Before reading this post, it is suggested that your read this post first: http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/zoosexuality-should-it-be-considered-acceptable-or-not/
As I discussed in previous posts, zoosexuality is the sexual attraction to animals; people who are zoosexual do not think there is anything wrong with having sex with an animal. However, because zoosexuals are different from most people, they have been persecuted by unfair, discriminatory laws; ignorant lawmakers created these laws based on emotions and prejudice, not rationality. Laws should not prohibit ethical zoosexual activity (i.e. sex with animals in which no cruelty is involved). Unfortunately, unjust anti-zoosexual laws do not adhere to this principle, and violate people’s rights, including their right to privacy. Anti-zoosexual laws unfairly put ethical zoosexuals in the same category as “zoosadists” (the unethical zoosexuals).
Here is a map which shows which countries have made zoosexuality illegal, and which countries allow zoosexuality:
(Note: in 2013 zoosexual acts were unjustly criminalized in Germany, and in 2014 zoosexual acts were unjustly criminalized in Sweden. Be aware of the fact that for the first time ever, pro-zoosexual activists are fighting for their rights in Germany and are fighting the bigoted law which was recently made there).
This map inspired me to make the map below. It is a map of where zoosexuality is legal/illegal in the United States:
The above map is accurate as of January 2014. In the above map, the green states are where there are no laws against zoosexuality, the red states are where zoosexuality is penalized as a misdemeanor, the dark red states are where zoosexuality is penalized as a felony, the brown states are states where zoosexuality is misdemeanor the first time but felony for second time, and the yellow states are states where zoosexuality is legal, but only due to a court ruling (in yellow states, anti-zoosexual laws still exist, but have been theoretically nullified by the courts). Also, DC and five U.S. territories are displayed at the bottom of the map. Its amazing that in Texas, there is no penalty for having sex with an animal, while in neighboring Oklahoma people are charged with a felony. This proves just how arbitrary the anti-zoosexual laws are. Essentially, anti-zoosexual laws are just as discriminatory as anti-gay laws.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
“Bestiality is illegal in 37 states [...] the remaining 13 states (and DC) do not have laws against zoophilia. Two states had laws against zoophilia that were declared unconstitutional by state courts and subsequently removed: Montana and North Carolina. Despite the court ruling in North Carolina, authorities in that state have continued to enforce the invalidated law anyway. As of 2012 a repeal of the NC law is being considered in the North Carolina Senate. In the District of Columbia, a law against zoophilia (listed under ‘sodomy’) was repealed. Bestiality is a felony in Puerto Rico and is illegal in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bestiality is prohibited in Louisiana and North Carolina under archaic ‘crime against nature’ laws.” — Wikipedia, Zoophilia and the law
There are no laws against zoophilia in four U.S. territories: Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands (MP) and the US Minor Outlying Islands (aka USMOI). So altogether, there are 36 U.S. states where sex with animals is illegal, 12 states where sex with animals is legal (de facto), 2 states (MT and VA) that are of an uncertain status, one district where it is legal (DC), four territories where it is legal (AS, GU, MP and USMOI), and two territories where it is illegal (PR and VI). The list further down in the post indicates which states prohibit sex with animals and which do not. For convenience, in the list below the states with an ambiguous states (MT and VA) are grouped with the legal states, thus raising the number of legal states to 14 and lowering the number of illegal states to 36.
Just like with gay rights issues, I believe that there should be a Supreme Court ruling that allows zoosexuality in all states. I don’t think such a ruling is likely to occur in the near future, but a ruling of that nature would cause all current discriminatory anti-zoosexual laws to become null, invalid and unusable. But for now, 38 states have discriminatory laws against zoosexuals, and nobody seems to care. These laws are irrational, unethical and unjustifiable (because they are based on the erroneous premise that ALL kinds of zoosexual activity are “abusive”, which is incorrect). For more information about zoosexual discrimination, read my post about zoosexual discrimination.
What I found interesting about the above U.S. map is that there doesn’t seem to really be any kind of solid pattern for where zoosexual laws are. The only pattern I can see is that in the South, zoosexuality is either a felony or it isn’t (except for Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida), and all of the mid-west/central states (except Ohio and Kentucky) have laws against zoosexuality. Other then that, there really isn’t any pattern. There is also no partisan bias involved — zoosexuality is just as much a felony in liberal Massachusetts as it is in conservative Idaho.
The most recent states to ban zoosexuality/bestiality are Alaska and Florida. For years, a bigoted Florida politician named Nan Rich has been on a hostile crusade to persecute zoosexuals and make bestiality illegal in Florida. She has been dogmatically persistent about the issue, and has used extremely weak arguments to support her “claim” that bestiality needs to be banned. Nobody else in Florida cares about this issue — she is the only Florida politician who cares. In 2009 and 2010, she unsuccessfully tried to ban it in the state. On her third attempt in 2011, she finally succeeded, but only because there was no debate over the issue; everyone automatically voted in favor of the ban, 115-0. Chances are that these politicians thought “that’s disgusting” and voted for the ban because of their prejudicial and intolerant views. Their votes were likely based on ignorance because there was no serious debate about the issue — everyone assumed that it was wrong without even thinking about it. Thus, the opinion of one person (Nan Rich) has now become law for the entire state of Florida. So now, in the state of Florida, a person is allowed to slaughter animals and hunt/kill animals, but is not allowed to love them.
Nan Rich has bigoted anti-zoosexual counterparts in other states — some example include bigoted anti-zoosexual politician Joe Arpaio of Arizona and Bob Lynn of Alaska.
Also of interest is this quote:
“For centuries, zoosexual acts were penalized under sodomy or “crime against nature” laws. In the past 40 years, most of these laws have been repealed, but in some territories they have been replaced by laws which are specifically anti-zoosexual. Most of these new laws have been created during a “surge” of intolerant anti-zoosexual legislation which occurred in the 2000s and in the early 2010s; for example, bestiality was banned in Pennsylvania in 1999, it was banned in Illinois in 2002, it was banned in Maryland in 2002, it was banned in Washington (state) in 2006, it was banned in Arizona in 2006, it was banned in Tennessee in 2007, it was banned Colorado in 2007, it was banned in Alaska in 2010, it was banned in Florida in 2011 (by Nan Rich), and it could be banned in Ohio in 2012; outside the U.S., bestiality was banned in Norway in 2008, it was banned in The Netherlands in 2010, and it was banned in Australia’s capital territority in 2011. Anti-zoosexual legislation is a recent development, possibly caused in part by exposure to bestiality (and awareness of it) via the Internet.”
LIST OF COUNTRIES WHERE ZOOSEXUALITY IS LEGAL
This is a list of countries where zoosexuality is legal:
>Australia (outlying territories only)
Legal in: Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Australian Antarctic territory, Christmas Island, Cocos/Keeling Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Norfolk Island
Legal in Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland
>United States (14 states & 4 territories and 1 district)
(Legal in: Alabama, American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana*, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Texas, US Minor Outlying Islands, Vermont, Virginia*, West Virginia, Wyoming)
Note: Montana and Virginia are sometimes counted as anti-zoosexual states, and if this is the case then zoosexual activity is legal in only 12 states
LIST OF COUNTRIES WHERE ZOOSEXUALITY IS ILLEGAL
This is a list of countries where zoosexuality is not legal:
>Australia (currently all of its states, the NT, the ACT and Jervis Bay)
The most anti-zoosexual Australian state is Tasmania, where the maximum penalty is 21 years in prison; zoosexuality was banned in the ACT in 2011
Banned in Belgium in 2007
Banned in Germany in 2013
Maximum penalty in Malawi is 14 years in prison
Maximum penalty in Malaysia is 20 years in prison
Banned in the Netherlands in 2010
Banned in Norway in 2008
Banned in Poland in 2012
Banned in Sweden in 2014
>Trinidad and Tobago
>United States (36 states & 2 territories)
(Illegal in: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virgin Islands, Wisconsin, Washington
Note: bestiality is a felony in the underlined U.S. states in the above list)
Also: Montana is sometimes counted as an anti-zoosexual state – there is an anti-zoo law still on the books there (a felony), but it has been ruled unconstitutional by a court; the same is true for Virginia
The laws that people create to ban sex with animals are discriminatory, delusional and irrational. They are based on visceral, knee-jerk beliefs and not on logic. The following quote describes this irrationality:
“[Few people] dared to challenge its underlying premise — that sex between human beings and animals should be illegal under all circumstances. In fact, despite the concerns of opponents like Notre Dame Philosophy professor Ralph McInery that decriminalization of bestiality was ‘an idea whose hour will surely come, and soon’, the reality is that the past few years have witnessed a dramatic increase in anti-bestiality statutes[...] Unfortunately, the legislative debate over these bans has lacked even the pretense of serious reflection or intellectual rigor. Instead, most lawmakers have relied upon widespread public repugnance to justify legal action. As a co-sponsor of the Washington State Law [banning bestiality], State Senator Bob McCaslin, said: ‘How could you be for bestiality? My God!’ Such an approach differs greatly from the way our society addresses most legal prohibitions, where we place the burden upon those supporting such restrictions to prove that laws are necessary[...]
I suspect that the vast majority of lawmakers who voted for anti-bestiality statutes do not eschew hamburgers, leather-goods or even fur — not to mention cleansers and cosmetics safety-tested on the eyes of lab rabbits[...] Washington State’s [anti-bestiality] law was inspired, in part, because of the tragedy of Kenneth Pinyan, a zoophile who was fatally injured while having sex with an Arabian Stallion. However, opponents of bestiality have never offered evidence that such acts are common enough to justify legislative action. Moreover, the uncomplimentary language of these prohibitionists used to describe Pinyan at the time of his death suggests that his welfare was not their primary concern[...]
[An argument for banning sex with animals] is that crossing the species barrier has been a sexual taboo in our country, at least publicly, for many years. Opponents of bestiality often describe themselves as advocates of ‘human exceptionalism’ and express the belief that intercourse with animals debases the dignity of human beings by blurring the lines between people and animals. They fail to explain why sex is unique in this matter — why playing Frisbee with a dog, or eating a corned beef sandwich does not also blur such boundaries[...] The burden should be placed upon the prohibitionists to explain why a small minority of individuals with non-mainstream sexual interests pose a threat to our overall societal welfare. [Kinsey's research suggests that] there are a considerable number of zoophiles. Needless to say, public animosity — and criminal statutes — likely keep them in the shadows[...] The test of a truly enlightened civilization is one that lets people alone, to pursue their own predilections, even when the majority of us prefer to live our lives differently.”–http://www.opposingviews.com/i/three-reasons-society-shouldn-t-rush-to-condemn-bestiality
One of the things the above quote points out is that many people base their judgment on “human exceptionalism”, the belief that humans are somehow “superior” to other animals. I absolutely hate human exceptionalism, because it is a delusional fallacy created by centuries of ignorance. Humans are animals.
When I was recently on Wikipedia, I saw an article called “Zoosexual adoption”. A few days later, I went to look at it again and it was gone. I guess it got deleted. From what I remember when I saw the article, it said that zoosexual adoption is defined as one of the following: a child adopted by a single zoosexual, a child adopted by a couple who happens to be zoosexual, and a child adopted by a zoosexual who is “married” to an animal. Since nobody has ever been officially married to an animal, the last option couldn’t have ever existed. After looking at the article, I found it to be an interesting idea, but realized that before we can start talking about things like “zoosexual adoption”, the country must get through other obstacles first, like legalizing sex with animals and legalizing human-animal marriage. Then we’ll worry about zoosexual adoption.
Before things like zoosexual adoption can occur, people need to be convinced that fighting for zoosexual rights is a just cause. That will be difficult because people have been brought up to think having sexual relations to animals is gross and morally unacceptable. However, not long ago most people thought the same way about homosexuals — they were seen as gross and morally unacceptable. Yet in a few decades, they’ve gone from being loathed by society to being accepted in many places. Although some people are stubborn and will never accept change, I’ve noticed that in some ways, things can change quickly. Perhaps zoosexuality is one of those things. Perhaps people will realize that the vast majority of zoosexuals do not want to abuse animals, and that zoosexuality is just as legitimate as any other orientation.
There is a lot of uncertainty about the future of the zoosexual rights movement. Here is a quote about this issue:
“Just over 50 years ago, having sex with blacks if you’re white was taboo, so was sex with same sex let alone marrying one. Now although it’s still frowned upon, it’s accepted as simple brow raising attitude (i.e. behavior against convention). The big difference with those lifestyles is they are legal now, [sex with animals] is not[...] It was a big relief for gays when they came out as seen on Oprah and it would be an even bigger relief if we [zoosexuals] can all come out some day to share our lives with friends and loved ones. Even swingers who are not breaking the law don’t reveal their pastimes unless its a club of the likes of them. Reason? Now is not the time. Be patient my brother, times are changing and as Martin Luther king had a dream so do I, my dream is: that someday people will stop practicing what they read in the Bible, stop minding other people’s business, tend to their own, stop judging others and inspect their own behavior, stop taking and start giving a little. That’s my dream, then and only then my brother we all can announce to the world: ‘Say it loud, I’m zoo and proud'” — gungass, http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-168285-30.html
Many people don’t feel they have the “right” to express their zoosexual feelings. The truth is, they absolutely have the right to express their feelings; the only reason they think they don’t is because society has conditioned people to not like sex with animals. Below is a quote from Yahoo Answers — a person wanted to know how to express her zoosexual feelings, and the following response was said:
“Realize that there’s nothing wrong with being a zoophile. Zoophilia is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Zoophiles (like me) love the animal they choose to be their partner and would do anything to keep them from coming to harm. They treat them as you would a human spouse, i.e., take care of them, spend time with them, make sure they’re happy, etc. A lot of people seem to think that just because someone is attracted to animals, that they go around raping every animal they see. However, that’s not true; while some may do that, most don’t. And yes, animals can consent to sex with humans, though it’s not through words like humans do. For example, if a female dog wants to have sex with you, she’ll do things like turning her butt towards you and moving her tail to the side, rubbing herself against your crotch, etc. If you respond to her advances and have sex with her, how is that not consensual? Besides, if an animal doesn’t want to have sex, it can say no with its claws, teeth, hooves, horns, etc. Also, most zoophiles love their partner, regardless of the sex, and even if he/she didn’t show an interest in it, they would love him/her just the same. Anyone who rapes animals or uses them as sex toys is perverted and should be grouped with rapists and pedophiles. But that’s getting off the subject. So, I think you should take some time and think before you come to any decisions. Try getting used to the idea that you may be attracted to dogs.” — Teinaava, http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100508180716AAI34lS
The above quote is similar to the following quote:
“I think it’s great that people are actually getting [zoosexuality] out there and letting others know it’s going on. Maybe it’ll get to the point where it’s like homosexuality and won’t be illegal.”– Maid_in_Pink, http://isitnormal.com/story/i-have-been-having-sex-with-my-dog-19767/
Recently, a person named Malcolm Brenner published a book describing how he fell in love with a dolphin and had sex with it. The book is called Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover. Relating to this book, I came across the following quote:
“Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover is a semi-autobiographical novel about a Florida man’s nine [month] romantic relationship with a dolphin. The novel shows the romantic side of bestial relationships, as well as the sexual side. ‘It was inspired by [the man's] real relationship with a female dolphin he met while taking photographs at an amusement park.’ [The author, Malcolm Brenner, says:] ‘She would take my leg very lightly in her jaws and run her teeth up and down my leg. It’s an incredible sensation. I don’t know if other people would find it erotic, but I certainly did.’
What are your thoughts on this? I personally think it’s a step in the right direction for the bestiality civil rights movement. Organisms should have the liberty to love and have sex with whatever they want (as long as it’s consensual). Love is a right, not a privilege. Wet Goddess is the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of the 21st century.” — Gallows, http://totse2.com/showthread.php?448-Man-Writes-About-Sex-with-a-Dolphin
What I found most interesting about the above quote is it equates Brenner’s book with Uncle Tom’s Cabin — I think that is a really valuable insight. Just as Uncle Tom’s Cabin was at the frontier of racial acceptance in the 1850s, now Brenner’s Wet Goddess is at the frontier of zoosexual acceptance in the 2010s.
Also, read the following quote relating to zoosexual rights:
“What a man does in the privacy of is own home is nobody’s business but his own. As long as nothing illegal is occurring, other people are not being hurt, or it impinges on one’s ability to interact with wider society in an accepted manner, than who are we to tell either man that their views are ‘wrong’?
To paraphrase: ‘I may not agree with your desire to have sex with dolphins, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to have sex with dolphins.'”– Dr. Zoidberg, http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=312283
It is also important to consider what Brian Cutteridge has to say:
“Animals do not have legally recognized rights in our society[...] the manner in which animals are actually treated in our society demonstrates that such rights are not recognized either de facto or de jure. Addressing the purported purposes of anti-zoophilia statutes, Daniel writes, ‘as for only protecting animals because they cannot consent, the truth is that animals, particularly domestic ones, don’t consent to most of the things that happen to them.’ As detailed above, animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than an act of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the ‘right’ of any animal to acts of zoophilia is thus to make law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...]
Prohibiting zoophilia on the basis that there might or somehow should be a casual correlation between zoophilia and interpersonal violence is unjust and violates the zoophiles’ rights to procedural due process. Even if there was a direct casual connection between zoophilia and interpersonal violence, it is extremely unlikely that the relationship would be so straightforward as to state that every zoophile is also an assaulter of humans. Prohibiting zoophilia on this basis amounts to social profiling based on sexual orientation. It assumes that all zoophiles are equally likely to commit violent crimes, and further amounts to mass detention inasmuch as it deprives them of an essential liberty (the right to engage in a private sexual activity) without first proving them guilty of the act (interpersonal violence) for which that liberty has been denied them. Such punishment is a violation of the rights of all zoophiles to due process and is a legally and morally inappropriate imposition of the state in the sphere of private affairs. [...]
Laws restricting the private conduct of individuals in which ‘a person’s conduct affects the interests of no person but himself, or need not affect them unless they like,’ unjustly constrain the legal and moral rights of such individuals. Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty. Though it has been argued that such laws are necessary for the protection of both animals and the greater good of society, the reasons given to support such arguments are not compelling. If animal protection was the goal of such laws, it could be accomplished more effectively by strengthening laws that address deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on animals as has been done in Sweden. Laws prohibiting zoophilia are enforced even in the absence of any discernible harm to the animal resulting from such acts. The argument that zoophilia needs to be criminalized because of a possible link between animal abuse in the wider sense, including acts of intentional cruelty, and violence against other humans, is equally deficient. Such a link is not only unproven but is very probably unprovable given the wide range of factors that affect human behavior.” –http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf
(Note: above quote was written before Sweden became anti-zoosexual)
Cutteridge’s arguments are similar to those in the following quote:
“[Anti-zoosexual laws] allows the state to invade the lives of millions of adults [...] Governments have used [anti-zoosexual laws] to harass [zoosexuals], censor their speech, threaten them with prison and raid their homes.[...] [Anti-zoosexual laws] invade privacy and create inequality. They relegate people to inferior status based on how they look or how they love. They degrade people’s dignity by declaring their most intimate feelings “unnatural” or illegal. The [anti-zoosexual laws] can be used to discredit enemies and destroy careers and lives. They promote violence and give it impunity. They hand police and others the power to arrest, blackmail and abuse. They drive people underground to live in invisibility and fear. [...] It is not the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behavior. “ — Adapted from http://www.hrw.org/node/77014/section/2 (This Alien Legacy)
Finally, here is a block quote which describes the hypocrisy and irrationality of anti-bestiality laws and anti-zoosexual laws:
“If it was legal to have sex with animals, I would choose not to, but as a truth seeker I have to ask: Why aren’t people allowed to have sex with animals? Typically people think it’s illegal because it’s a horrible thing to do or because it harms animals that obviously can’t give consent. If you think that bestiality should be illegal because it’s disgusting, then why would you support free speech or freedom of religion? I could say things that would disgust you or practice a faith that might disgust you, yet most of you would probably not try to forcibly prevent me from speaking or worshiping however I wish. We tolerate speech that disgusts us because we know that we are morally fallible and that it doesn’t hurt anyone[...] Because we recognize that we [humans] are all flawed and all capable of error, we allow people to do and say whatever they want so long as it does not harm others. What makes bestiality any different?
The single limitation on freedom – the ‘so long as it does not harm others’ part – leads into the second possible justification for bestiality being illegal: It harms animals, but they can’t consent to it. This statement is inconsistent with United States law and most of our lifestyles. Can animals consent to being owned? Can animals consent to being slaughtered? Do those actions not harm them? If animals deserve protection from the harm of humans, then we would have to make it illegal to consume any animal product or own a pet or go hunting. Animals can’t give consent to these activities, and yet all of them are harmful[...]
It’s uncomfortable to be faced with this hypocrisy in the law, but legalizing bestiality shouldn’t be scary. History has shown us that alcohol prohibition didn’t stop people drinking, that censorship doesn’t stop people from speaking out, and that banning prostitution and pornography doesn’t prevent people from finding pornographic material or prostitutes in a black market. Banning things does not prevent them from happening; it only punishes people for their choices. Making bestiality legal probably won’t cause people to suddenly start having sex with animals, because those who feel the urge and need to do that probably already do. So who benefits from keeping it illegal? No one, really. And the amount of benefit animals receive from bestiality being illegal is almost negligible in comparison.
Animal husbandry, hunting, slaughterhouse factories, animal pageants and pet shows, dog fighting, bestiality[...] I charge that anyone who would ban [bestiality] without banning [slaughterhouses, hunting, etc.] is being inconsistent and hypocritical. Hypocrisy in the law cannot be tolerated, regardless of how relevant that law is to our lives.” – Lucas Wachob, http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html
What is important about the above quotes is that they prove that a person does not have to agree with or understand zoosexuality in order to defend its rights. Regardless of what a person thinks, people have the right to have sex with animals.