Why should dolphins get all the fun?
July 21, 2005 5:42 PM   Subscribe

Seattle man dead after having sex with a horse. But that's not all of it: The horse was the active party, and the man was passive. However, it wasn't rape; as Dan Savage puts it, this took place at an alleged "bestiality brothel". While Washington State doesn't outlaw Bestiality, investigators are examining whether or not animal cruelty occurred in forcing smaller, weaker animals to have sex with people. [via SLOG]
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me (127 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
So, like, was the horse hung like a....
posted by jonmc at 5:53 PM on July 21, 2005


The Humane Society of the United States intends to use the case during the next state legislative session as an example of why sex with animals should be outlawed in Washington

While I think that having bestiality on the books as illegal isn't necessarily a bad thing as it would be helpful in prosecuting "people" who abuse animals. However, I don't know why, exactly, I'm upset that they want to use this as a reason why it should be illegal.

I say, go Darwin!

/love the new "Live Preview"
//the guy wouldn't have been in this stinking mess if he had just used lube...
posted by PurplePorpoise at 5:54 PM on July 21, 2005


PurplePorpoise: "I say, go Darwin!"

All that really needs to be said here.
posted by moonbird at 5:56 PM on July 21, 2005


Ick!
posted by alumshubby at 5:57 PM on July 21, 2005


Thirty-three states outlaw bestiality? I'm guessing a good portion of the south isn't included in that statistic.

That and damn. Just damn. And ow.
posted by fenriq at 5:59 PM on July 21, 2005


There was a story recently about how well the newspaper handled it -- they were very delicate about it and the small town and the guy's neighbors praised how well the Seattle paper treated everyone with respect involved.

Apparently the guy's whole farm was essentially setup as a vacation beastiality place, if I remember correctly.
posted by mathowie at 6:00 PM on July 21, 2005


...more like "I say, giddyap Darwin!", no?
posted by Zack_Replica at 6:00 PM on July 21, 2005


Neigh means neigh, dammit. I've been to Enumclaw. Not the most propitious name for a town to build a bestiality brothel.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:04 PM on July 21, 2005


And I should clarify that by "I've been to Enumclaw," I mean I was driving through. I didn't stop to horse around. I was too chicken. And I would have had a cow.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:06 PM on July 21, 2005


I'm guessing a good portion of the south isn't included in that statistic.

HAHAHA RIGHT BECAUSE WE ALL FUCK ANIMALS DOWN HERE HAHAHAHA!!1!1 Or...were you trying to make some other point that wasn't another tired joke about the South?
posted by sklero at 6:06 PM on July 21, 2005


And, to be fair, Enumclaw, WA isn't terribly Southwards.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 6:09 PM on July 21, 2005


Well I was going to rabbit on about "suuure you've only been through Eunumclaw, realcountrymusic, but decided that that would've been pigheaded. I haven't been here long, and don't want to get a reputation for getting catty. Maybe I should stop now, instead of dogging the issue? *sighs*
posted by Zack_Replica at 6:14 PM on July 21, 2005


(should've put closing quotes in there after Eunumclaw, too. argh)
posted by Zack_Replica at 6:16 PM on July 21, 2005


I was driving through. I didn't stop to horse around. I was too chicken. And I would have had a cow.

You're a real turkey. Quit ducking the issue.
posted by jonmc at 6:19 PM on July 21, 2005


See? That's why we need a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage now -- because next thing you know, guys will be showing up at the altar with Mr. Ed, matching feedbags and all.
posted by digaman at 6:19 PM on July 21, 2005


sklero, I refer you this article excerpting the Hannity and Colmes radio show from May 5, 2005, in which Neal Horsely, self-described Georgian, said, and I quote:

"When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

Mr. Horsely (... yeah) did not exempt himself from this statement, but it was made more broadly.

Any number of sites will collaborate this; just google the money quote. Or fire up lexis, or order a transcript from Fox.
posted by rkent at 6:19 PM on July 21, 2005


guys will be showing up at the altar with Mr. Ed, matching feedbags and all

Over willlburr's deaad booody.
posted by jonmc at 6:21 PM on July 21, 2005


I find it humorous that today on the blue, we have this story here about a man who died fucking a horse and people want to make the act illegal AND a story about people being killed for having illegal homosexual sex.

When is the West going to realize that we have our own stupid sex taboos and should stop laughing at the backwards state of the rest of the world?
posted by pwb503 at 6:21 PM on July 21, 2005


Geez, those puns were absolutely beastly...

Really...
posted by Samizdata at 6:21 PM on July 21, 2005


WA isn't West Alabama? Oh. Nevermind.

Not to change the subject but what's going to happen to the horse? Aside from a book deal and guest spots on Oprah?
posted by fenriq at 6:23 PM on July 21, 2005


Sexual contact with animals is legal (or at least not expressly outlawed) in these U.S. states:

•Alaska
•Arizona
•Colorado
•Connecticut
•Florida
•Hawaii
•Kentucky
•Louisiana
•Nebraska
•Nevada
•New Hampshire
•New Jersey
•New Mexico
•Ohio
•South Dakota
•Texas
•Vermont
•Washington (bill is being introduced 2005)
•West Virginia
•Wyoming

Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas and W. Va. sklero, I think you need to STFU and call the Governor's office. Some of those are blue states, but it's probably only the pet-loving queers that are taking advantage of the 'loopholes' (snicker) there...
posted by vhsiv at 6:24 PM on July 21, 2005


Not to change the subject but what's going to happen to the horse? Aside from a book deal

I'm gonna try to get work transcribing the hoof taps, myself.
posted by jonmc at 6:24 PM on July 21, 2005


Not to change the subject but what's going to happen to the horse?

I dunno, but I bet he won't get laid nearly as often now.
posted by graventy at 6:35 PM on July 21, 2005


Florida's capital has been "entertained" recently by the story of a blind man who was busted for having sex with his seeing eye dog. His girlfriend dropped a dime on him when he suggested a threesome.

The dog's name? Lucky. (I'm not making this up.)
posted by rdone at 6:36 PM on July 21, 2005


Not to change the subject but what's going to happen to the horse?

I understand he's been handed a permanent day pass by Scott McClellan.
posted by maryh at 6:40 PM on July 21, 2005


Dammit, California is not on the list. My dreams of turning the Ranch into a Bestial Paradise have just been crushed. Thanks for nuthin'!
posted by snsranch at 6:50 PM on July 21, 2005


All jokes aside, and some of them have been funny, this is a sad story. Sad for the dead guy, his family, and the animals. The thing that gets me is this quote from the news story:

Police are also investigating the farm and the two men who live on the property to determine whether animal cruelty — which is a crime — was committed by forcing sex on smaller, weaker animals.

So, if the animal is bigger than you, like a horse, it is not animal cruelty? Does that mean the sex was consensual? The horse wanted to do it? Then can't "smaller, weaker" animals consent? This is weird.

Also, what sklero said.
posted by marxchivist at 6:50 PM on July 21, 2005


Out of the list of states where animal-man love is legal, what % voted for Bush?
posted by docgonzo at 6:55 PM on July 21, 2005


You see, down in Texas you are only allowed to have sex with animals of the *opposite* sex. Big difference.

Gosh, I feel a little sheepish.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:56 PM on July 21, 2005


It is weird - it seems to me that opposition to bestiality has to come from concerns about animal cruelty, human morality and social acceptability... bringing "consent" into it raises a lot of difficult questions, not least why we don't also have to ask animals for "consent" before we "murder" them.

(IANA Vegetarian)
posted by Jimbob at 6:57 PM on July 21, 2005


Out of the list of states where animal-man love is legal, what % voted for Bush?
posted by docgonzo at 6:55 PM PST on July 21 [!]


Hmmm. Very very sphincteresting.
posted by snsranch at 7:02 PM on July 21, 2005


When is the West going to realize that we have our own stupid sex taboos and should stop laughing at the backwards state of the rest of the world?

Maybe I'm missing the joke and being anal here, but to clear it up just in case: a guy dying by mistake while voluntarily engaging in horse-fucking is very very very different from the state executing people for engaging in consensual homosexual sex.

this is a sad story.

Well, if tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die, this story is much closer to comedy.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:09 PM on July 21, 2005


Sure someone could TRY to have a serious discussion about this, but WHY? Is there really anything to be learned here, aside from keep horses away from your ass?
posted by snsranch at 7:11 PM on July 21, 2005


Stop horsing around.
I'm feeling horse.
Don't check a gift horse in the . . .
That's putting the cart before the horse.
Jockeying for position.
Horse-you's.
Horse-use.
Horsted by your own petards.
posted by swift at 7:14 PM on July 21, 2005


sklero, what? We aren't supposed to make jokes about the south? But then we'd just become a bunch of humorless, sanctimonious blowhards disagreeing with each other. Making fun of the south is the only thing we all agree on.
posted by oddman at 7:17 PM on July 21, 2005


Also

Horsetishire sauce.
Semenbiscuit.
Poney up.
Let's get this Doug and pony show on the road.
posted by swift at 7:24 PM on July 21, 2005


swift: Also, "I'd horsewhip you, if I had a horse" - Groucho Marx.
posted by Zack_Replica at 7:26 PM on July 21, 2005


No, it's cool to make fun of fat people too.
posted by keswick at 7:27 PM on July 21, 2005


I can't take any more of this bull.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:29 PM on July 21, 2005


Sexual contact with animals is legal (or at least not expressly outlawed) in these U.S. states

It's hard for me to trust a guy who can come up with the whole list *that* quickly.
posted by clevershark at 7:32 PM on July 21, 2005


snsranch, I think that "keep horses away from your ass" - specifically their monstrous cocks - is the most pertinent lesson to be learned here.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 7:32 PM on July 21, 2005


fenriq writes "what's going to happen to the horse?"

I see dogs, cats, and construction paper in Mr. Ed's future.
posted by clevershark at 7:33 PM on July 21, 2005


Gosh, I feel a little sheepish.

Baa-aa-aa-ad man.

I did blow a seal once, just for the halibut. I otter have known better.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:34 PM on July 21, 2005


A friend of mine sent me a link to a movie with a re-enactment of the FPP. I won't link to it but if you Google for "deep thrusts" it might show up.

I thought I was pretty hardened but even I thought it was pretty painful. Still don't know for sure it was a fake, although I do hope so.
posted by kika at 7:37 PM on July 21, 2005


FWIW this is definitely more comedy than tragedy. I don't think anyone who pays money to get a horse-cock up his butt qualified as a tragic hero in any sense of the expression.
posted by clevershark at 7:38 PM on July 21, 2005


kika -- so THAT's what happened to the g**tse guy!
posted by clevershark at 7:39 PM on July 21, 2005


I think I'm going to take the bull by the horns and say I don't want to Google for "deep thrusts".
posted by Zack_Replica at 7:44 PM on July 21, 2005 [1 favorite]


"So, like, was the horse hung like a...."

Thread over.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:47 PM on July 21, 2005


I did blow a seal once, just for the halibut. I otter have known better.

Once upon a time I knew these two wahles. They came upon a boat and one said "Let's blow water through through our blowholes and make that boat capsize!" "Sure." The other said. And they did, and all the sailors ran for the life boats. "Let's eat those sailors in the lifeboats," the first one said. "Hey," the second one said, "I give blow jobs but I don't swallow seamen."
posted by jonmc at 7:49 PM on July 21, 2005


I don't want to Google for "deep thrusts".

Searching for deep thrusts is all I ever do.
posted by swift at 7:49 PM on July 21, 2005


Metafilter: Thread over.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:51 PM on July 21, 2005


Hey -- according to the main article, not only did he pay to let the horse have his way with him, he actually BOUGHT it -- and apparently, it was a thoroughbred! (Man, that sounds like a pun...)

I'm sort of torn -- I mean, it is an obviously tragic story, but the middle-schooler in me is laughing his head off. It's that one Onion article from a long time ago about the bear raping the zookeeper that's written as a standard "Wacky Animal" story.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 8:05 PM on July 21, 2005


Dear Penthouse:

I never thought I'd be writing you, but this hOOOMIGOD AAAAAAARRRRGHHGHGHHGHGHGHHHHHH
posted by soyjoy at 8:05 PM on July 21, 2005


Rev. Syung Myung Me writes "I'm sort of torn"

OK, the Rev. wins this thread. Of course his comment might ruffle a few feathers...
posted by clevershark at 8:14 PM on July 21, 2005


*snarfs soda*. Hah! Yay soyjoy.
posted by Zack_Replica at 8:15 PM on July 21, 2005


snsranch writes "aside from keep horses away from your ass?"

Unless your trying to breed mules.
posted by Mitheral at 8:27 PM on July 21, 2005


I just want to point out that the google ad at the top of this page was, for me, "Wild for Wildlife?". All I can say is: This guy sure was.
posted by Justinian at 8:32 PM on July 21, 2005


Rev. Syung Myung Me >>> "However, it wasn't rape"

How is that? Rape is sex without consent, is it not? Are animals capable of forming consent? Surely not.

As for the eating meat issue... animals eat other animals. That is what they do. Since (apart from a very few other species) we seem to be the only animals that have sex for fun, maybe there's just a little bit of a difference there? Your horny puppy notwithstanding, I'm unaware of any animals (of the sex-for-fun variety) who use other species for sexual gratification.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:38 PM on July 21, 2005


Metafilter: Your horny puppy notwithstanding
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:44 PM on July 21, 2005


I admit, it is a weird construct, but I meant that it wasn't rape in that it was the horse taking the more active role, to phrase it delicately, and that the man was willing.

It's strange and bizarre, but I think the reason why we don't have bestiality laws in this state, but where animal cruelty might apply to the smaller animals is under the thought that if a larger animal (i.e. a horse) didn't want someone having sex with it, they could easily kick and fight off the predator, so not fighting implies consent. Which is admittedly odd and I don't buy it, but as far as I can tell, that's the reasoning. A horse can fight back, so it's legal if the horse lets you, but you could restrain a chicken and force yourself upon it, so that's illegal as cruelty.

But yeah -- the "it wasn't rape" is a bit flip and the correctness of the statement is arguable. I should have written that a bit better; sorry for that.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 8:46 PM on July 21, 2005


Sure, yak it up. This is hilarious. I ain't lion.

Oh deer, now I've gone and made a terrible moose of this all.
posted by birdsquared at 8:48 PM on July 21, 2005


It should perhaps be pointed out that many of the same states that allow bestiality, including Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, and Ohio, have also passed laws banning same-sex marriage. New Mexico statutes indicate that marriage can only take place between a "Bride" and a "Groom", while Arizona is expected to pass a law against same-sex marriage in 2006.

So go ahead! Screw the pooch! Blow goats! Just don't marry the person you love.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:57 PM on July 21, 2005


I wonder what his funeral will be like?

I don't know if you can force an animal to have sex if it doesn't want to and its the thruster. Thrustee is a whole other thing. But thruster means that horse wasn't really putting up too many complaints.

And you never know, he could feel really awful about this.
posted by fenriq at 9:02 PM on July 21, 2005


mr_crash_davis >>> "Metafilter: Your horny puppy notwithstanding"

Sweet! I've been tagged!


Rev. Syung Myung Me >>> "I admit, it is a weird construct, but I meant that it wasn't rape in that it was the horse taking the more active role, to phrase it delicately, and that the man was willing."

So, a rapist can only be a rapist if they're doing the penetrating? One can't, for example, tie a man down and force him to penetrate you without his consent? Women can't rape other women?

This man had sex with a being which was unable to form consent. That is rape. What you're saying is that because the person in control was willing, it wasn't rape. This must be a relief to the thousands of convicted rapists incarcerated worldwide, and should provide years of courts clogged with appeals. "But Your Honour, I was willing! It therefore wasn't rape!"
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:04 PM on July 21, 2005


dirtynumbbangelboy, its not strictly consensual sex but since the getter is willing and the horse didn't seem to be complaining.
posted by fenriq at 9:06 PM on July 21, 2005


I've seen the "Deep Thrusts" clip. A cursory google search (NSFW) makes it clear it was filmed well before this newsmaking event, but from the look (and sound) of it, the guy in the video had to have sustained a bunch of internal injury. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but an "intrusion" of, oh, two and a half feet of pony baloney had to have gone past the top end of that guy's large intestine. Humans are just amazing to watch.
posted by gregor-e at 9:09 PM on July 21, 2005


damn, posted when I meant to preview.

anyway, assuming the horse wasn't given boner injections to screw the guy, it isn't hard to imagine the horse didn't mind very much at all.

Who knows, maybe the horse is even gay and doesn't like girl horses or even girl humans?
posted by fenriq at 9:10 PM on July 21, 2005


"If it weren't for that horse, I would have
never made it to college" - Lewis Black

I finally understand!!!
posted by zerokey at 9:17 PM on July 21, 2005


clevershark - ... qualified as a tragic hero in any sense of the expression.


Exactly - graduate students are tragic heroes. Horse fuckers fuck recipients are just horse-fuck recipients.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:18 PM on July 21, 2005


I'm not really sure I understand you; I admit that I erred in my post phrasing, but I'm not quite sure I follow. I understand/realize that both of your human examples are both rape and do happen (unfortunately), and I understand your point about how he had sex with a being that was unable to form consent, and that's rape as well, and I do agree (as I said, the FPP was poorly-worded on my part), although I don't understand your last comment. The rapist is obviously willing -- if they weren't, they wouldn't be raping anyone. I think your conclusion is a little flip, though -- but it's in response to a flip comment, so I suppose it fits.

Anyway, though -- I'm sorry about that, and I phrased it poorly; the entire sub is awfully flip for a death and an instance of sexual abuse.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 9:21 PM on July 21, 2005


"Out of the list of states where animal-man love is legal, what % voted for Bush?"

I did a quick electoral vote count.

Bush - 154
Kerry - 44

So, obviously there's a strong correlation here between Republican strongholds and states which support bestiality.

Then again, if you were married to some of those Republican women out there, your pets might start to look pretty good...
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:25 PM on July 21, 2005


Why should it be illegal to have a little fawn? Even if a pimp makes a few bucks off it. He's entitled to a little doe.
posted by faceonmars at 9:30 PM on July 21, 2005


Metafilter: pony baloney

No? OK.
posted by danb at 9:31 PM on July 21, 2005


"If it weren't for that horse, I would have never made it to college" - Lewis Black

I finally understand!!!


Goddamn, now my sides hurt. I just listened to that CD today too.

(and its "If it weren’t for my horse, I wouldn’t have spent that year in college.
posted by SirOmega at 9:31 PM on July 21, 2005


Do not have sex with horses. Seriously, don't.
posted by Tlogmer at 9:41 PM on July 21, 2005


You and you - this is why I suggested not getting tangled up in the issue of "consent". Because you are left with two options:

(a) Animals are capable of giving consent. In which case bestiality is okay and doesn't have to be considered rape.
(b) Animals aren't capable of giving consent. They aren't "consenting" even when mating with their own species, it's all just a natural, "animal instinct" event where the animal is non-sentient. In which case bestiality is okay because it makes no difference to the animal either way.

Much better to look at it in terms of actual harm done to the animals.
posted by Jimbob at 9:59 PM on July 21, 2005


Uhh... when animals are mating with their own species, it's procreation, not recreation. Consent under those circumstances isn't even a concept that applies.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:10 PM on July 21, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy - there are, in fact, animals other than man that have sex with other species for pleasure. Lots of 'em. Honest. I can find you quite a bit of data on this if you like.
posted by kyrademon at 10:24 PM on July 21, 2005


Actually bonobo monkeys, for one, do have sex for all sorts of social reasons, and have quite varied forms of sex too.

Dolphins (what is it about dolphins that they should come up here so often?) are known to knowingly engage in homosexual acts on occasion, so it's obviously not purely for mating.
posted by clevershark at 10:24 PM on July 21, 2005


ooh, lookie, i found a picture of the horsie
posted by pyramid termite at 10:33 PM on July 21, 2005


Incidentally, those who bother to make the distinction usually refer to the rape of an animal as bestiality, and consensual sex with an animal as zoophilia. The general idea is that if an animal wants to have sex with you and makes this clearly evident (say, by thrusting its penis repeatedly at your butt), it's consenting and therefore this isn't rape.

Personally, I think this is fine when applied to wild animals, but with an owned animal, a pet, or an animal that has been specifically trained for such purposes, it smacks of sexual slavery to me. Considering the intelligence of the creatures involved, it even seems equivalent to child sexual slavery - sure, they might even be having a good time, but they are held captive and are being used. I've heard it argued that, unlike children, they won't experience psychological damage from it, since they will never mature past animal intelligence, but I guess I'm prudish enough not to like such a vast power imbalance in my sexual relationships.

Still, if a horny wild dolphin ever hits on me, as apparently sometimes happens, I can't see the harm in having a fling with one if I'm sensible about and neither of us gets physically hurt.
posted by kyrademon at 10:36 PM on July 21, 2005


Going waaaay back to the beginning of this thread...

mathowie: There was a story recently about how well the newspaper handled it -- they were very delicate about it and the small town and the guy's neighbors praised how well the Seattle paper treated everyone with respect involved.

Here's the article. Definitely worth reading...for such a bizarre and disturbing incident, it really was handled well.

Also, I'd like to thank many of you for making this thread much funnier than it probably has any right being. The puns have been greatly appreciated.

clevershark: (what is it about dolphins that they should come up here so often?)

Confucius say, "Man who rides dolphins does it on porpoise."
posted by djwudi at 10:46 PM on July 21, 2005 [1 favorite]


kyrademon: Still, if a horny wild dolphin ever hits on me, as apparently sometimes happens, I can't see the harm in having a fling with one if I'm sensible about and neither of us gets physically hurt.

From Zoophile.net: Dolphins: FAQ on mating:
WARNING! In the considerations of safety, you should NEVER let a male dolphin attempt anal sex with you. The Bottle-nose dolphin member is around 12 inches, very muscular, and the thrusting and the force of ejaculation (A male can come as far as 14 feet) would cause serious internal injuries, resulting in peritonitus and possible death. Unless you are the masochistic type, you will have a hard time explaining your predicament to the doctors in the emergency ward...do not try to give full throat, and get the hell out of the way before he ejaculates! A male dolphin could snap your neck in a accidental thrust, and that would be the end of that relationship.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea why this was in my head, but I remembered seeing something about "dolphin thrust" in a link recently, and googling that came up with this page. I don't remember where I saw that or in what context -- for all I know, it was MeFi, and I'm just about to end up looking like a [sick, perverted] dipshit.)
posted by djwudi at 10:52 PM on July 21, 2005


I am aware of the difficulties, djwudi. I have been assured that a handjob is the method of choice to use with male dolphins.
posted by kyrademon at 11:01 PM on July 21, 2005


djwudi writes "I have no idea why this was in my head"

Wasn't this document put up on the front page yesterday?
posted by clevershark at 11:02 PM on July 21, 2005


The guy must have been feeling more than a little hoarse…
posted by misteraitch at 11:44 PM on July 21, 2005


dang it, if it weren't for the perforation and consequent death part, this post would be so DAMN HAWT!!!

oh, sorry, i mean, that horse was totally raped backwards. poor horsie.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 1:42 AM on July 22, 2005


I wondered why people had stopped asking #1 for a pony over in MetaTalk...
posted by Pinback at 2:42 AM on July 22, 2005


kyrademon: dolphins don't have hands.
posted by biffa at 3:11 AM on July 22, 2005


clevershark : "It's hard for me to trust a guy who can come up with the whole list *that* quickly."

You don't trust people who click the fourth link in the FPP?

dirtynumbangelboy : "Are animals capable of forming consent? Surely not."

Umm...animals have been having sex for quite a while now. I think the "capable of consent" hurdle was crossed by the Cambrian era, 592 million years ago.

dirtynumbangelboy : "This man had sex with a being which was unable to form consent."

Begging the question.

insomnia_lj : "So, obviously there's a strong correlation here between Republican strongholds and states which support bestiality."

Depends how you spin the logic. Japan had legal shrooms until 2002, largely because they weren't popular, and therefore weren't worth passing new legislation over, until they started becoming popular around 2000 or so. So one could just as easily say that there's a correlation between Democratic strongholds and states with significant enough bestiality problems to pass legislation prohibiting it.

(Note: IAALiberal)

Speaking of which: if a horse violates someone that's unwilling, does dirtynumbangelboy's logic indicate that they are raping eachother? Are they both victims, or both aggressors, or what? Do those cancel out?
posted by Bugbread at 5:34 AM on July 22, 2005


if a horse violates someone that's unwilling, does dirtynumbangelboy's logic indicate that they are raping eachother? Are they both victims, or both aggressors, or what?

See "Lust" from Se7en.

Poor Leland Orser. All the time with being Crazy Traumatized Dude or Dude With A Monster In Him or Dude With A Giant Freaky Wound In His Neck
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:09 AM on July 22, 2005


So, obviously there's a strong correlation here between Republican strongholds and states which support bestiality.

Just counting states, it's 14-5 in favor of Republican states. Figures that New Hampshire would be a Democrat beastiality hold-out. A little confused about New Jersey, though.

Also...

14 ft. !

That's crazy!!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:31 AM on July 22, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy: Women can't rape other women

Let's say one man (A) anally penetrated another (B). There was no gun to either head, neither were tied up, and both could leave at any point.

You might be able to see man A raped man B (for example, if man B said "no" but didn't refuse), but I don't see how you could possibly say man B raped man A in this situation.

(Ya know, since we're using human analogies and what not)
posted by null terminated at 8:32 AM on July 22, 2005


thanks dirtynumbangelboy, for calling people on their essentialism about rape. rape is now defined mainly by who penetrates who? uhhhh, no. try again.
posted by ifjuly at 8:51 AM on July 22, 2005


I'm unaware of any animals (of the sex-for-fun variety) who use other species for sexual gratification.

um, dog humping your leg?

that said, however, the forming of consent is a prerequisite in determining ABUSE ("rape" not really being the correct word). in other words, there is a possibility that the animals on the farm--however willing to consummate the act--are being put in a situation of abuse.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:07 AM on July 22, 2005


oh, and btw: FIVE feet long, the horse's shlong? Surely a specimen with this endowment would be the john holmes of horses?

anyone? or are we just beating off a dead horse here.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:12 AM on July 22, 2005


bugbread >>> "dirtynumbangelboy : 'Are animals capable of forming consent? Surely not.'

"Umm...animals have been having sex for quite a while now. I think the 'capable of consent' hurdle was crossed by the Cambrian era, 592 million years ago.


Again, you're rather missing the point of procreation versus recreation. Procreative reproduction amongst (non-human) animals doesn't require any sort of consent; the entire concept of consent doesn't even apply.


"dirtynumbangelboy : 'This man had sex with a being which was unable to form consent.'

"Begging the question."


Really? Explain to me, please, how a horse is able to form consent for a sexual act with a human being. Oh, you can't? That's what I thought.


null terminated writes "dirtynumbangelboy: Women can't rape other women

"Let's say one man (A) anally penetrated another (B). There was no gun to either head, neither were tied up, and both could leave at any point.

"You might be able to see man A raped man B (for example, if man B said 'no' but didn't refuse), but I don't see how you could possibly say man B raped man A in this situation.

"(Ya know, since we're using human analogies and what not)"


And what if man A said no but didn't refuse? Is that not rape? What if B is, say, significantly stronger than A, holds him down and forces the penetration? Isn't that rape? Let's clarify again, shall we? Rape is having sex with someone without their consent. Who penetrates whom is utterly, utterly unimportant.

gorgor_balabala writes "I'm unaware of any animals (of the sex-for-fun variety) who use other species for sexual gratification.

"um, dog humping your leg?

"that said, however, the forming of consent is a prerequisite in determining ABUSE ('rape' not really being the correct word). in other words, there is a possibility that the animals on the farm--however willing to consummate the act--are being put in a situation of abuse."


Re-read what I posted. I mentioned the horny puppy humping your leg, thank you. Abuse/rape, where's the difference? There's no consent, it's still sexual assault.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:25 AM on July 22, 2005


*singing*

Aaaaa corpse is a corpse, of course of course
And this corpse is impaled on a talking horse
The well-hung horse who made him a corpse
Is the faaaaamous Miiiister Ed!

I'm here all week. Try the buffet!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:44 AM on July 22, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy : "Procreative reproduction amongst (non-human) animals doesn't require any sort of consent; the entire concept of consent doesn't even apply."

Well, first you defined rape as "sex without consent". You've later taken to defining sex as different than procreative reproduction (though I wonder how you would phrase the situation of animals who have homosexual sex, which is neither procreative nor reproductive). Regardless, I understand the difference between recreation and procreation, but, as far as I am aware, that difference is not one involved in the definition of rape. If a man has procreative reproductive sex with the sole goal of creating a baby, even though the woman does not want to have procreative reproduction, it is still considered "rape". Rape is not decided based on whether one party wants to make a baby or is doing it for fun. The issue is "consent", and I don't see any evidence that animals are incapable of consenting.

dirtynumbangelboy : "Explain to me, please, how a horse is able to form consent for a sexual act with a human being. Oh, you can't?"

By voluntarily performing a sexual act. There, I did.
posted by Bugbread at 10:45 AM on July 22, 2005


No, you didn't. Consent necessarily includes the ability to understand the act. If children can't consent to sex, how can animals?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:55 AM on July 22, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy : "If children can't consent to sex, how can animals?"

By understanding the act?
posted by Bugbread at 10:58 AM on July 22, 2005


dnab, what certifies "understanding" the act?
posted by Wolfdog at 11:19 AM on July 22, 2005


Hello. First-time caller, long-time listener.

Re: procreation/recreation-- Cecil Adam's says "As for your second question[Also, do animals ever do it for fun?], we must point out that, scientifically speaking, animals always do it for fun. The only critters who do it because they have to are Catholics."

Sure, the drive to have sex is partially linked to the survival of any species, but human's are the only ones who procreate on purpose, everyone else is just getting a nut.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_064b.html


Hooray! My first MeFi post!
posted by Jesse H Christ at 11:29 AM on July 22, 2005


dirtynumbnuts: the animal doesn't have to understand it...the need to understand is eclipsed by its voluntary participation. now, where there is coercion, that requires the understanding of humans who may judge each other's actions. the rest is endless speculation... without investigating the men who run that farm, we could go at it until the horse is mixed homogeneously with the soil of the ground it once hoofed in ecstasy.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 1:05 PM on July 22, 2005


Related news.
posted by brain_drain at 2:32 PM on July 22, 2005


please, dirtynumbangelboy, go find yourself a pleasant, consenting sex partner, and get yourself some sex. please.

Sheesh. I'm guessing a horny horse (much like many horny humans) doesn't really care where its penis goes as long as it feels good. It's a frickin' horse, not an intellectual reasoning thinker!

The horses "thoughts" probably come down to something like this: "Feels good around dangly thing? Thrust until orgasm!!" Sort of like "Belly empty, oats tasty, eat til belly full."

*shakes head*
posted by zoogleplex at 2:35 PM on July 22, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy:

If an animal, not trained to do so, initiates an attempt to mate an animal of another species, for pleasure, there is simply no way to claim the animal is being raped.

Since this happens, case closed.
posted by -harlequin- at 2:48 PM on July 22, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy:

You say it's rape when legally it is not, then claim it is morally rape by pointing to legalities such as how in your particular society there are age-of-consent laws that legally invalidate a child's consent.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you have a definition of rape that differs from English, and animal sex is defined into that definition.

Well, ok then. But it's safe to say that, speaking in English, beastiality does not necessarily involve rape.
posted by -harlequin- at 2:55 PM on July 22, 2005


(Actually, to be safe, I should change that to "Speaking in English, sex between species does not necessarily involve rape", as "beastiality" might have connotations I'm unaware of.)
posted by -harlequin- at 3:00 PM on July 22, 2005


The neighs have it.
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:51 PM on July 22, 2005


You say it's rape when legally it is not, then claim it is morally rape by pointing to legalities such as how in your particular society there are age-of-consent laws that legally invalidate a child's consent.

Exactly. Children can consent to sex, but it's illegal to have sex with them even if they do. That's called "statutory rape" not "rape".
posted by delmoi at 6:25 PM on July 22, 2005


zoogleplex writes "please, dirtynumbangelboy, go find yourself a pleasant, consenting sex partner, and get yourself some sex. please."


Thanks for the fucking ad hominem attack, zoogleplex. Does the fact that I just spent a week having sex almost continually mean anything to you? Or does it simply please you to dismiss everything I say without actually arguing the merits?

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.



delmoi writes "You say it's rape when legally it is not, then claim it is morally rape by pointing to legalities such as how in your particular society there are age-of-consent laws that legally invalidate a child's consent.

"Exactly. Children can consent to sex, but it's illegal to have sex with them even if they do. That's called 'statutory rape' not 'rape'."


You think children are able to consent to sex (that is, not normal age-appropriate sexual exploration where there's age parity)? That's deeply disturbing.

-harlequin- writes "dirtynumbangelboy:

"You say it's rape when
legally it is not, then claim it is morally rape by pointing to legalities such as how in your particular society there are age-of-consent laws that legally invalidate a child's consent.

"It sounds like what you're saying is that you have a definition of rape that differs from English, and animal sex is defined into that definition.

"Well, ok then. But it's safe to say that, speaking in English, beastiality does not necessarily involve rape."


No, my definition of rape is extremely simple, and fits everything written there (barring gender specificity); rape is sex without the consent of one of the persons--or, indeed, animals--involved. Explain to me how that's not English? Oh yes, you can't.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:15 PM on July 22, 2005


dnab, you're 100% right, and don't let anyone tell you any different.

And, good on ya for sticking up for those poor little horsies. They didn't deserve to get raped backwards by an eager bottom human who stuck his hindquarters in their faces and gyrated seductively until their poor little horsie shlongs got all hard and they had to thrust into that horrible human's hindquarters.

It is foal play, i tell you, foal play.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:42 PM on July 22, 2005


dirtynumbanglboy:

It's been explained many times. If someone (or an animal) decides, of their own free will, to do perform an action, and another agrees, there is no absence of consent.

Explain to me how that's not English?

In English, it is self-contradictary and thus nonsense to propose that someone (or something) is not consenting to do an action they themselves freely decide they want to do when not under the influence of outside pressure.

Your argument requires it to be true that a rapist has actually been raped by the victim on the grounds that he didn't give consent for sex with the victim before he raped them. This is patent rubbish - the rapist consented to the sex by freely choosing to rape the person.

Speaking English, animal sex does not necessarily involve rape. If you still don't understand English, so be it.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:46 PM on July 22, 2005


Why does Metafilter have to be saddled with this insanity?
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:02 PM on July 22, 2005


When you can prove to me that an animal is capable of understanding recreational sex with a human when a child is not, then by all means, I will listen.

I'd also appreciate it, fuckwits, if you wouldn't talk down to me because OMG OH NOES!1!!!!!!!!!111!1!! I happen to think that sex with animals is fundamentally non-consensual.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:01 PM on July 22, 2005


I'm still curious what there is to "understand" here. Sex is pretty simple.

Solid arguments against sex with a child:
1. It can be physically damaging.
2. Their bodies have not yet passed into sexual maturity, the point at which nature seems to intend sexual activity to begin.
3. There are subsequent social and psychological repercussions which children do not have the perspective to analyze.

The question of "understanding" only enters into the last of the three, and it's not about understanding the act, it's about understanding the long-range implications of the act in a specific social structure.

With an animal, obviously physical damage is possible, and that constitutes rape in the coarsest and most obvious way. But of course, animals have lots of ways of emphatically communicating, "that hurts, don't do that."

Most familiar animals have a well-defined transition into sexual maturity, which includes both physical and mental changes. There's a solid argument against not trying to initiate anything with an animal that's not physically or mentally prepared for it.

But just what is it about an action - besides "feels good" or not - that an animal needs to understand? Is feeding my dog a nonconsensual act because she doesn't understand the nutrition label and can't pause to reflect on the working conditions at the factory where the food was made? I don't see it.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:11 AM on July 23, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy : "You think children are able to consent to sex (that is, not normal age-appropriate sexual exploration where there's age parity)? That's deeply disturbing."

It's not deeply disturbing, it's the difference between "consent" and "informed consent". Perhaps the fact that you don't recognize the difference between those terms explains your dogged insistance that animals can't consent to things. They can consent, they just can't make informed consent.

dirtynumbangelboy : "When you can prove to me that an animal is capable of understanding recreational sex with a human when a child is not, then by all means, I will listen."

When you can prove to me that an animal is uncapable of understanding recreational sex with a human, just as a human child is not, then by all means, I will listen.

dirtynumbangelboy : "No, my definition of rape is extremely simple"

Perhaps an unfortunate statement. From the link you provide:

# Eurasian plant cultivated for its seed and as a forage crop
# the act of despoiling a country in warfare
# force (someone) to have sex against their will; "The woman was raped on her way home at night"
# the crime of forcing a woman to submit to sexual intercourse against her will
# destroy and strip of its possession; "The soldiers raped the beautiful country"

Consent isn't even mentioned. If the definition you use is really as extremely simple as you say, then consent isn't even an issue, "being against one's will" is, and by that definition, even statutory rape ceases to be rape, and even I don't believe that to be the case. It appears the definition that both you and I use, while varying from eachother, are both different from the simple definition that you've offered.
posted by Bugbread at 6:38 AM on July 23, 2005


Hold your horses, folks. I want to seize the reins of this discussion, because we are becoming unbridled. Some of us are hoarse from shouting, while others think, "hay, what's the difference?" All I want is for someone stable to shut the barn door and pass out the sugarcubes. Whoa Nellie! We're all just a bit trigger happy here.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:35 AM on July 23, 2005


And informed consent is what matters. Stop being so dense.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:52 AM on July 23, 2005


Hit post too soon:

I'm done with this discussion. if you think it's morally and ethically acceptable to go around raping animals, so be it. Have fun with that. Forgive me if I don't share your moral deficiencies.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:53 AM on July 23, 2005


dirtynumbangelboy : "if you think it's morally and ethically acceptable to go around raping animals, so be it. Have fun with that."

I'm not aware that anyone here thinks that. If you think that you're arguing with people who support raping animals, so be it. Have fun with that. Forgive us if we don't share your comprehension deficiencies.
posted by Bugbread at 9:59 AM on July 23, 2005


(Thinking of another theoretical: I previously asked what the status is when an animal has sex with another animal for non-procreative purposes (are both rapists? Do those cancel eachother out?). The question that now occurs is: what if an animal has sex with a human against the human's will? Are both the animal and the human rapists? Do those also cancel out? And, if not, what happens if the human consents part of the way? Is it non-rape while the human doesn't consent, but once the human consents, he/she becomes a rapist for enjoying it?)
posted by Bugbread at 10:02 AM on July 23, 2005


Sorry. "And, if not" → "And, if so"
posted by Bugbread at 10:03 AM on July 23, 2005


I'm done with this discussion. if you think it's morally and ethically acceptable to go around raping animals, so be it. Have fun with that. Forgive me if I don't share your moral deficiencies.

Last comment = lame strawman. Sad.
posted by Stauf at 10:39 AM on July 23, 2005


I know it's wrong and I should be ashamed, but reading this story made me think of this picture.
posted by Tenuki at 3:03 PM on July 23, 2005


Anyone fancy an orgy? (Perfectly suitable for work.)
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:26 PM on July 23, 2005


« Older Augmented Maps: dynamic, paper-based displays....  |  I didn't know there were POW c... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments