Is having sex with an animal a crime or even wrong?

[jeager106]

I read recently a 20 year old woman had been having sex with her dog since age 13.
She made selfie and Fido video and showed her boyfriend who was shocked and turned her into cops & she was charged with beastiality, later amended to
a crime against nature.

An odd charge in light of global warming, pollution, rising ocean levels and no one is charged with a criminal offense of a crime against nature.

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?
No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.
Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?
Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?
Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?
Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)
Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?
What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?
There are a lot of really keen minds here & I respect them so.
I value those opinions.

If you must have documentation there are many on line articles.
Here's is but one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 ... 12694.html

[Wootah]

Can an animal give consent? Evolutionists marvel constantly at how similar humans and animals are so maybe we should accept it can give consent?

Then since no one is harmed perhaps it isn't a crime and my repugnance is unjustified.

But just perhaps it violates the natural order I wonder if others feel that? Similar to an adult/child relationship consent is irrelevant.

[Divine Insight]

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?

I personally think that in this case the laws are just plain stupid. They no doubt were placed onto the books by religious zealots to begin with.

I think there should be laws to protect animals from harm. If any animals are being harmed in the process then she could be charged with harming animals. But in terms of being charged for having sex with an animal, I personally feel that the law is perverted int his case.



No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.


It would seem that the dog was willing. I imagine that for the dog it wasn't even a sexual act. In this case the dog probably didn't mind at all and was probably having a great time.


Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?


I don't think the dog is guilty of anything. It's just doing what dogs do naturally. She probably places something the dog likes on her private parts and just let's the dog lick it off.

Just because our religious ancestors were superstitious idiots is no reason why we need to continue that trend. Don't forget they used to burn women alive on a stake as witches too. And I don't think we want to get back into doing that again.


Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?


I would personally view this as a form of masturbation with a furry friend who is apparently more than willing to partake in the exercise. I don't see this as being a moral issue at all.



Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?


It's only a criminal issue because some religious prudes had it put on the books at some point. I personally don't even see why it should be considered to be a crime at all. Especially considering that the animal doesn't appear to be harmed in this event. If anything the animal is probably have almost as much fun as this girl is.



Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)


I personally think he's an extremely insecure idiot to even worry about this at all. If it bothers him for any reason he should just share his feelings with his girlfriend. If they can't come to some sort of mutual agreement about it perhaps they should seek out other potential partners?



Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?


No. IMHO, this only proves that he's an idiot beyond repair.


What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?

I don't see where this woman has done anything wrong at all. She might potentially have a problem with being obsessed with having orgasms but that's hardly a crime. Or it might be that this is the only way she can have them. Maybe she should have had her boyfriend watch what the dog was doing and see if he could imitate the procedure? In fact, maybe that's what she had in mind by telling him about the dog?

Maybe he could do better than the dog?

Or maybe his insecure fears are well grounded?

The guy should have talked this over with his girlfriend instead of running off to the cops. Clearly the guy is just an idiot. She's better off without him anyway.

It would be interesting to know what legal action is taken against her.

These kinds of religious fanatical laws should be taken off the books. Laws to protect harming animals would be ok. But I think it would be extremely difficult to claim that the dog was being harmed in this act.

I wouldn't even consider this as "having sex with an animal". Like I say, I see this more as using the animal as a tool for masturbation. I would not say that she was "having sex" with the dog.

So I don't even think this qualifies as having sex with an animal. And I hope her lawyers are able to make that case.

Moreover, if people actually wanted to "have sex" with an animal I don't think that should necessarily be illegal. Disgusting perhaps, but illegal no. As far as morality is concerned I don't see it as being immoral either. Disgusting yes, but immoral no.

I don't personally refrain from having sex with animals because I think it's immoral. I simply don't have sex with animals because I have no desire to have sex with an animal.

Also I wouldn't even call this type of oral stimulation "sex". Even though the girl may have an orgasm, I still wouldn't say that she "had sex" with the dog.

And finally, this isn't the first time I've heard about this. I know guys who have told stories about having their dogs lick foodstuffs from their penis in order to cause an orgasm whilst they imagine in their mind that some human female is actually performing the act.

I personally find that disgusting and have no interest in doing it. But not because I think it's immoral. It just wouldn't serve me the way it apparently serves these other guys.

And besides, remember what Jesus said. It's the thought that counts!

If this girl is imagining in her mind that this dog is a guy, then she's actually thinking of having oral sex performed on her by a guy, not the dog.

So according to Jesus the woman wouldn't be guilty of having sex with the animal, because it's her thoughts that count. And she's thinking of having sex with a guy.

So who knows? Even Jesus may vindicate her from charges of bestiality.

[bluethread]

I am tempted to make the slippery slope argument, but we have slipped a long way down the slope since I was first notified that it is unacceptable to compare one sex act with another.

[OnceConvinced]

Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?

Fido is clearly not the guilty party. He didn't realize that premarital sex was a sin.

Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?

Probably both. Some people for some reason are sexually attracted to animals. Seems appalling to me but then evolution causes some strange things.

Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?

Not sure. Its certainly disgusting, but is it criminal? Was the dog raped? That might be cause to suggest it's criminal, but if the dog was a willing participant...

Man, this is gross just thinking about it!

Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)

Very good question. Although for me, I think I would just be totally disgusted in my girlfriend and it would turn me off her because every time I had sex with her I'd be thinking of her getting it on with her dog!

Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?

Probably not. She believed she was sharing something private with him and probably figured he would accept her for who she was. I would have either dumped her or given her an ultimatum. No more getting it on with Fido!

What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?

Probably not. We kill animals but don't get done for murder. So should someone having sex with an animal be classed as rape? Probably not.

It's still bloody disgusting though!

[jeager106]

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?

I personally think that in this case the laws are just plain stupid. They no doubt were placed onto the books by religious zealots to begin with.

Back up the opinion that the law was put on the books by religious zealots please.
That bold statement requires bold citations.

I think there should be laws to protect animals from harm. If any animals are being harmed in the process then she could be charged with harming animals. But in terms of being charged for having sex with an animal, I personally feel that the law is perverted int his case.

O.K. you said "pesonally". Explain how the law is perverted????


No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.


It would seem that the dog was willing. I imagine that for the dog it wasn't even a sexual act. In this case the dog probably didn't mind at all and was probably having a great time.

Ummmm. Dogs can't give consent.


Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?


I don't think the dog is guilty of anything. It's just doing what dogs do naturally. She probably places something the dog likes on her private parts and just let's the dog lick it off.

Quite an assumption.

Just because our religious ancestors were superstitious idiots is no reason why we need to continue that trend. Don't forget they used to burn women alive on a stake as witches too. And I don't think we want to get back into doing that again.


Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?


I would personally view this as a form of masturbation with a furry friend who is apparently more than willing to partake in the exercise. I don't see this as being a moral issue at all.



Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?


It's only a criminal issue because some religious prudes had it put on the books at some point. I personally don't even see why it should be considered to be a crime at all. Especially considering that the animal doesn't appear to be harmed in this event. If anything the animal is probably have almost as much fun as this girl is.

Citation for religious prudes making laws?

You really see no reason beastiality and zoophillia is, ah, well, unusual?


Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)


I personally think he's an extremely insecure idiot to even worry about this at all. If it bothers him for any reason he should just share his feelings with his girlfriend. If they can't come to some sort of mutual agreement about it perhaps they should seek out other potential partners?

You condemn the b-friend as being an insucure idiot but excuse, even understand the lady in question is merely masterbating with a dogs tongue?


Do I understand that you think having sex with animals is o.k.?


Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?


No. IMHO, this only proves that he's an idiot beyond repair.


What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?

I don't see where this woman has done anything wrong at all. She might potentially have a problem with being obsessed with having orgasms but that's hardly a crime. Or it might be that this is the only way she can have them. Maybe she should have had her boyfriend watch what the dog was doing and see if he could imitate the procedure? In fact, maybe that's what she had in mind by telling him about the dog?

Maybe he could do better than the dog?

Or maybe his insecure fears are well grounded?

The guy should have talked this over with his girlfriend instead of running off to the cops. Clearly the guy is just an idiot. She's better off without him anyway.

It would be interesting to know what legal action is taken against her.

These kinds of religious fanatical laws should be taken off the books. Laws to protect harming animals would be ok. But I think it would be extremely difficult to claim that the dog was being harmed in this act.

I wouldn't even consider this as "having sex with an animal". Like I say, I see this more as using the animal as a tool for masturbation. I would not say that she was "having sex" with the dog.

Aw come on Divine: She screwd the pooch. It's having sex with an animal.

So I don't even think this qualifies as having sex with an animal. And I hope her lawyers are able to make that case.

Moreover, if people actually wanted to "have sex" with an animal I don't think that should necessarily be illegal. Disgusting perhaps, but illegal no. As far as morality is concerned I don't see it as being immoral either. Disgusting yes, but immoral no.

Well, with all the above reasoning for accpeting the girls behavior as o.k. with you, demeaning the b-friend for being upset, why in the world would you say it was disgusting then?
If what you now say is disgusting, why is the b-friend an insecure idiot?

I don't personally refrain from having sex with animals because I think it's immoral. I simply don't have sex with animals because I have no desire to have sex with an animal.

Also I wouldn't even call this type of oral stimulation "sex". Even though the girl may have an orgasm, I still wouldn't say that she "had sex" with the dog.

And finally, this isn't the first time I've heard about this. I know guys who have told stories about having their dogs lick foodstuffs from their penis in order to cause an orgasm whilst they imagine in their mind that some human female is actually performing the act.

I personally find that disgusting and have no interest in doing it. But not because I think it's immoral. It just wouldn't serve me the way it apparently serves these other guys.

And besides, remember what Jesus said. It's the thought that counts!

If this girl is imagining in her mind that this dog is a guy, then she's actually thinking of having oral sex performed on her by a guy, not the dog.
Wow, Divine, just wow. That is quite a stretch of imagination.

So according to Jesus the woman wouldn't be guilty of having sex with the animal, because it's her thoughts that count. And she's thinking of having sex with a guy.

So who knows? Even Jesus may vindicate her from charges of bestiality

You carry speculation to unheard of extremes.

Just for grins and giggles I'll give references to the DSM-IV-TR, last 2011, under sexual disorders that you find acceptable.
Remeber she has been doing this poochy thing since age 13, the sex with animals you see nothing wrong at all with.
Zoophilia- having sex with animals or having recurrent fantasies of sex with animals.
zoophilia (ˌzəʊəˈfɪlɪə)
n
1. (Psychology) a morbid condition in which a person has a sexual attraction to animals; bestiality

Treatments for Zoophilia


Psychoanalysis, hypnosis, behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, drug therapy
If treatment is sought, options may include:
Psychoanalysis
Hypnosis
Behavior therapy
more treatments...»

.

[jeager106]

[Replying to post 5 by OnceConvinced]

Just an opinion on your response to a repugnant, disgusting act by this poor sick woman.
I agree 100% with your assessment.
Anone that makes reason out of this needs understand that this womans sexual conduct is classified in the DSM as sexually devient.

I really don't know or have a strong opinion on the criminal aspect.
I am going to go out on a limb and just say I hope the "system" recognizes this girl needs some serious help.
Zoophilia is a treatable dysfunction.
I will call up a story from when I was maybe 12 or so.
My uncle & aunt took is a 9 year old girl who was "problematic" and distantly related somehow.
Auntie caught her screwing the pooch. Aunt took the girl to a psychologist instead of beating her for "sinning".
Therapy revealed the poor girl had been molested by someone since about age 5.
Zoophilia was but a symptom of her trauma that her poor little mind buried so as not to deal with it.
I don't understand in the most remote way how any thinking person can not see
that a woman who has been acting out sexually with animals isn't disturbed in some way.
I feel terrible for her. Her picture in the papers, everyone knowing her problems, making fun of her, having to be criminally charged. That must be awful for her.
I can't make excuses for her animal fixation but suspect in my heart she is a wounded human in need of kindness and help.
Oh, and such deviant behavior is real bad for the dog.
I won't bother with citations but anyone can google that up.

[Divine Insight]

Back up the opinion that the law was put on the books by religious zealots please.
That bold statement requires bold citations.

I wasn't aware that we need to provide citations for voicing an opinion. I just don't see any rational secular reason to make it illegal.

O.K. you said "pesonally". Explain how the law is perverted????

It's perverted because it's nothing more than putting the perverted opinions of the law makers into law.

Ummmm. Dogs can't give consent.

I would say they can give their consent via their actions. If this dog was doing this willingly, naturally, and even eagerly (which it probably was), then it's giving its consent via its own willingness to participate in the act.

I don't think the dog is guilty of anything. It's just doing what dogs do naturally. She probably places something the dog likes on her private parts and just let's the dog lick it off.

Quite an assumption.

I've seen dogs eat feces, lick up human vomit, and many other things that I consider to be far more gross.

Citation for religious prudes making laws?

I don't think I should need to. I can cite all the "blue Laws" as an example of religious prudes making laws. I'm pretty sure that some states even have laws (or at least had laws at one time) against the woman being on top when a husband and wife have sex.

You really see no reason beastiality and zoophillia is, ah, well, unusual?

I never said it wasn't unusual. However, in the case of people having their pet dogs lick their private parts I think that's something that might actually be far more common than you realize. This is not the first time I've heard of people doing this. But it's certainly the first time I heard of anyone being arrested for doing it.

You condemn the b-friend as being an insucure idiot but excuse, even understand the lady in question is merely masterbating with a dogs tongue?

Yes, that's correct. If she was doing this with a battery-operated vibrator it wouldn't even be an issue. But because she's using a live dog everyone is going ballistic?

Not me.

Do I understand that you think having sex with animals is o.k.?

I already stated that I don't personally consider this particular event to be "having sex".

Aw come on Divine: She screwd the pooch. It's having sex with an animal.

I don't personally consider oral sex to be "screwing".

Well, with all the above reasoning for accpeting the girls behavior as o.k. with you, demeaning the b-friend for being upset, why in the world would you say it was disgusting then?
If what you now say is disgusting, why is the b-friend an insecure idiot?

It would be disgusting for me to do it.

And by the way, while we're on the topic of disgusting I personally find large tattoos (as this girl has on her arm) and piercing face jewelry (as this girl wears) to be disgusting. But just because it's disgusting for me doesn't mean that it should be disgusting for her. I've seen many women with large tattoos on their arms, back, chest and other places, as well as wearing all manner of piercing jewelry, including nose rings which I personally find especially disgusting.

Yet these things are totally common in our modern day society.

So just because I find something disgusting for me, doesn't mean that I push that onto other people.

Participating in homosexuality would also be disgusting for me. But that doesn't mean that I think it's disgusting for other people. If they enjoy it, who am I to say that it's disgusting for them?

And besides, remember what Jesus said. It's the thought that counts!

If this girl is imagining in her mind that this dog is a guy, then she's actually thinking of having oral sex performed on her by a guy, not the dog.
Wow, Divine, just wow. That is quite a stretch of imagination.

So what's new there? All biblical interpretations are a "stretch" of the imagination.

So who knows? Even Jesus may vindicate her from charges of bestiality

You carry speculation to unheard of extremes.

I doubt that Jesus would be concerned with this girl. Christians seem to see Jesus as someone who comes down with an iron fist with exacting rules and regulations. But I never did see Jesus that way. I see no reason to believe that Jesus would be concerned about a girl inciting her dog to give her an orgasm.

I seriously don't.

Just for grins and giggles I'll give references to the DSM-IV-TR, last 2011, under sexual disorders that you find acceptable.
Remeber she has been doing this poochy thing since age 13, the sex with animals you see nothing wrong at all with.
Zoophilia- having sex with animals or having recurrent fantasies of sex with animals.
zoophilia (ˌzəʊəˈfɪlɪə)
n
1. (Psychology) a morbid condition in which a person has a sexual attraction to animals; bestiality

Treatments for Zoophilia


Psychoanalysis, hypnosis, behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, drug therapy
If treatment is sought, options may include:
Psychoanalysis
Hypnosis
Behavior therapy
more treatments...»

I'm with Jesus on this one. I'll pass jumping to conclusions about what was going through this woman's mind. Until I'm a blessed with omniscience I'll refrain from passing judgment.

There is no reason to jump to any conclusions that this woman was sexually attracted to the dog in any way. If she was using the dog as a natural vibrator to masturbate with (possibly whilst even imagining in her mind to be with another human partner) then jumping to the conclusion that she is sexually attracted to dogs would simply an incorrect conclusion.

[Divine Insight]

I am going to go out on a limb and just say I hope the "system" recognizes this girl needs some serious help.
Zoophilia is a treatable dysfunction.

Don't you think you are jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence?

You could be right. But you also could be dead wrong.

What if this woman is evaluated by professional psychologists and they came back with the following analysis:

This woman does not have Zoophilia. She is not sexually attracted to animals, or this dog. She was merely using the dog for the purpose of stimulated masturbation. While this may seem odd to many people, psychologically this is not abnormal. Masturbation is perfectly normal, and this girl had simply found that a dog could be used for this purpose at a very young age.

Would you believe them? Would you accept their analysis that this isn't what you think it is?

~~~~

Also, on the topic of morality or criminality. If the woman is psychologically mentally disturbed (as you suggest) wouldn't this vindicate her on both counts.

Mental illness could be a legal defense against the criminal charges.

And how does mental illness ever fit in with morality in the first place? Especially with religious morality. What kind of a God would create people, cause them to be mentally dysfunctional, and then hold them responsible for being immoral on top of that?

The very existence of mental dysfunction flies in the face of a God who judges people base on their moral decisions. People who are mentally dysfunctional could hardly be held responsible for choosing to do immoral things.

So if the woman is mentally dysfunctional then she has a good defense against both the criminal charges and the charges of being an immoral person.

[Divine Insight]

Jeager,

Here's a question for you:

Are women who use mechanical vibrators for masturbation sexually attracted to vibrators?

Is Vibratorphilia considered to be a psychological disorder that needs serious rehabilitation?

Why are there so many manufactures of sexual vibrators?

I did a simple Internet search and immeditatly found an online drugstore selling sexual vibrators:

Drugstore.com

They advertise their product using the catch-phrase "Toys for Sexual Well-being"

And they lay claim to the following conclusions of studies:

Studies have found that at least half of all women have used a vibrator for sexual stimulation, and researchers predict that the number will rise in years to come. As more and more women are discovering how sexual pleasure can enhance every aspect of their lives, sales of vibrators are increasing. The stigma that once surrounded sex toys for ladies has largely disappeared with many women freely admitting to using them. We carry many different styles of vibrators at drugstore.com. Let us guide you through the many options so that you can begin exploring.

Should this drugstore be arrested for encouraging the psychological dysfunction of Vibratorphilia?