About ten years ago, Peter Singer praised a pornographic book about bestiality, and he was widely condemned. Now, a new novel is out that contains graphic depictions of sexual intercourse between a woman and a chimpanzee, and it is receiving positive reviews in mainstream newspapers. This is a disturbing sign of the continuing slip-sliding away of our culture, and a subversive assault on human exceptionalism.
Details and analysis–but no graphic quotes–over at Secondhand Smoke.
February 3rd, 2011 | 2:00 am
I live in WA state. I suspect that when our legislature rewrote the criminal code about 1970, it decriminalized bestiality and a whole series of what would have been called perverse sexual activity. I do not make this up, because it was in the Seattle Times. A man died as a result of a stallion rupturing his colon at an “animal fun farm” near Seattle. The state legislature then made bestiality a crime again. Recently a man from England visited an “animal fun farm” in my county and somehow was caught on DVD with a stallion, did some time and was deported, and the owner, on probation from federal court on a drug charge had his probation pulled. We had a local Dutch kid sentenced to 30 days in jail because of his abiding passion for a nanny goat and his family reported him. I opposed the recriminalization of bestiality because I deem it a waste of taxpayer money. The theory is that such behavior is somehow “cruelty to animals,” but there was nothing in the news reports that the animals were anything other than well fed and cared for. To me it is fascinating that “liberal and tolerant” WA state would outlaw bestiality. Moreover if homosexuality is constitutionally protected, than I can see no reason why bestiality should not be constitutionally protected as long as the animals are not harmed. Or perhaps I have too much free time and should get a life.
February 3rd, 2011 | 9:37 am
Whether or not it should be legal, it’s definitely still disgusting. That’s what’s striking about the review, to me, the fact that the reviewer seems not to register any disgust at graphic and apparently positive depictions of bestiality.
February 4th, 2011 | 5:16 am
Ferdigrofe: the idea is that animals lack the capacity required to meet the standard of “informed consent”.
This objection would (at least theoretically) be overruled in the case of animals altered in some way that makes them able to give informed consent.
Patrick: just wait until you’re being told that feeling disgust is “discriminatory”…
February 4th, 2011 | 8:20 am
The most upsetting thing about it is the fact that no one seems able to articulate any argument against it, beyond “ick.” For God’s sake, read some Aristotle.
February 6th, 2011 | 5:06 pm
Dear GKC: Yes; as I have told students on occasion, the problem is NOT what it does to the animals. But they find it difficult even to conceive of any argument beyond the possible violation of “animal rights.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact