Comments on: Bestiality Dustup in Ohio Legislature: Animal Welfare Ignored

By: Iamnotninja

Iamnotninja — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:17:00 +0000

This is a really fantastic article, and I’m glad that you were able to articulate an argument that I have always had trouble formulating. The way that the animals’ fates and conditions are ignored reminds me of instances in some societies where a rapist is required to pay a fine to his victim’s family. It is a similar scenario of the victim being completely disregarded.

@ThePaganTemple, though my knowledge of bestiality is limited, I can’t imagine that the animals suffered massive internal injuries from sex with a human. Furthermore it sounds as if this man felt emotionally and sexually towards these animals as most people do towards people. In that case, it seems unlikely that he would commit acts that would seriously harm the animals. I’m not arguing that there wasn’t something upsetting about what he was doing, but to associate one tendency (bestiality) with others (such as nonconsensual sadism) is an assumption.

By: ThePaganTemple

ThePaganTemple — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:00:44 +0000

If the dogs were put down, then I’m going to guess it was probably because they suffered massive internal injuries. You are right, they should have said one way or another, but they might not have because its such a touchy, sensitive subject. Plus, if this guy makes it to trial, he’s going to have a hard enough time getting a fair hearing as it is without the papers throwing out there that they dogs had to be put down due to the profoundly serious nature of the internal damage to their organs.

I hope they will be all right and that there was no need to put them down. The guy in question, now I wouldn’t have one problem whatsoever if he was put down. I’d volunteer for that job.

By: Bacchus

Bacchus — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:30:49 +0000

Stating the obvious: they not animal lovers. They members of the Santorum-Vitter axis.

By: Emerald

Emerald — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:53:53 +0000

Very interesting, Thomas—thanks. I also found the use of the word “perverted” in the New York Daily News excerpt surprising in its (what seemed to me) lack of journalistic supposed neutrality. I also find it a bit disturbing that an inflatable sheep, which it seems to me is a sex toy, was seen or used as “evidence” of something else. Obviously it seems the individual in question had had sex with animals, but to me that doesn’t necessarily make an inflatable sheep incriminating evidence of its own accord…. It seems somewhat like using a video game that depicts violence found in someone’s home as evidence against that person if she/he/they were arrested for a violent act.

I wonder as well why bestiality is specified as “distinct from other forms of animal cruelty” in state laws? If what matters is the harm an animal appears to endure, what difference does it make, exactly, how that harm occurred (assuming it was deliberate)…? It seems to speak to the conclusion I’ve interpreted you as drawing, and with which I agree, that much of this legislative action is a “squick” reaction, though I wonder if I am missing something about why this distinction might be made.

Lastly, I agree with you entirely about the focus and concern for the animals’ in question welfare—even if you hadn’t mentioned it, I would have wondered about their condition and what, if any, harm or injuries they sustained and what their condition is now and what is planned to happen to them as far as living arrangements. Because ultimately, supposedly, isn’t that what this is largely about? Animals’ welfare? It seems sad to me if “punishing” those who acted in ways that do seem to “squick” many of us overshadows the concern for the living creatures these laws are presumably designed to protect. :(

Thanks again for sharing this.