.
posted by brappi at 2:22 PM on November 3, 2011


As an atheist and a meat-eater, I find it really hard to understand what people mean when they talk about treating dead animals with 'respect' or 'dignity'. Surely death is the pinnacle of indignity: a final, total loss of control over self, the ultimate drunken black-out if you will. Nothing you can do to my corpse will offend me; all you can do is cause offence to those who would rather remember me whole and alive. By talking about 'respect' or 'dignity' as anything other than our own feelings, or feelings we project onto other people, we're effectively engaging in a crude mysticism, where the spirits of the dead must be shown deference for fear that they will curse or haunt us.

I suppose the original owner of the horse might reasonably be upset by this piece of gory theatre, but I can see no reason for anyone else to get all riled up.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 2:22 PM on November 3, 2011 [11 favorites]


Yeah, it's definitely a horse-specific thing here... whether you agree with it or not a lot of people believe horses deserve some degree of moral consideration. Of course some of those same people probably have their pets stuffed, too, and many of them eat steak for dinner without a moment's hesitation. People are weird.
posted by mek at 2:24 PM on November 3, 2011


Oh, oh, oh, also -- why is it that whenever anyone does a weird thing now, it's "art"?

Jasha never described these photos as "art" in the linked article.

Is our society so commodity-based that if you do something outside of work hours besides eating, fucking, or the Internet, it has to be, A, your hobby, which you natch have a blog about, or, B, "art"?

The other day I found an office chair abandoned outside my apartment. I was going to walk to the library, but I thought, why not chair to the library? So I sat down, lit up a smoke, and started pushing. I had a great time -- the air was crisp and cold, and I waved at giggling and confused children, and I really got a knack for the very subtle art of manoeuvring a caster-based vehicle.

But on my way back, someone stopped me and asked me if I was a performance artist.

And like, what? No! I like performance art, so I took it as a compliment, but, damn it, don't you go interpreting my good time!
posted by liminalrampaste at 2:26 PM on November 3, 2011 [6 favorites]


Stagger Lee: the entire thing sounds kind of sociopathic and wasteful.

The link does say she ate the horse. Presumably not in one sitting.
posted by Decimask at 2:35 PM on November 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


Ultimately, what I think it comes down to is, if the killing was done humanely (and all info so far indicates that it was), then... well? The horse didn't care any more.

Strange. Definitely attention-seeking. ("Why's everyone interested in this very unusual thing which I did that I took pictures of and posted on the internet?" Bullshit, she knew that people would notice.) Not, anywhere I can detect unethical, illegal, or immoral.

It's bug-fuck weird, but it neither picked my pocket nor broke my bones nor (apparently) caused any unnecessary pain to the horse. If it was a single rifle shot to the head, arguably less pain than the horse was probably in for anyway. Infinite variety in infinite variations. This one's just your standard attention-seeking.
posted by chimaera at 2:37 PM on November 3, 2011


Sounds like a neat idea. Those of you wishing harm on this woman need to get your head examined. The horse was humanely killed, and instead of ending up as pet food, she made art with it.
I can understand if it offends your sensibilities, but really, she's just playing with meat. And if she ate it, she didn't really even waste it. Save your rage for people who actually hurt others.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:50 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


can't decide: is this a more disturbing act than Lucas making the prequels?

Orders of magnitude less.
posted by clarknova at 2:53 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Living beings shouldn't be playthings, alive or dead.
No pets, no taxidermy? No fur or leather?
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:54 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Nthing that you shouldn't play around dead living beings. You should run the fuck away.
posted by Dano St at 2:57 PM on November 3, 2011


"I'm not pushing the envelope, I'm killing the envelope and then then gutting it and mailing myself to the world in it."
posted by Danf at 3:05 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


"As an atheist and a meat-eater, I find it really hard to understand what people mean when they talk about treating dead animals with 'respect' or 'dignity'. "

Also as an atheist and a meat-eater, I don't have any trouble at all understanding what people mean when they talk about treating dead animals with 'respect' or 'dignity'.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:06 PM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


Whoa!

Yeah, can't really un-see that ...

I only wish the art part of the whole schtick were more interesting. This is novel but ... hmmm. Seems like a lot of work for novelty. Horse meat isn't all that great anyway.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:09 PM on November 3, 2011


As soon as I figure out who to call, I'm reporting this outrage to the proper authorities.
posted by George Clooney at 3:10 PM on November 3, 2011


I'm waiting for the re-released special edition where the horse shoots first.
posted by Rangeboy at 3:11 PM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


That's a Photoshop bonanza. Too bad the pictures are crap.

I also liked the part where the enlightened relativists thought that they were raising insightful questions about this.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 3:23 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Eponysterical
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 3:40 PM on November 3, 2011


If she wants to be at one with a horse, someone should introduce her to the Enumclaw Horse.
posted by homunculus at 3:46 PM on November 3, 2011


Too bad the pictures are crap.

Yeah, that was the first thing that came to mind. I've been connecting with a lot of interesting artists lately through facebook, sorta randomly but just following what catches my eye (it's far more worthwhile IMO than catching up with old friends from high school). There's so many creative people throughout the world who work with photography who could have made this better, or at least more effective. For example, many artists in the pop surrealist movement (very active in Italy right now) could have done a lot with this .. er ... subject matter.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:46 PM on November 3, 2011


There's so many creative people throughout the world who work with photography who could have made this better, or at least more effective.

That's what I thought. Hermann Nitsch has been doing this for ages and there are some ...interesting pictures out there about him and his "Actions". Note: don't search for those pix at work. Here's a safe article (words only) about Nitsch.
posted by Zack_Replica at 4:01 PM on November 3, 2011


I wonder if it's illegal anywhere to actually "beat a dead horse"?
posted by harrgt44 at 4:06 PM on November 3, 2011


We've gone this far without a Freddy Got Fingered Galway Kinnell reference? For shame.

I hack
a ravine in his thigh, and eat and drink,
and tear him down his whole length
and open him and climb in
and close him up after me, against the wind,
and sleep.

posted by DaDaDaDave at 4:40 PM on November 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


"I can see no reason for anyone else to get all riled up."

I'm all for being an atheist/meat-eater/whatever, but I'd think part of that would be not jerkily telling your fellow human beings how they should and shouldn't feel.
posted by HopperFan at 4:44 PM on November 3, 2011


A horse is a corpse, of course a horse
posted by item at 4:52 PM on November 3, 2011


I'd think part of that would be not jerkily telling your fellow human beings how they should and shouldn't feel.

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, and it annoys the crap out of me. It just seems like such a teenagerish thing to say. Plus we tell people how they should feel about things all the time. It's how we define our shared morals.

Anyway - This whole story and peoples reaction to the story seems to confuse revulsion with morality. This is not suprising & I wonder if it's linked to the ambiguity in the word "disgusting".
posted by seanyboy at 5:47 PM on November 3, 2011


I'd call her a sadistic, sodomistic necrophile, but that's just...

Oh, never mind.
posted by ShutterBun at 5:55 PM on November 3, 2011


I just hope the owner of the horse never sees this, people get pretty attached over 30 years and I'm sure they would find it distressing as fuck.

It would be pretty creepy if the vet had done this to my cat after they 'put it to sleep' and put pictures on the internet. Half of that creepiness would of course come from knowing my vet was small enough to fit inside a cat.
posted by pmcp at 5:59 PM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


Half of that creepiness would of course come from knowing my vet was small enough to fit inside a cat.

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx
posted by krinklyfig at 6:17 PM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


I also think it's odd but don't know what the shocking big deal is about it. I kind of wish I had the courage to do something weird like this myself. There is value to seeking out unique experiences in this world, and I'm sure she thought nothing more about it than that.
posted by agregoli at 6:43 PM on November 3, 2011


Feeding and clothing oneself with animals is one thing, wallowing in their death is another. If a soldier kills an enemy in combat it is what it is, if he then takes his enemy's ears to wear as a trophy it becomes a touch more fucked up. But whatever.
posted by a shrill fucking shitstripe at 6:50 PM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Eh, no animal that's been through the industrial agriculture machine was treated with respect and dignity, in life or death.
posted by 6550 at 6:57 PM on November 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Now you've reminded me of Dogs in Elk.

Oh, man, I've been trying to find that for years! My problem was searching for "deer"!

This lady, I don't know, man. Legal don't mean right. I'll fight for her right to party but don't expect me at your opening, hon.

by that I mean gallery show
posted by lysdexic at 6:59 PM on November 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


"I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, and it annoys the crap out of me."

I don't know why you'd get so riled up about it.

"It just seems like such a teenagerish thing to say. Plus we tell people how they should feel about things all the time. It's how we define our shared morals."


A teenagerish habit is telling someone how they should feel. Adults discuss, and that's how we decide on shared morals. Unless you're Catholic, and then I can't help you.
posted by HopperFan at 7:27 PM on November 3, 2011


I don't know why you'd get so riled up about it.

Are you saying "it annoys the crap out of me" is comparable in its rhetoric to "It's too bad a horse can't buy Jasha Lottin, kill her, gut her..." ? To people on 4chan seriously discussing organizing a party to find, and presumably hurt, these people?
posted by Dano St at 8:24 PM on November 3, 2011


I fond the whole thing icky and revolting. I slao noticed two stories, on the one hand, they ate the hirse, on the other hand, they cut it up to busy someplace where they were solista to bura the horse, but not allowed to shoot it. Details of the shooting don't add up. It's all weird, even aside from the weirdness.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 8:28 PM on November 3, 2011


You've been snorting fermented horse again, haven't you?
posted by KokuRyu at 8:38 PM on November 3, 2011


I just want to know why they bothered with latex gloves when they both bloodied their arms to the torso.
posted by gingerest at 9:41 PM on November 3, 2011


Dano St: Don't over-read. Hopperfan was just giving me a taste of my own medicine. A beautiful rhetorical device that has made me see the error of my ways & one which is more definitely mature than when I blatantly describing certain behaviours as teenagerish.
posted by seanyboy at 11:39 PM on November 3, 2011


If she were Damien Hirst this would be art and worth several million.
If she had any talent, she wouldn't have to pose naked inside a horse to get attention.
What does that have to do with Damien Hirst?
Somebody mentioned that maybe vegetarians are less offended by this than others, and that seems to be the case with me as well. Because, let's say you had a chicken sandwich for lunch today. I would find it puzzling if somebody online said that it's a pity that a chicken can't behead you, cook you, and then put you between two slices of bread for an enjoyable mid-afternoon meal.
I'm not a vegetarian either but it seems like a lot of people in society don't seem to realize the kind of routine cruelty that happens to animals as part of industrialized farming. Or non-industrialized farming. You can't get meat out of an animal without mutilating it's body. Why exactly is it worse to get naked and climb inside it's body at the same time?

It certainly seems gross but I don't really get why it's supposed to be horrifying.
posted by delmoi at 12:08 AM on November 4, 2011


I keep seeing people say nobody should be so bothered by this because it happens all the time in industrial farming.

If consistency is important here, and we should feel the same way about both things, I don't get why people are arguing for being unbothered by both. Why not be bothered by both?
posted by cairdeas at 12:23 AM on November 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


And everything else aside, part of the disgust for me here comes from this: to me, a 32 year old horse is a completely magnificent thing and something to be cared for and loved. To see a 21 year old vapid narcissist gleefully mutilating the horse in that way, one of the feelings I get is the same exact feeling I had in grade school when I'd watch other "students" vandalize our new desks, rip pages out of our books, etc. Something really good being destroyed by someone really idiotic simply for their own selfish entertainment.
posted by cairdeas at 12:37 AM on November 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


People are definitely educated stupid.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 12:37 AM on November 4, 2011


If consistency is important here, and we should feel the same way about both things, I don't get why people are arguing for being unbothered by both. Why not be bothered by both?

I don't think people are saying you should not be bothered by the killing of an animal.

I think it's good to be bothered. You can either take the stance that killing an animal is ok, provided you do everything you can to be compassionate in rearing and killing the animal (which appears to be what happened here). Or you can reject the rearing of animals for food entirely, and become a vegetarian or vegan. Or to go the other way completely, you can decide that animals are deserving of no respect or compassion, whether living or dead; that seems a little cruel to me, but there you are.

The fact that you've thought it through, and taken a moral stance that you can live with, is the important thing. Having a knee-jerk emotional reaction to something when it's in plain sight, but choosing not to think about it when it's behind closed doors, is understandable behaviour, but not really a considered response.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 2:53 AM on November 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


cairdeas: The horse was slated for euthanasia. It was in its thirties and dying. They apparently ate it.

Everything else, I agree with. Not that we should not be bothered by this if we eat meat, but that we should be bothered by how the animals in our care are routinely treated.
posted by Jilder at 4:56 AM on November 4, 2011


I just hope the owner of the horse never sees this, people get pretty attached over 30 years and I'm sure they would find it distressing as fuck.

The owner had the option to ensure a proper humane euthanasia (which does not involve being shot in the head, and does involve heavy sedation and full anesthesia prior to death), as a caring owner would have done, instead s/he abdicated any and all responsibility for the horse at the end of its life and instead decided to milk a few bucks out of the horse's death (as many people do, they use the horse until it is done, and then sell it for meat, I want to kick such people in the shins repeatedly, fuck them). No sympathy for the ex-owner here, their actions are the truly disgusting part of this to me.
posted by biscotti at 5:16 AM on November 4, 2011 [3 favorites]


Perhaps what is horrifying people is a perceived irreverence towards the corpse of a formerly-living being.

The issue of "well, factory-farmed animals aren't treated so kindly either" is actually a separate issue, to my mind. Factory farming has its own ills, which absolutely should be combatted; but this is not a case of a horse who was killed through factory farming. In fact, the horse was well cared-for up to its decline, was ill and was slated for euthanasia. The empirical question of "but we kill animals to eat them" also seems to be a separate issue.

I have hunch it's not so much that she killed the horse in and of itself; it was going to be euthanized. Also, not that she cut it to pieces; we do cut food animals to pieces. But we don't do so in order to....play with them. There's a sort of gravity, even in factory farms, that taking-a-life sort of takes -- a subconscious sense that you took a life, and that's some kind of heavy shit right there. Not that everyone in meat packing plants is rending their garments when they go home, it's just that people don't really....fuck around while they're doing it, or if they do, it's a very quick, subtle, whistling-past-the-graveyard thing that they keep private to a trusted friend and then they go back to work.

What butchers DON'T do, to my knowledge, is butcher a sheep for the express purpose of doing something like saving the head and taking it home and wearing it like a hat and parading around their backyards pretending to be Mary's Little Lamb or whatever. Playing that extensively with a dead body, and doing so this publically, is somewhat beyond the pale of what butchers and factory farms do. It's flying-in-the-face of that "I took a life and that's a heavy thing" kind of thing. She may have eaten this horse -- but not before taking pictures of herself crawling inside it all "look, it's like a Tauntaun!"

And people playing with the bodies of the dead just creeps us out. I'm reminded not of factory farmers, but of Ed Gein -- he did kill two people, but he body-snatched a lot more - and the things he was doing with the corpses were things like, using the skin to upholster his couch and making himself a belt out of a bunch of nipples and stuff like that. You could argue that "well, all those people were already dead," but....that kind of stuff is still REALLY creepy at some level.

So maybe the horse lady/factory farmer comparison really isn't getting at the root of what creeps us out about this.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:24 AM on November 4, 2011 [3 favorites]


And people playing with the bodies of the dead just creeps us out.

There was a time when people weren't so easily startled when confronted so explicitly with the relationship between food and death. You don't see a pig's head with a piece of fruit in its mouth as the centrepiece of a meal much these days, and arguably, that's an example of people using animal parts in a frivolous way. Novelty taxidermy is also very much out of fashion, again because it makes us feel uncomfortable or as if we're participating in something disrespectful.

We're increasingly distant from the act of killing that puts food on our plates, and I'm inclined to think that being confronted with something like this, where someone is actively celebrating the blood and guts of a real dead creature, is a startling, but not entirely unwelcome, counterpoint to that trend.

The act of killing deserves a moment of solemnity, because taking a life is, literally, deadly serious. But the level of distaste we have for someone playing with what is, after all, just some meat, seems to largely depend on the extent to which we're removed from the killing. A hat or dress made of bacon is a joke, and it barely triggers any feeling of uneasiness. I think this reflects a trend towards living very clean, antiseptic lives where we prefer not to think too much about blood and guts and mortality. At the same time we seem to have lost some of our fascination with the macabre, which in a way acted as a kind of memento mori.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 6:36 AM on November 4, 2011 [3 favorites]


EmpressCallipygos: It's not right to equate this incident with serial killers. Yes - Nipple belts are grotesque, but so is cannibalism. By that logic, we shouldn't eat any animal.

Butchers don't butcher animals for the purpose of wearing the head as a hat, but you're missing a couple of salient points. Firstly, and most obviously, there are trades which kill animals purely for their skins. Purely for the purpose of taking a part of that animal and "parading round their backyards."

Secondly, if you eat meat, you do it for fun. Vegetarian diets are cheaper, greener and better for you. I'm suspicious of those people that say they have to have meat in their diet, but assuming these people are telling the truth, that still leaves a huge number of people who only eat meat because they prefer it.

There is no difference in my mind between the two recreational activities. If you eat a pork chop, you're doing it because it's fun. Even if it's a proxy behaviour, you're still keeping animals in substandard conditions and murdering them for fun. I can't see logically how this differs from wearing a sheep head for a hat, and I can't see how you can categorise only one of the two behaviours as "play".

Despite what you may believe, "Irreverence" is not the issue here.
posted by seanyboy at 8:13 AM on November 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


I actually believe that what freaks people out about this story is the fact that the horse wasn't cleaned or prepared before she started to play with it.

I sort of made this point before, but I'll rephrase. It may feel like you're morally outraged by this woman's act, but it may be the revulsion you feel is actually an animal reaction to dead animals. Sure, we like to eat them, but there's an instinct in us that worries that they died (possibly some time ago) by means other than our own hands (possibly disease), and we should keep away.

This contradiction in our own instinctual behaviour may be what drives the cognitive dissonance which sits at the centre of both sides of this argument.
posted by seanyboy at 8:22 AM on November 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


EmpressCallipygos: It's not right to equate this incident with serial killers.

Gein technically wasn't a serial killer, though. He was more accurately a "grave robber." He did kill two people, yeah, but it wasn't because he was compelled to kill as such -- it was the grave-robbing that was the compulsion, and the two murders were more out of a) "she's not dead yet so I can't rob her corpse -- let me MAKE her a corpse so I can rob it," and b) "uh-oh, she found me out, I'd better kill her to shut her up."

I was equating the two because it was what Gein was doing with bodies post-mortem that triggered everyone's "eeeeeyeuuuch" reactions.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:46 AM on November 4, 2011


It's the fact that he was doing it with human bodies that triggered the "eeeeeyeuuuch" reaction. And understandably so.

My point stands. There are many things that provoke different reactions when done to animals as opposed to humans. There are many things that provoke the same reaction too. Making comparisons between animal/human and human/human interactions doesn't tell us anything, and I'm dubious as to its use when making a point about how we morally deal with other species. Other than provoking an emotional response by forcing some tricked empathy into the conversation, I can't really see what you're trying to do here.
posted by seanyboy at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2011


From your silence, I'm guessing you agree with my main point though.
posted by seanyboy at 9:03 AM on November 4, 2011


The owner had the option to ensure a proper humane euthanasia (which does not involve being shot in the head, and does involve heavy sedation and full anesthesia prior to death)

Please give a citation - vets do it because owners demand it, not because it is easier on the horse (it also gives more fees, but that's a side consideration). Scroll up for my link to how lethal injections for humans produce pain & suffering - please explain why it is any different for a horse.

Pet owners often harm / inflict suffering on their animals through ignorance & "killing through love". A horse at 32 is not "... a completely magnificent thing and something to be cared for and loved" it is a very old animal, probably with multiple health issues (depending on what lifestyle it enjoyed, and what riding tasks it did). Mammals have this thing called 'life span' - and for a horse, it is averaged at 20-30 years.

I'd also be interested to know if either of the posters own a horse: and then should probably engage with what happens if said companion breaks its leg in the field whilst riding. Hint: it doesn't involve injections.
posted by Cheradine Zakalwe at 9:06 AM on November 4, 2011


From your silence, I'm guessing you agree with my main point though.

.....My "silence" was only because I don't hover on threads 24/7 so I can't always respond immediately, because I have a life. Just so that's clear.

And no, I do not agree with your main point, which is that the reason we are reacting to what she did strictly because "she did it to an animal". If that were so, we would be having the very same "eeeuyyych" reaction to meat-eating. And we don't.

So there is something different in the what she did to that animal that is creeping people out. I found a paralell in that "something different" in Ed Gein -- he did something freaky to the corpse of a person, and she did something freaky to the corpse of an animal. We're similarly creeped out by both. QED.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:18 AM on November 4, 2011


....And since it has been only 30 seconds and you've not responded yet, may I assume you agree with me?

[ /end sarcastic snarky mode]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:19 AM on November 4, 2011


I'm with seany here - equating the euthanasia of an old animal is nothing like a serial killer creating a fantasy world through necrophilia & death fetishist behaviour, leading ultimately to killing other human beings. Gein is regarded as abnormal because he didn't just "play" with corpses - he created furniture out of people, and gained sexual / power satisfaction from doing so.

If you want a semi-accurate example split it up:

Killing the horse is similar to assisted suicides : animals lack the ability to end their own suffering, so we take on the moral choice to enact a compassionate end - where suffering is viewed as worse than continued life.

Playing with the dead body afterwards is essentially puerile, but there's no evidence that the woman gained any sexual or internal pleasure from it, barring being happy / positive in the animals' life. She probably (if a little immaturely) thought she was 'celebrating' the life of the animal by climbing in it and/or was making some kind of statement about the animal / human companion bond in life and death. The couple went out of their way to chose an old horse, who'd had the same owner for 30 years: there's plenty of horses out there who are discarded and put down in the prime of their lives due to either "not being good enough" in the equestrian sport their owners compete in, or having minor but persistent injuries that make them unsuitable to ride. [Hint: the equestrian world is not an overtly compassionate one in some cases]

That choice alone suggests she was engaged with the "project" with at least the minimal amount of compassion to move her from "psychopath" to "making a point in an immature / ignorant way".


I'll admit her behaviour isn't normal, which is why we're on 200+ replies, but there's nothing innately sinister about it.
posted by Cheradine Zakalwe at 9:25 AM on November 4, 2011


I'd also be interested to know if either of the posters own a horse: and then should probably engage with what happens if said companion breaks its leg in the field whilst riding. Hint: it doesn't involve injections.

I disagree with biscotti's claim about humane methods of euthanasia excluding a properly placed gunshot to the cranial vault. I am able to disagree with her claim (as does the AAEP, for example) without questioning her experience with equids or treating her with condescension. I very much understand her frustration with horse owners not taking responsibility for euthanasia or end-of-life care. It sucks.

If you look at her posting history, Cheradine, you will note that she is a veterinary technician. I believe she works in small animal practice, but in the course of her training and education she has had to study equine anesthetic protocols and euthanasia guidelines, work with horses, and prove that she learned that material and had clinical experience to a licensing board.

This is a complex issue and emotional, and reasonable people can disagree with each other and yet both have a good understanding and working knowledge of the subject.
posted by Uniformitarianism Now! at 9:33 AM on November 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


There are many different reasons why something creeps us out. Slugs creep me out too, but I'm not looking for equivalence between that and using human skin as clothing.

You're assuming that because both things creep you out and one is wrong, the other must also be wrong. Even ignoring the logical fallacy, I can still see no reason to accept your reasoning.

/now you have 20 seconds to respond.
posted by seanyboy at 9:35 AM on November 4, 2011


cheredine zakalwe: A horse at 32 is not "... a completely magnificent thing and something to be cared for and loved" it is a very old animal, probably with multiple health issues (depending on what lifestyle it enjoyed, and what riding tasks it did). Mammals have this thing called 'life span' - and for a horse, it is averaged at 20-30 years.

cheredine zakalwe -- from your posts that I've seen, I think you and I have very different ideas overall of what is magnificent, what is deserving of care and love, and very very different ideas of who/what is deserving of respect and what it means to act in a respectful way.

That's why I prefaces my post with: part of the disgust for me here comes from this. You're entitled to your own feelings as well.
posted by cairdeas at 9:40 AM on November 4, 2011


I live in China, and right on my street, small animals (chickens, ducks, eel) are slaughtered and killed for people to buy for dinner. You can go into markets and see animal carcasses hanging down and when people eat an animal, they generally eat the whole thing (chicken heads and chicken feet).

Constrast this with buying meat in the U.S.- you can usually not even tell it used to be animal. I think these images are so shocking because most people are so far removed from the animals that have been killed for them to eat. If you eat meat, do you think that the bodies of the animals you are eating were treating respectfully? No, they weren't. You just didn't see it. I don't see anything disrespectful done here. She climbed naked into a dead horse. The horse was not harmed, it was dying anyway and killed humanely. I think we should see more images of dead animals, personally. Maybe it would make us think twice about how they are treated and killed.

Also, the fact that the images were so shocking and sparked discussion to me means they did what art is supposed to do. I actually found the photos strangely beautiful in contrast to the bland, steralized images we usually see in the U.S. Make no mistake, all of this gory bloody stufff happens a million times a day. We just don't usually see it.
posted by bearette at 9:52 AM on November 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


cairdeas

My point was simple: at 32 we show our care, love and compassion for a horse by making sure its life ends well, without undue suffering. There's rarely (I state this knowing some horses can live into their late 30's without issues, but it is vanishingly rare) a case that doesn't include this. I suspect we actually share the same emotional content towards horses, I just have had a history of having to deal with the practical applications of it.

Old animals, like old people, wear out. That's what aging is. Sometimes you're lucky, and they drop down dead of natural causes in the field happily enjoying their retirement - often you're not, and unlike people, we can't make them bedridden in old people's homes. We then express our love towards these animals by taking the responsible choice: the whole point of domestication being we've entered a (power unbalanced) partnership with certain informal obligations to the other species.


Or, I just lack the same emotional content, and am a monster. I think the former is probably more accurate than the latter though.
posted by Cheradine Zakalwe at 9:59 AM on November 4, 2011


A horse at 32 is not "... a completely magnificent thing and something to be cared for and loved" it is a very old animal, probably with multiple health issues (depending on what lifestyle it enjoyed, and what riding tasks it did).

Ahem. I have a horse who's nearly 30, and he's frigging magnificent with no health issues. And when it's time for him to go, he's not going with a bullet through the head. He is definitely something to be cared for and loved and he will be even after he's gone; his body will be disposed of respectfully and not hacked apart and played with by some idiot.

As for the comments about the cruelty of lethal injection, I lost my other horse a few years ago and he went via injection. It was peaceful, it was fast, and he didn't suffer. I know because I was there. It was done respectfully and out of thankfulness and gratitude for the time we'd spent together. It's what he deserved.

I think what some people don't get about the emotional reaction to this is that a lot of people think of horses as livestock. But some of us, who've been lucky enough to share our lives with a special horse or two, think of them as our dance partners.
posted by OolooKitty at 9:59 AM on November 4, 2011 [3 favorites]


OolooKitty

See above - I'm well aware that some horses can live longer, nor do I not understand the emotional connection.

I've been present at both ways; instantaneous, when calmly lead to a mounting block when the animal is mentally imaging a last ride is, in my view, preferable to the appearance of peaceful that takes minutes lying down in a stable, struggling for last breaths.

Horses aren't people, and there's a lot to be said for not equating what we perceive as 'calm and comfortable' to how a horse exists qua horse. We can't absolutely know if an animal is suffering, or just unable to show panic because they're paralysed.


I'll disengage now, because I know this is a highly sensitive topic.
posted by Cheradine Zakalwe at 10:11 AM on November 4, 2011


equating the euthanasia of an old animal is nothing like a serial killer creating a fantasy world through necrophilia & death fetishist behaviour, leading ultimately to killing other human beings.

I didn't actually equate the euthanasia of an animal to what Gein was doing, though.

We're getting away from the point, and I clearly was not clear in expressing my own point. Let me try again.

People were up in arms about what she did to the horse. Other people came in and said "but we kill animals to eat them, so what's the big deal?" The first people said, "well, that's....different." The second people were all, "why is it different?"

And I read that, and thought "wait -- maybe the difference is what each of these people did AFTER killing the animal. Maybe there is a difference between 'killing an animal because you want to eat it' and 'killing an animal because you want to do freaky shit to the corpse.' Yeah, there's something about the 'doing freaky shit to a corpse' that just creeps people out, more so than just straightforward killing does."

And then I thought some more and thought, "hey, wait, there is a known instance of a human who did freaky shit to human corpses, and that seemed to creep people out in a similar way. Hey, maybe that's the thing -- maybe there is some sort of universal, subconscious repulsion at the idea of fucking around with a corpse, animal OR human, post-mortem. It's that repulsion at fucking-around-with-the-corpse that would explain why the people who get freaked out by this aren't freaked out by butchers -- because butchers don't fuck around with the corpse post-mortem, and she did. Ah, that explains it."

And then I thought, "since it's the fucking-around-with-the-body-post-mortem that's the issue, and not whether it's an animal vs. a human, let me see if I can remember the name of the guy who fucked around with human corpses post-mortem -- oh, right! Ed Gein."

And then I made the post you all read.

But THAT was my point -- that maybe people aren't up in arms because of her KILLING the animal, what is triggering people's reaction was what she did AFTER killing the horse. I doubt that if she killed it, and then had a solemn ceremony where she buried it with floral wreaths or whatever, we wouldn't have anywhere near the upset here. The fact that she killed the horse may not be what's setting people off -- it is what she did AFTER kiling the horse.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:13 AM on November 4, 2011


EmpressCallipygos: And my point was that the freaky shit she did to the animal after it was killed is no different to the freaky stuff we all do to animals after they're killed. So it can't be that. The Ed Gein revulsion is a different kind of revulsion, so not applicable.

Anyway - I'm away to Leeds soon, but this whole thread has got me thinking about some of the downright awful things I did to animals when I was a child. I'd be horrified if any child I know did anything similar. I quite like my revolted because the animal may be diseased theory, but it strikes me that my current feelings about animals are quite different to my feelings in the early '80s. I don't know how much of that is growing up, and how much of it is cultural.

Interestingly, the cut off point for my cruelty as a child was at outside cats (i.e. cats that you keep outside, which are not pets, who are their to keep rodent numbers down). Inside cats were a no go area, but outside cats were fair game.

There must have been some convoluted thinking going on inside my 11 year old head that allowed me to make that distinction, but for the life of me, I can't remember what it was.
posted by seanyboy at 10:23 AM on November 4, 2011


And my point was that the freaky shit she did to the animal after it was killed is no different to the freaky stuff we all do to animals after they're killed.

....In what way?

Do you think that what a wolf does to a rabbit is "freaky"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:33 AM on November 4, 2011


Hey, I'm going to kill this deer, and then flay it. Then I'm going to take the flayed skin, and soak it in urine for a while to get the hair off. Then I'll take that deer's own brains and smear them all over its skin, and let that soak in for a while, maybe gently kneading it. Then I'm going to take this leather and wear it on my feet. I feel this process is very respectful to the deer.
posted by Pyry at 10:48 AM on November 4, 2011


*throws up hands*

Okay, fine. If you think that 5,000 years of human survival tactics were morally reprehensible, I don't know what more to say.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:55 AM on November 4, 2011


Horses aren't people, and there's a lot to be said for not equating what we perceive as 'calm and comfortable' to how a horse exists qua horse. We can't absolutely know if an animal is suffering, or just unable to show panic because they're paralysed.

First, I hope I didn't come off as though I'm attacking you or your views, because I do get what you're saying.

As far as my own experience, I know my horse didn't suffer. He was there, he was gone. And up until that moment, he was eating doughnuts. It was the best-case scenario and I'm happy that it wasn't one of the more horrific experiences that you're talking about and that I'm certainly aware exist. What upsets me about the subject of the story is that this is a horse that worked with someone for thirty years and that she apparently had no respect for that relationship.
posted by OolooKitty at 11:05 AM on November 4, 2011


Morally reprehensible? No. But let's not pretend that the leather making process preserves the animal's dignity. How about 'lambskin' (actually lamb intestines) condoms? Between someone climbing in my corpse, and someone using it as a contraceptive, I know which one I think is more respectful.
posted by Pyry at 11:31 AM on November 4, 2011


Morally reprehensible? No. But let's not pretend that the leather making process preserves the animal's dignity.

Well, by the logic you're using, cotton fabric is also an indignity because it involves doing weird shit to something that was once part of a living being.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:43 AM on November 4, 2011


And, quite honestly, you're also coming across like you're trying to be deliberately obtuse.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:51 AM on November 4, 2011


Ok, I'll be plain. I don't think the 'argument from dignity' works against climbing in horse corpses, because there are so many less dignified/respectful things that we condone doing to animal corpses, special pleading for why those things are 'ok' notwithstanding. I don't think an argument from animal welfare works either, unless you're against killing animals in general (which is a consistent position). I understand the 'ick' factor, but that's about the only thing approaching an objection I can raise.
posted by Pyry at 12:36 PM on November 4, 2011


I understand the 'ick' factor, but that's about the only thing approaching an objection I can raise.

I see where the confusion is -- the "argument from dignity" was my own attempt to locate a source FOR that "ick factor" you are seeing.

Maybe I simply phrased it wrong -- what I'm getting at is, there is some intrinsic difference between "I am doing weird things to this corpse because I am going to eat it/tan it/process it/use the bits as some kind of resource" and "i'm doing weird things to this corpse just.....because". There's a disrespect I see in that "i'm doing this just because", and that's what I was getting at; the people who do leather tanning and what-not probably, if you asked them, would say "yeah, I guess the stuff I'm doing is freaky if you look at it a certain way, but...unfortunately, there's no other way to tan hides/make sausage/whatever, so...not much you can do about it." Whereas the people who are just fucking around give more of a sense of, "yeah, I'm wearing the rib cage of a dog as a hat, so what?"

It's that "so what" that I was referring to as "disrespect," which looks like it somehow got translated into "an appeal to dignity", and maybe that was a poor word choice on my part. But that was what I was getting at -- that the "ick factor" you're seeing may be more attitudinal than it is actional.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:49 PM on November 4, 2011


if you're eating meat, you're doing it just because. There's no reason to eat meat and loads not to.
posted by seanyboy at 2:08 PM on November 4, 2011


"Because it tastes great" seems like a reason to me.
posted by Justinian at 3:47 PM on November 4, 2011


Me too Justinian. But my belief is meat eating is a recreational activity. Not that its wrong.
posted by seanyboy at 4:11 PM on November 4, 2011


Please give a citation - vets do it because owners demand it, not because it is easier on the horse (it also gives more fees, but that's a side consideration). Scroll up for my link to how lethal injections for humans produce pain & suffering - please explain why it is any different for a horse.

Cite, different drugs and different methods are used in animal euthanasia than in human lethal injection. You have a rather cynical view of veterinarians. I do agree with Uniformitarianism Now!'s assertion that a WELL PLACED bullet/captive bolt to the head can be perfectly humane (I doubt that this is what happened in this case, however, since skill and training is required, and I still am disgusted by the ex-owner's abdication of responsibility in this horse's last moments). And in answer to your other query, I have owned two horses, leased several others, and have been an avid horsewoman since I was seven years old. I have assisted in the euthanasia of several horses (along with a large number of small animals).
posted by biscotti at 5:12 PM on November 4, 2011


if you're eating meat, you're doing it just because.

Do you also take issue with wolves for eating meat?....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:41 PM on November 4, 2011


I am trying really hard to understand how an inanimate object can have dignity, and iI am failing.

The closest I can get is that some people mat have some kind of attachment to certain objects, and doing certain things to those objects may hurt those people's dignities.
posted by Ayn Rand and God at 5:51 PM on November 4, 2011


I don't take issue with anything eating meat. As sentient omnivores though, I would argue that people do it for fun / pleasure.
posted by seanyboy at 6:02 PM on November 4, 2011


I have hunch it's not so much that she killed the horse in and of itself; it was going to be euthanized. Also, not that she cut it to pieces; we do cut food animals to pieces. But we don't do so in order to....play with them.
Isn't cooking and eating something essentially 'playing' with it? Or there's lady gaga's meat dress. Ultimately people don't eat meat because they need it to survive, but rather for pleasure. They just like the way it tastes.
Not that everyone in meat packing plants is rending their garments when they go home, it's just that people don't really....fuck around while they're doing it, or if they do, it's a very quick, subtle, whistling-past-the-graveyard thing that they keep private to a trusted friend and then they go back to work.
Huh? You know this because you've spent a lot of time at meat-packing plants? From what I've heard people get desensitized and so sometimes play with the animals. People throw chickens up against walls. That kind of thing.
And I read that, and thought "wait -- maybe the difference is what each of these people did AFTER killing the animal. Maybe there is a difference between 'killing an animal because you want to eat it' and 'killing an animal because you want to do freaky shit to the corpse.' Yeah, there's something about the 'doing freaky shit to a corpse' that just creeps people out, more so than just straightforward killing does."

And then I thought some more and thought, "hey, wait, there is a known instance of a human who did freaky shit to human corpses, and that seemed to creep people out in a similar way.
Well, the problem here is: What difference does it make if it creeped people out? Lots of things creep people out, it's not a reliable guide to morality. The question is whether or not this was within the bounds of what's creepy but not immoral. I'm not hearing a good answer exactly.
And then I thought some more and thought, "hey, wait, there is a known instance of a human who did freaky shit to human corpses, and that seemed to creep people out in a similar way. Hey, maybe that's the thing -- maybe there is some sort of universal, subconscious repulsion at the idea of fucking around with a corpse, animal OR human, post-mortem.
Well, generally we consider murder and cannibalism as reprehensible, even though killing and eating animals isn't. So obviously there's a different moral reaction to things done to humans and things done to non-humans.
posted by delmoi at 6:05 PM on November 4, 2011


Either I don't make sense in what I write or you've not read anything I've written up to this point delmoi
posted by seanyboy at 6:15 PM on November 4, 2011


« Older Osaka Station City has a digital clock (yt) which ...  |  In 1987 the first Castlevania ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments