Yes, my title is shit, but it's the best I can do. I just don't know what to think anymore. Both the legislative/judicial system and society are just something I can not understand.
Here is the article: http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-man-accused-of-having-sex-with-dog/article_eee74d40-8200-5b08-bcf4-e7be406cee5f.html
First of all, so far it is only an accusation. That's all it takes to get ordered to "not have contact with any dogs or cats" and have your full name all plastered over the internet. At least this article says in the title that he is only accused. Others report he "was caught having sex with the dog" which isn't well visible that it's somewhat of a quote.
Looking at the amount of false rape reports, it wouldn't really surprise me seeing crazy people just throwing life destroying accusations like these around.
Even if he didn't do anything, he'll probably want to move far away and change his name now. At least there is no huge image of his face in the press.
But let's assume it's the truth. Yes, having sex with dogs that don't belong to you is not cool. But at best it should be a minor misdemeanor or something like that. 10 years prison? Holy fucking shit! Do you know how much time this is? Imagine you have a 3 year old kid and get caught letting a dog hump you. Your kid will be 13 when you get out. Damn! And for what? "Deviate sexual conduct"? No harm done to anyone, nobody forced to do anything. It's literally about your sexual conduct being "deviate". For that you go to prison for 10 fucking years? What the fuck? And $50.000? Why?
And then the reddit comments... hardly anyone seems to see much wrong with it...
https://np.reddit.com/r/Montana/comments/32h52h/missoula_man_arrested_for_having_sex_with_a_dog/
Here at least someone says:
Wow 10years 50k is a little harsh for that. Maybe a max of 5years 20k would be more suitable, to be served in the state hospital.
But still: 5 years? $20k? For what? Why?
https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/32hcz0/man_accused_of_having_sex_with_dog/
This seems like mutual consent.
Looks like it. But I don't see you being outraged about such laws or even questioning them much.
https://np.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/32h5cx/man_has_sex_with_a_dog_but_theres_a_twist/
Not sure what the twist is either. Probably that he wasn't a violent rapist, because we all know, if you have sex with a dog, you must be a violent rapist.
https://np.reddit.com/r/circlejerk/comments/32lgjr/man_caught_having_sex_with_husky_dog_on_floor_of/
Not sure what we're circlejerking about...
Another "news" source with comments: http://www.kulr8.com/story/28792366/man-accused-of-having-sex-with-dog
At least someone gets it:
Wow. Compare it to this. No jail time for a pedophile, but at least 10 years for this???? I'm ashamed to live in Montana....
It's 2015. Why is "deviate sexual conduct" even a thing anymore?
Because certain peoples lives are so empty that they fill it with things to be afraid of. When people get afraid, they react in all kinds of stupid ways like electing governors who would be more than happy to make non-issues into very public and horrid laws. It is also related to what sells newspapers as their is cash to be had to produce a witch hunt.
It does seem truly ridiculous to me that sex with animals has such a large penalty considering what is commonly done to animals in farming, showing, and in many parts of the horse world, just as examples.
Then we factor in the almost completely ineffective animal control and welfare officers who have a lot of powers that normal cops don't even have and you have a perfect storm of having animals taken away upon accusations, prosecution for subjective harm, and "experts" who mistreat your animals because they've never been near a horse before.
It's hard to fight people who are "only here to do good", or "we're just here to help the animals" I mean, who doesn't want the animals to get help, right?
Don't forget there is also a bit of a bias when you look at the comments. Everyone can "feel good" by condemning something and not get a bit of dirt on them, but what about anyone who does question 10 years of jail for this? At best they are "supporting animal abuse" but as many non-zoos find out when they support us it often goes much much farther than that. So who would support this guy? Even here we feel he did something bad, right? Sexing the other person's pooch. Would we support him?
So I don't support the B&E but that is really all he should be charged with. As for "sexing the other person's pooch" I understand on the one hand you shouldn't "fence hop" and go onto another persons property or into there home, however, doesn't the animal have some right to choose if they want sex? I mean for example if you are watching a dog for someone else is it really "bad" to have sex with that dog if they are consenting to it?
I guess I personally have a hard time reconciling that these loving, intelligent creatures, our mates and lovers, are also considered "property." Personally I feel that when you get an animal you are really adopting them into your family. There not "things" there family.
The thing is, when a person fence hops it is like they are having sex with your sister or your mother. It isn't a nice thing to do. Even if the individual animal consents to this, the animal is a part of a bigger society (that being the society of the family that the animal lives with) and it is wrong of zoos to impose a sexual relationship ONTO A FAMILY without acceptance by this family. Fence hopping is as offensive as you finding some random stranger fucking your mother on a picnic table while you are out on a camping trip. Even if your mother consented to this, your feelings would be hurt and rightly so.
Couple that with the fact that humans consider the sexual act to be important and special (and it is) and people can have many feelings about sex that make them uncomfortable. Some people are comfortable with certain sexual practices but not others. Humans vary in sexual desire and prudishness. I can understand why a lot of people would feel uncomfortable about bestiality especially since zoosexuality is not well known about nor well represented in our current world consciousness and media. A lot of non-zoos do not even think of non-human animals as "sexual beings." Non-zoos have the knowledge that non-human creatures copulate in order to reproduce but we tend to deal with the "problem" of non-human animal sexuality by spaying and neutering (which is an attempt to deny the sexuality of animals and an attempt to make animals asexual in a sense). It also is not known or is not apparent to many humans that animals may have sex for the reason of pleasure- that animals may enjoy sexual touching itself. Actually that very suggestion that animals may enjoy that I think actually feels threatening to many people. A lot of people like to think of animals as these "innocents" who hear no see no say no evil- even though sexual desire is not evil we are just pre-disposed to think sexual desire is evil due to centuries of living under Judeo-Christian rule.
So for all these reasons when you have sex with someone else's animal without first obtaining their permission, it is a violation of that person.
There's also often an element of trespassing as well, and/or a betrayal of trust if the person is invited in. Basically fencehopping is a big mess. Don't do it.
[deleted]
This. One can think fencehopping is "bad" without necessarily viewing the animals as objects/property (referring to what DanielArtaxes said).
You seem to be saying that no one in a family could have sexual relationship with someone with out the consent of the rest of the family. If my mother wanted to fuck some stranger that is her prerogative. I don't have any say in that at all.
I do agree with your points about humans removing an animals sexuality and not recognizing them as sexual creatures. (which is why I am personally against spaying and neutering). I also understand that many people would feel that is it a violation of there person if someone else were to have sex with "their" animal. However, I feel that this idea is as wrong as feeling you have a right to control the rest of your families sex lives. My being gay probably also influences this belief a lot too since many families would try and restrict the sexuality of gay family members based on there bigotry. (similar to how people seem to want to control or even deny there animals sexuality because they are bigoted against zoosexuals.)
How do you know for sure that an animal wants you to have sex with him/her? If someone was doing sexual things with my cat I would feel violated... I would feel like that person did something wrong and demeaning to her (my cat). And yes I am zoosexual.
Body Language. You pay attention to how the animal is reacting, they will let you know if they don't like something or are not comfortable. Not to mention if like in this case the animal is on top clearly they want the sex because they are the one in the dominant position, in other words if they can stop at any time or just not do it at all.
But how do you know that the animal wants it? Like, "Give it to me baby" all Rick James like
Again, you pay attention to body language and how the act and react to what your doing. Part of that I think is having a special connection with animals. Some people, myself included, can really connect and understand animals easily, for me I understand them better than people.
The second part to that is really that animals LOVE sex. Most humans do not like to think of them being sexual beings at all unless they are breeding them, and even then there sexuality begins and ends with the breeding session. The truth is animals are just as sexual as us, the difference being they have no inhibitions about sexuality. It is only humans who have the whole "sex is wrong" mentality. Animals feel sex is natural and a part of pretty much all relationships they have outside of prey.
The third part is actually more of a question for you, during breeding it is common to collect semen from male animals; this is achieved through masturbating them. The semen is the inserted into the female without her consent or any of the pleasures of sex. How is this perfectly acceptable and okay, but actually giving an animal pleasure is not? Also with breeding if it is not done artificially the humans select the breeding pair themselves with no input from the animals. They are not asked if they "want" it, or if they want to mate the other animal, at best they are just put alone together until they mate, at worst the female is restrained and forced to accept the male. No one cares if the animal wants it then. How is that okay but pleasuring an animal that you love, and how accepts your advances, not?
What is the body language that would say "Hey, you person, I want to copulate with you."?
"some people.. can really connect and understand animals easily" My general impression of animals is that they are very much in their own worlds most of the time. They seem to be always processing sensory information... But I don't know what they are thinking about that sensory processing.. I don't know what their OPINIONS are about what they are observing with their senses. Other than the really obvious stuff. I would say that I don't really know their minds. Well, I can make some inferences about how they think by observing some of their actions but the action itself is alien and and therefore I assume it is coming from an alien mind (a mind that is different from my human mind). How can us humans feel confidently that we understand them? Is it even I don't know maybe a little bit conceited to claim knowledge about an entity so foreign? Especially when we were not born in the bodies of these beings- born with their genetics. No human has ever experienced exactly what it is like to be a non-human animal I'm not sure if we should talk like we know what it is all about. And then of course I'm sure the animals are individuals with individual perspectives..
How do you know that animals love sex? They exist in their world in a state of physical/external nakedness, but to me that doesn't equal "love of sex." I don't know how the drive for sex is experienced from the perspective of another species. I know what it feels like to be me and have the sex drive that I have but maybe an animal's sex drive feels differently to them than what it feels to me--- if we were to "cut open" the heads of both myself and an animal and "look under the hood" so to speak to see what it feels like from the human's perspective in comparison with the animal's experience. Maybe sex is this really exciting, joyous and pleasurable way for me to relate to others but maybe to animals sex is more of a biological function like pooping and eating. I'm not saying that this is the way that it is for animals, I'm just saying that I don't know what it is for them.
I think the reason why people are against the idea of humans giving an animal sexual pleasure and they are not against what goes on in breeding animals is because when you forcibly impregnate animals or brings animals of a given species together to mate you are doing something that is a "given" for that species.
Allow me to explain~
We KNOW as a fact that creatures that can "bring forth"- creatures that can procreate together DO mate together- otherwise there would be no more of that particular kind of creature being born. However, the assumption about animals is that they are not very smart- at least not as smart as humans. When we have the view in mind that animals are less intelligent than humans in an overall general sense we tend to be open to the idea that animals are more like mechanistic robots than they are like "people" and hence individuals who have such things as sexual preferences, and seek sex for pleasure. Are animals free agents who have it all figured out and know what they want and don't want for their lives or do they simply exist in a state of less consciousness than what a human is used to having? It isn't clear to me which of these (or possibly something else) is true about their "intellectuality".
So based on the actions of animals, we can know for sure that they must mate with other individuals of their species. And this would be an important thing for them to do if you consider the survival of their species depends on this. But do animals want to be sexual outside of their species? Why would they want to do this?! Where is the evidence for this (and really evidence like showing instances where animals have happened to mate with another species isn't good enough because it is thought that they just accidentally do this because they didn't realize better- it isn't like they choose it because they have a preference)?--- Because remember, our assumption is that animals aren't that smart. If they are almost equivalent to robots then they just need to do enough to "get the deed done" and pass their genes on to the next generation.
While it is true that animals engage in sex and the reproductive cycle, we are not certain if it is true that animals are "sexual." We don't know if they lust, desire sex for just the pleasure (without a big focus on reproduction), etc
As I've read in an interview on vice:
Does it really matter if he'd like to have sex with another dog but decides "a human is fine too"? What's the damage it does?
And is it pleasure a dog feels during sex? Could you call it satisfaction of urges? Is it reasonable to assume it isn't something he likes? I think if a dog looks like he is excited to do it and then enthusiastically does it, then it's not very reasonable to assume the opposite.
We don't believe that (do we?), but even if it is that way, wouldn't you say that then it simply doesn't matter either way? You wouldn't feel bad about having sex with a mechanical sex robot that was only programmed to do the motions because it has no consciousness. If we view animals only as biological robots, what's the difference?
It honestly sounds like you haven't spent any time with animals at all in your entire life. Pretty much all of what you said just isn't true at all. We DO know much of that from watching and studying there behavior. Anyone who spends time and develops a relationship with animals can tell you that you are wrong; we can tell what they are thinking and what they want and need. We can tell they get pleasure from sex because many animals, especially dogs and horses, masturbate. Furthermore, humans are animals, so to say they are "alien" is ridiculous. We have many of the same feelings, instincts, desires, and needs. We even express them non-verbally much in the same way. The absolute falsehood of your belief can only lead to the conclusion that you have never loved an animal, never cared for one, never had one as part of your family.
I think I meant at worst, not at best... I would say that's not something the law needs to be involved in, but I can see the other side: People often find sex with dogs very disgusting and there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. If someone violates their trust and has sex with their dogs without their knowledge or consent, I can see how they might be hurt and may never look at the dog in the same way again. Or something like that, I'm not sure I'm expressing it right. I don't know what I would find appropriate. A small compensation and maybe being ordered to stay away from the dog, maybe. But no permanent record or something like that. But personally I'd say we don't need that at all.
But that's the thing. He is not charged with animal cruelty. Nobody (in the articles) is even arguing that he did anything to hurt the dog or forced the dog to do anything. "I'm just here to help the animals." - "Does the dog here actually need any help?" - shrug
I am with you 200%, it is absolute bullshit that this kind of thing can happen in America or anywhere in the world. Whenever I hear stuff like this I get so pissed. I hate people so much. It makes me glad I am a zoophilie, animals don't judge you, they don't have these expectations of you to be "normal" or anything like that. They just love you for who you are. Period.
Quite an extreme sentence. While I don't agree with the sentencing, some non-zoos might consider having sex with a non-human as extreme sex, hence 10 years and 50K might appear fitting to people that don't know that most zoos would never harm an animal.
But then, wouldn't he be charged with animal cruelty and getting such a severe sentence for that instead of just the "deviate" sexual conduct?
The laws are irrational because human beliefs are irrational. Most non-zoos consider having sex with animals as irrational, so they combat it with an irrational punishment. Remember that slavery was once not only legal, but that several American Presidents owned slaves.
I'm glad I stopped to think about this for a minute before commenting, because my initial response was less favorable...
Do I think 10 years/$50k is an appropriate punishment for bestiality? No. Something like that should only apply to the most extreme circumstances (i.e. rape/abuse) and it doesn't seem like the dog was harmed in this case.
So what would be the right punishment, if any? I don't know. I don't feel like I know enough about the situation to make an accurate judgment on that. But the whole fencehopping thing still doesn't sit right with me... and yeah, I'll admit it's more of an emotional response than a logical one.
I think it should be similar punishment to trespassing imo. That's pretty much what it is.
Yeah, he should at least be punished for the trespassing.
trespassing and indecent exposure
Is that really something that should be illegal?
It is illegal and an acceptable lesser charge than "animal rape." The purposed punishment is way to harsh, I agree with that, but to say this man did no wrong whatsoever is just plain ignorance. He had "umpteen" dogs of his own, he could have been with them in the privacy of his home and out of the headlines right now.
Now if your'e questioning the necessity for an indecent exposure law, I have to ask..Are you wanting to legalize public nudity and public sex acts as well as legalizing bestiality? Thats quite a mouthful of purposed legislation.
As I said, in my view it would be appropriate if he had to pay some compensation for whatever emotional pain he caused her and the owner the dog.
As long as it is not done to purposefully disturb the public, I don't see why it needs to be illegal.
I'm going to guess the guy is not rich. There is now two sets of laws: one for corporations and the other for everyone else.
'murica.
What zoozooz wrote here really needs to go viral!
Let me get this straight, going from the complaint. A woman walked into her home and found her sister's boyfriend being humped by her 3 year old husky with his pants down. She called the police and stated that he was anally penetrated by the husky. And now he faces a felony charge and up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for doing nothing more than violating her dubious property rights over the dog and making him feel fantastic without her knowledge. I'd be mad enough if "deviate sexual conduct" was some kind of unconstitutional vagueness, but in the definitions before this law, we find this:
So the law is specifically targetting this behavior and no other type. I'd like to note some absurdities in the current state of the law:
When it comes to sentencing, we get this in the animal cruelty law:
This gives us the following ludicrous situation: This man could brutally torture 5 huskies, or firebomb 5 herds of cattle (assuming the prosecutors didn't count each animal separately in that case), and have the same maximum sentence as he does for allowing a dog to hump him with his pants down.
So (this is a stretch, but let's run with it), this man could secret the husky away to the Wyoming part of Yellowstone 20 times and allow the husky to hump him all day and night while he's there (assuming he's in a tent or somewhere not in public), and he would have the same maximum punishment as he did for just getting caught doing it in the owner's house once.
I hope this objectively shows how stupid the patchwork legal system on this issue is, and how absurd are the sentencing guidelines compared to reasonable measures of harm to persons and society at large.
Agreed. The current laws are specifically against zoophiles.
I hope this man gets a good attorney and fights this non-sense law.
Because bigots, ignorant bigots.
I have posted on that issue in other places also, I know how you feel. It's EVEN WORSE.
Right now we see a comeback of restrictive legislation against zoophilia "activities". Sometimes outright against zoophilia itself. A lot of people have already smashed their teeth out by falling over "doing the right thing" and expelling other people who they accused of "such activity" (or heard of it) e.g. from parties or causing them trouble at work. >> NEVER FORGET, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE SUCH THOUGHTS. It can also not be illegal to e.g. tell a joke. And it is certainly not illegal to be accused by other people out of the blue or so. What are you supposed to do about that? It is discrimination because of sexuality, and in the EU remarkably a few people got slammed enormously for their "upright deeds".
Anyway.. I digressed. why did I say even worse? People have lost all scale and logic. Laws are brought back that were abandoned for good reason. Religions are on the forefront again. Take the UK. They just got rid of LIFELONG imprisonment for intercourse with animals. A lot of people would love to get the old law back.
And I agree, it is the idea of a brain-dead person to imprison someone for such a long time for such a thing. What harm did society incur that it needs to avenge or prosecute when someone is mounted by a dog - in 95% of the cases in privacy and the far large majority of cases with their own dogs? Is it because this is a live thing? Would people prosecute me that harshly if I had sex with my car in my own garage? Then why do they eat meat and frown on vegetarians etc etc.
But the simple cost is already breath-taking. In my opinion, a zoophile and his mare e.g. do no harm, incur no harm and all is peachy. Except when by way of accident or a far fetched rumour old aunty Anna down the road gets her 80 year old feelings rustled in her widow-maker underwear. Because of that the government is supposed to spend 1000s of dollars for years of imprisonment.
Is it worth to society to do that? Hey, that guy is hugging his horse too intently. Let's throw 20,000 tax-USD a year on him to make sure he suffers. Good job normal people.
Also the most surefire way to turn harmless people into criminals is to incarcerate them. In prison you get excellent underworld connections, illegal job chances, and more or less build a CV. Sure, perhaps the other inmates are going to be a bit rough, but then you can go full mental hired gun immediately to have some peace and quiet. Good job normal people.
Funniest thing also - there was that anecdote about a guy who did time for masturbating a cow. He was penned up (pun intended) in a prison-farm, because some normal people with no clue but commandeering a desk thought it was a good idea to put him to hard labour during his sentence. He said afterwards since he was surrounded by criminals in that prison-farm, that he never had that much, that easy, that cheap, and such undisturbed access to cows. Allegedly everyone in prison farms is fucking the animals there. Anyhow.
Go an high-five yourself, normal people, you are total nutjobs in this aspect.
And the kicker is restrictive laws and pushing for the stronger taboo - that protects animal abusers and fries the wrong people in the wrong pan - harmless zoos.
No wait, the kicker is... after going through all this to PROTECT an animal that was loved and pampered and sheltered and treated like a goddess by a zoophile - the zoo is incarcerated and said animal is PUT DOWN more often than not. If something is the definition of absurdity, it is this.