Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

What Germany outlawing bestiality tells us about changing attitudes to sex

The change in law reflects the contemporary view of sex as something that can only properly be enjoyed on a basis of equality.

By Nelson Jones Published 28 November 2012 12:22

A Natural History Museum employee poses as she looks at a taxidermy exhibit

Nothing to see here. Photo: Getty

It's surprising to find that sex with animals is not currently illegal in Germany. Nor is this the result of some historic oversight: it used to be a crime, but the law was changed in 1969, at the same time as sex between adult men was decriminalised. Supposedly there are even "erotic zoos", which people "can visit to abuse animals ranging from llamas to goats." That's according to the Daily Mail, though. A possibly more reliable report quotes Madeleine Martin, an animal protection officer from Hesse, who refers to the existence of "animal brothels".

Martin, who voiced her concerns in February, claimed that the sexual abuse of animals was "increasing rapidly". She blamed the internet, as is traditional in such cases, and called for the government to re-introduce the ancient crime of bestiality. And indeed the German Parliament is now debating plans to make sex with animals punishable with a fine of up to €25,000. The same penalty would also apply to those "pimping out" their pets to zoophiles.

But Germany's animal lovers aren't giving up without a fight. Michael Kiok, chairman of zoophile pressure group ZETA (just take a moment to register the fact that such an organisation actually exists) told Spiegel that sex with pets wasn't demeaning to the animals - "We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification". He claimed that the real abuse took place in the farming industry, where for example it was seen as acceptable to ram electric rods into boars' rectums to make them ejaculate.

Kiok's pet dog, Cassie, was unable to tell her side of the story.

Germany is certainly unusual, both in modern Europe and indeed historically, in not having a prohibition on human-animal sex. Until 2003 it was punishable by life imprisonment in Britain. The maximum sentence is now two years. There have been moves to tighten the law in several countries, including the Netherlands where bestiality was banned in 2008 amid concerns that the country had become "a magnet for perversities". It still remains legal in Denmark, however, at least for the time being.

Historical and anthropological evidence suggests that inter-species sex is both widespread and widely condemned. The mere fact that legal prohibitions are so commonplace suggests that it has long been a problem: the law doesn't usually bother to condemn something that no one ever does. Alfred Kinsey's research in the 1940s found that it was generally rare in modern America (around eight per cent of men and five per cent of women admitted to using animals for pleasure), but that in agricultural communities it was much more common, for reasons that may seem obvious. There have been few societies that actively endorse the practice, although Edgar Gregersen records in his cross-cultural survey, Sexual Practices, that among the Ijo tribe of Nigeria, on coming of age "every boy had to copulate successfully with a specially selected sheep to the satisfaction of a circle of elders who witnessed his performance." This seems to be deliberately transgressive however, analagous to a fraternity hazing ritual, and thus may paradoxically underline the general prohibition on the practice. We're not told what criteria were used to select the unfortunate sheep.

The Bible, as is well known, takes a dim view of bestiality. Leviticus 20:15-16 provides the death penalty for a man or woman who engages in interspecies sex, and also for the animal involved. If this seems a little harsh on the beast, it also suggests that the real reason for the prohibition lay not in concern for their inability to consent, any more than the honour killing of a rape victim (also recommended in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy) is based on concern for her welfare. In the latter case, the intention is to preserve the status of woman as property and reproductive currency in a patriarchal society. In the case of animals, there may be two imperatives involved. First, the fact that human-animal sex is reproductively useless. Secondly, a need to preserve the theologically important distinction between human beings and other animals.

Sex, after all, confronts us with our biological reality in a particularly stark form. Sex may be more creative and emotionally engaging for humans than it seems to be for other animals, among whom it often looks rather perfunctory, but it's basically the same thing, involving the same bits of anatomy in recognisably similar configurations. Does this explain the revulsion and, indeed, fear that the idea of bestiality provokes? As the Australian philosopher Peter Singer pointed out in a notorious essay about a decade ago, interspecies sex is one of the last taboos still maintained by modern Western society which no longer criminalises adultery and looks upon same-sex attraction as a normal and healthy part of human variation. Why should sex with animals be any different?

There's an answer to this, of course. Claims by zoophiles that they engage in mutually satisfying relationships with their pets are nonsense because animals, like children and the victims of rape, cannot consent. Sex with animals is thus inherently abusive. But here the argument runs into difficulty, since it must be assumed that animals consent to sex with members of their own species, and indeed have non-verbal means of showing it. A more promising approach might be to side-step the issue of consent, or at least to concede the possibility that some animals might be experiencing pleasure during their intimate encounters with humans, but to see nevertheless that using other creatures for sex is an abuse of the power which humans have over their animal charges.

In this, laws prohibiting sex between humans and animals serve a modern purpose. Rather than being rooted in ancient prejudices about human uniqueness, they reflect the contemporary view of sex as something that can only properly be enjoyed on a basis of equality.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

45 comments

Fri, 2012-11-30 03:16 — Claire Shortie (not verified)

As a strict muslim we should do something about parrots or pittas that have bright red or scarlet vents, this is an ungodly provocation to us humans and a perversion in god's name.

Fri, 2012-11-30 03:12 — Claire Shortie (not verified)

Actually this is so common amongst muslim kids who do not access peer females so easily! Ok mate, I am against perverts who have sex with animals but like Woody Allen said in my case my love for a spring Lamb is the real thing? I spend on lot of money on kinky underwaer for it. After homosexual marriage the right to marry your pet in church is the next big thing.

Thu, 2012-11-29 14:39 — Des Demona (not verified)

Animals don't have the ability to say no. Though I wouldn't fancy trying to ram one up a Pit Bull. The message might come across all too clearly. Possibly something that those who wish to abuse dumb animals should check out in the interests of research?

Thu, 2012-11-29 16:05 — willoyen

'Animals don't have the ability to say no'
parrots do

Thu, 2012-11-29 16:31 — Des Demona (not verified)

True dat ;-)
But as anyone who could succesfully shag a parrot must have an incredibly small dong (or a ready supply of non-splittable parrots) I've discounted most avians from the list of potential sex abuse victims.

Thu, 2012-11-29 23:09 — steven m (not verified)

Parrots get fruity when they say ‘show us your knickers’

Thu, 2012-11-29 14:37 — Judy Tudor (not verified)

"...the honour killing of a rape victim (also recommended in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy)" Where in the world did you get that bit of drivel?

I don't know what version of the Bible you have, but it's definitely incorrect. The section in Deuteronomy speaks about consensual sex between a married or betrothed woman and another man. It specifically states that in case of a rape, where the victim was unable to call for help, she is NOT to be harmed. In the case of a maiden, the rapist is duty-bound to MARRY her, pending her agreement, so as to atone for his abuse of her and to REDEEM her honour. In a patriarchal society, the assumption is that she would rather marry him than stay single and "damaged goods". The Bible also assumes that this was a momentary lapse of judgement on the part of the man, and therefore he could still atone for his misdeed by taking care of her.

Honour-killings are NOT condoned by the Bible.

Thu, 2012-11-29 14:52 — Des Demona (not verified)

''Honour killings are NOT condoned in the bible''

You sure about that? From Deuteronomy -
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you .

Though to be fair, apparently if she was raped in the countryside rather than a city she gets off without a stoning. So that's ok then.
Oh these old religious tomes, ya gotta laugh.

Thu, 2012-11-29 11:54 — BDL (not verified)

Come to think of it, why has adultery been decriminalized? In a world which criminalizes sexually offensive speech because of the psychological trauma it might cause, it is perfectly legal to completely wreck your spouse's emotional life by committing adultery.

Thu, 2012-11-29 09:24 — Dr Chris Williams (not verified)

Nelson doesn't get as far as the real absurdity. I can go to a farmers' mart, buy a sheep, have it killed and then eat it and the law has no problem but if I take it home and make sweet overtures to it I have committed an imprisonable crime. You don't need a degree in philosophy to see there is a big problem here.

It is really pointless to talk of consent or power in sexual relations between humans and animals when we give ourselves the power of life and death over them.

Thu, 2012-11-29 10:56 — jankaas (not verified)

"You don't need a degree in philosophy to see there is a big problem here."

indeed, just a reasonable grip on common sense should suffice. i'll have a go to try and sort out your confusion Chris, you say; "It is really pointless to talk of consent or power in sexual relations between humans and animals when we give ourselves the power of life and death over them."

yes that is all a bit silly, but not when the point is to prevent animal suffering. perhaps you can imagine a small pet/farm animal as suffering pain when being 'loved' by a human? the existing laws governing animal slaughter for consumption are very strict in order to try and minimise suffering.

perhaps not all that absurd then?

Thu, 2012-11-29 11:17 — Fred Irby (not verified)

"To prevent animal suffering" is a "cheap sell" to the masses, taking very specific circumstances such as the cases you cite (where physical harm is clearly implied) then applying those to the whole topic without the "need" for any further consideration or discussion.

Who would have thought that letting a male dog carry through from leg-humping was such a danger to society, or that it would "suffer" so much by doing so?

Thu, 2012-11-29 23:38 — jankaas (not verified)

"without the "need" for any further consideration or discussion."

ok Fred, what is it that needs further consideration or discussion. pls be as specific as you can.

Thu, 2012-11-29 10:52 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

Luckily morals & laws are based on reality not philiosophy because I'm not sure I'm really typing this ...... but if I said something against the law on here my non-self would end up in jail, even though I don't exist. It's a dilemma for sure, based in faulty thinking of others but as my non-self doesn't want to go to jail, I submit unwilling to this farce called 'reality'. I have animals in my house and humans in my house. I can eat animals but not humans. Philosophically speaking, why is this so? Some people treat animals like humans so this makes no sense. Why can't I roast a human in my oven if I can roast an animal? Aren't WE animals? You don't need a degree in philosophy to see there is a big problem here. Would you like to come over for dinner to discuss it....... you and @Fred?

Thu, 2012-11-29 11:32 — Fred Irby (not verified)

Morals and laws are based on "reality"? (Farce or otherwise).

No non-human animal has the potential to reproduce with a human, therefore it's fair game for the oven? We may like to kid ourselves that we're not inherently "racist" and are similarly blind to being "speciesist", both explicitly and implicitly, on a day by day basis. Fido thus gets castrated and is kept in human households for "entertainment" and "companionship" only (or as an extension to human egos, as is often the case...) and it is deemed acceptable to do so without any need for "(verbal) consent" from the canine.

Depends on who.. sorry, what.. is for dinner!
Cheers. :)

Thu, 2012-11-29 18:18 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

"speciesist" postmodernist crap at it's best......

Thu, 2012-11-29 20:01 — Fred Irby (not verified)

And your choice of word to describe generically how humans act in general towards other humans, as opposed to non-human animals is...?

Or is the (admittedly horribly abused) word "racist" also post-modern crap to you, purely because it describes the concept of acting differently towards different "races", however those might be defined?

Thu, 2012-11-29 21:18 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

You've lost your mind comparing it to racism. I don't remember the banners in the civil rights movement saying 'stop eating us now' Racism is real because it is between humans who are equal. Speciesism is not real as animals are not equal and nobody thinks they are. Animals are not comparable to humans. Humans don't have sex with animals in civilised society. Nor do we have cannibalism and many other things that could be intellectualised (but we eat animals why not humans?) Sorry to burst your postmodernist bubble but just because you think it is true does not make it so. Your arguments are not as intelligent as you think they are....e.g A cannibal in society would be considered mentally ill... he is also likely to be really 'open-minded', intelligent and feel really misunderstood and 'ahead of his time' such is the arrogance and lack of empathy characteristic of socio/psychpaths. You can compare all day long to other movements, other issues and look to philiosophy and claim to be 'more open-minded than thou' but the truth is that raping an animal is wrong. Wrong. Repulsive. Disturbing. Full Stop.

If you have to start comparing this issue to other movements because it does not have any merits on its own, in its own right, then you might want to look at if you have any argument at all.

I'll answer that for you. You don't have an argument. Your lack of empathy is disturbing. If you're so 'openminded' you find yourself lacking any empathy at all, you should seek help. Emotions and Intellectual require balance against each other for a healthy mind/correct decision to be made. You are clearly unbalanced. Bye Fred. Hope you've something nice lined up for supper tonight. Something legal and normal.

Thu, 2012-11-29 21:20 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

*apologies grammar etc.. wrote in a rush.

Thu, 2012-11-29 03:13 — Normal human being (not verified)

Lunatic raving insane. I cannot think of any other terms to describe a human who suffers from physical attraction to animals. There are so many issues gone horribly wrong about this, I don´t think there´s enough room in the whole internet to explain them. There used to be a time when we knew what a normal human psyche was, but more and more modernist freethinkers are rationalizing sheer insanity. Some things are, or should be, beyond dialogue, beyond rational conversation, and this is one of them. It is like having a rational conversation with Adolf Eichmann as he tries to explain why he killed hundreds of thousands of people in the most efficient way. Anyone who finds this justifiable on any account has long since completely lost any concept of morals, and reverted to the state of a beast.

Thu, 2012-11-29 09:06 — Fred Irby (not verified)

> There used to be a time when we knew what a normal human psyche was

When precisely was that, please?
Back when it was deemed normal to persecute gays and keep slaves, or more recently? (Not that both of those aren't still deemed normal in some cultural domains).

> Anyone who finds this justifiable on any account has long since completely lost any concept of morals, and reverted to the state of a beast

I think you'll find that humans were never actually "selected for domestication" in the first place. "Civilisation" is a very thin veneer, indeed.

Closing one's mind totally to any form of rational discourse and simply labeling the "other" as "beasts" whose point of view requires to be exterminated without question is, at least, the memetic equivalent of approval for genocide.
("In Rwanda they referred to Tutsis as cockroaches... They were not human beings. This is very important to understand... Don't worry, you're not killing humans like you. You are killing some vermin that belongs under your shoe. You're killing cockroaches.")

> It is like having a rational conversation with Adolf Eichmann as he tries to explain why he killed hundreds of thousands of people in the most efficient way.

Where did killing come into this?
Save that you are perhaps describing a closer parallel to modern factory farming than the actual topic under discussion.

Thu, 2012-11-29 10:29 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

Philosophically speaking we kill little humans we don't want around via abortion. Why not fully grown humans we don't around anymore? Philosophically speaking now, why not factory farms for humans? I mean we kill humans and we kill animals, so why not? Philosophically speaking it's a dilemma no? Who says I can't kill you Fred? Some social convention? Pah! I am too open-minded for that nonsense! I'm not a psychopath honest......just more open-minded than youuuuuuuu!

Wed, 2012-11-28 23:13 — Robert Taggart

Jerries trying to put further distance between themselves and Adolf ?!...
Adolf - was he not a 'Veggie' and an animal 'lover' ?

Wed, 2012-11-28 22:27 — willoyen

'...at least to concede the possibility that some animals might be experiencing pleasure during their intimate encounters with humans'
in that case there are presumably cases of spontaneous abuse by animals of humans. If desire so takes a bull or a horse, might he not have it off with a farmer? or the farmer's wife? Likewise, pets. How many pet owners have been raped by their dogs or goats, and kept it quiet? there are probably thousands of cases which are not reported because..... humans are afraid they will not be believed.

Thu, 2012-11-29 08:47 — statesmannew (not verified)

this may be one of the single most hilarious comments I have come across here at NS! brilliant mate, just brilliant...

but I still need to ask, what would you tell poor Cassie who is too traumatised to press charges?

Wed, 2012-11-28 22:21 — New statesman reader (not verified)

I'm a leftie but the people who read this rag are lunatic functioning sociopaths devoid of feeling or empathy who seem to think candles are put on and Barry White is playing in the background. The animals are inhumanely sadistically tortured and raped, often being killed from the injuries. There is something wrong with you to coldly discuss it like you are all doing.

Wed, 2012-11-28 23:24 — Fred Irby (not verified)

Humans can sadistically torture, rape and kill other humans - does that mean we cannot talk about sex in a calm, non-emotive manner?

Until such a time when all human reproduction is via an anonymous test tube, there will always be the potential for physical and mental abuse in human sexual relationships. Does that mean we should adopt the default presumption that all human x human relationships /are/ based around "abuse"?
Similarly, are you automatically presuming a "deliberate attempt to harm" in /any/ case where a non-human is involved (including even a vet collecting a bull, stallion or dog for AI?)?

As for "lunatic functioning sociopaths devoid of feeling or empathy", well I guess I can see why some people might prefer non-human companionship to the potential for human relationships to go horribly sour but to automatically ascribe a total lack of feeling or empathy to people who are even talking about the subject is merely showing a willful and deliberate lack of research and a rejection of the potential for minds to be open and inquiring regardless of whether or not they agree with something.

Thu, 2012-11-29 10:08 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

It's called a moral compass Fred. Its called empathy. And sorry but there is something psychologically wrong with people who can discuss henious acts coldly with no emotion or empathy. Ask a professional.

Thu, 2012-11-29 20:11 — Fred Irby (not verified)

Even the professionals say;
"The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Moral compasses vary over time, place and culture: using a "mine is better than yours" approach has proven to be a rather poor way of deciding upon legislation from past experience.

As to emotions and empathy, ah... who precluded those, or are you simply presuming the lack thereof without evidence?

Wed, 2012-11-28 21:20 — Fred Irby (not verified)

@Sis: thanks for the input but, no, that's not equivalent. By killing those non-human animals for food, leather, medical research, etc., you are still robbing them of however many years of "natural" life they would have had. You would, I presume, never use this as valid justification to kill a human at 20, so long as that were done painlessly?
And even while alive their lives those non-human lives are far from "natural" - and not just farm animals, but the millions of "pets" whose owners have little understanding of behavior, training, etc., and often treat those non-humans as extensions of their egos and/or "mini-humans".
So, what then the argument against save on "moral repugnance" grounds, or similar?

It could be argued that human psychology does benefit from having some boundaries, some rules, and some social norms; by which I presume you are also in favor of life time jail sentences for homosexuals in Uganda, compulsory chaperoning, no car driving, etc., for women in Saudi Arabia, prohibitions on apostasy in various Muslim countries, and other similar examples in order "preserve the sanity of society" by forbidding the taboo simply because it is taboo?

Wed, 2012-11-28 21:19 — Ward Kendall (not verified)

Mr. Jones assertion that "animals can't consent to sex" is his reason for claiming why sex with animals should not be allowed.

But he fails to address the fact that animals cannot "consent to being killed" (a far worse infraction on their so-called "rights") so the whole logic of his argument totally falls apart.

In short, there is no logical reason to outlaw sex between humans and animals, other than it "offends" certain people. Well, butchering animals for steaks and bacon also offends a lot of people. In fact, using animals for food is far, far worse than using them for sex.

In the end, some men may want to offer your dog a bone (r) should they catch him wandering the streets, perhaps in a discrete back alley.

You can't stop love, Mr. Jones.

Thu, 2012-11-29 19:46 — BobDole (not verified)

"In fact, using animals for food is far, far worse than using them for sex."

False. Eating food sustains life, sex creates life, sex with animals...does what? The food chain is a reality. This article is only interesting due to the shock factor that a few people are actually upset that they can no longer have sex with animals. Please keep the Veggie agenda out of it. Telling others what to eat...pathetic.

Regardless of anyones opinion or the law of the land, if somebody wants to have sex with an animal, they're probably gonna do it.

Wed, 2012-11-28 17:51 — SIS (not verified)

Animals are allowed to be killed, but only if it done quickly and humanely. The suffering must be brief. So I guess the law should allow someone to have sex with an animal, but only once per animal and only if it is quick and not painful for the animal.

Or maybe, we can have a society that sets up rules and expects people to live within those boundaries, even if those rules may be somewhat arbitrary. Maybe human psychology actually benefits from having some boundaries, some rules, and some social norms.

Wed, 2012-11-28 17:09 — Mr Cynical (not verified)

I am reduced to living like a dog, therefore I can have sex with him/she/it.

Wed, 2012-11-28 16:19 — Menon (not verified)

Is this for real?

Wed, 2012-11-28 15:59 — Reading is Healthy :) (not verified)

"any more than the honour killing of a rape victim (also recommended in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy)"

And here's the text "25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."

Wed, 2012-11-28 17:51 — Kirsty (not verified)

Thanks for posting this. Seriously - how could anyone interpret that as 'honour killing of a rape victim'?

Wed, 2012-11-28 15:56 — Fred Irby (not verified)

> A more promising approach... to see nevertheless that using other creatures for sex is an abuse of the power which humans have over their animal charges.

By which definition it is presumably not an "abuse of power" to raise animals to be slaughtered for food long before their natural lifespan?

Most arguments are unfortunately made without thinking through the logical consequences - Michael Roberts' legal dissertation on the topic examines the subject through to its logical conclusion that such legislation only makes sense when it is written within a clearly defined "animal rights" framework.

Wed, 2012-11-28 15:40 — oldstatesman (not verified)

This is well articulated Logic fail of Epic proportions.. Of all bad things being done by humans to animals in this world, sex i hardly at the top of that list.
We have animal abuse laws, tighten them and increase inspections. The only reason for a special law covering one specific type of acts is only because of the "Eww" factor it induces in the majority of people hearing about it. It's not about protecting the animals as they have no such feelings about one perticular set of acts compared to any other. Only humans make such distinctions shaped by contemporary culture.
The notion that you can only do something out of equality and consent is a good guiding principle among humans, but only the most brain damaged PETA members extend those principles to cover everything that lives on this planet. Think about it, when you turn in your bed thousands of animals cry out in horror and die. So who do we extend this to? the cute furry animals? mammals? reptiles? So again it should not be about sex at all but the general state of well being for the animals we have in our care. What a human would do/feel/experience in the same situation is completely irrelevant. And even for humans the fact that we are treating sex acts differently from other acts only makes sense when it's framed in some specific cultural reference.

Wed, 2012-11-28 15:59 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

Yeah you're right, men torturing animals, killing them, raping them.... just a knee jerk eww reaction.... What was I thinking? Oh I remember... empathy. I have empathy.

Wed, 2012-11-28 15:35 — New statesman Reader (not verified)

You know the readers of the New Statesman have lost all critical thinking ability from being too blase about everything, when not one comment wholeheartedly condemns it. This is where the Daily Mail readers seem like fully functioning human beings and why the Left has a hard time getting into power.

Sex with animals is disgusting. Why did they change it from life to 2 years in this country anyway? They should have kept it at life and added the jim'll fix its to the 'life' list.

That's a normal reaction by the way. You know in the real world. Where normal fully functioning humans with *emotions* live and not everything is just a postmodernist intellectual exercise for ones amusement.

Wed, 2012-11-28 15:31 — Crayon (not verified)

The idea that the fundamental contemporary requirement for sex to become enjoyable is equality, is just simply not true. Without getting bogged down into lengthy discussions regarding social capital etc it is likely, or at the very least arguable, that two people consenting to sex with one and other are not necessarily 'equal' in every capacity.

Ever tried being tied up, blindfolded and whipped into complete submission at the hands of an anonymous leather clad dominatrix hell bent on making you suffer for your, mutual, enjoyment. Doesn't sound very equal. Looooots of people getting off on it.

Wed, 2012-11-28 14:26 — Catsmeat (not verified)

You miss the point that according to your argument using other creatures for food would presumably also be an abuse of the power which humans have over their animal charges. Ask a sheep which it would prefer.

Wed, 2012-11-28 14:21 — Mr Cynical (not verified)

Does the state regulate your sex life?
Yes it does.

Cats and dogs are not equal to humans. Therefore you can't have sex with either.

All humans are equal. Some humans are more equal than others. Someone with a fuzzy brain is less equal. You can't fuck someone with a fuzzy brain without legal consequences.

If it's all about 'power relations' then don't some people have different power numbers? Mr 100 can't fuck Miss 95 because of the power relationships? Equality, what equality?

Wed, 2012-11-28 14:09 — gabrielx (not verified)

I do find it repugnant to think or picture inter-species sex. But then by reading the argument that we should adapt laws to 'contemporary views' of what is acceptable and what's not, if that should be what guides us, it seems to me that bring us to the idea that individuals, even when not harming others (and here of course that's debatable) should still conform with what their society orders them. This is one of those aspects of life where we want to pretend we can control our behavior by putting on paper that it is forbidden to do this or that thing. I have yet to see statistics on how much rape occurrences diminishes with stricter laws, or with chemical castration, just to give one example.