As the coup de culture progresses, hedonism increases, leading to some decadent behaviors that are destructive to intrinsic human dignity. Bestiality is one such behavior, and in Washington State, a man has alleged to have, in effect, pimped his animals for sex. From the disgusting story:
Douglas Spink, 39, a one-time dot.com millionaire, convicted drug smuggler and horse trainer, was quietly living on rural property south of Sumas when he connected with James Tait, who was in a Tennessee jail on a bestiality charge… The two men’s communications set in motion an investigation that resulted in Spink’s arrest Wednesday at the Sumas farm for suspicion of violating his federal probation for drug smuggling. Federal prosecutors and Whatcom County sheriff’s officials say Spink also allowed people to come to the farm and have sex with animals. He was “promoting tourism of this nature for bestiality,” Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo said Friday. When county deputies and federal investigators searched the property they found videotapes that included images of a man, who was visiting the property, having sex with several large-breed dogs.
I bring this up only because whenever bestiality hits the news, some people have trouble defining precisely what is wrong with having sex with animals–and some don’t seem to think it is wrong at all. Peter Singer, for example, notoriously defended bestiality in a book review (“Heavy Petting,” warning crude language), essentially shrugging off bestiality as merely two animals rubbing body parts. Meanwhile, the Huffington Post’s resident bioethicist, Jacob Appel, wrote that he didn’t see it as significantly different from tossing a dog a Frisbee, ignoring the powerful intimacy and profound symbolism of sexuality in human culture. This is why rape, even when it doesn’t cause physical injury, is a profound personal violation and will be punished far more severely than punching and breaking somebody’s nose.
Of course, most people still object to bestiality, but many seem to have a difficult time expressing why they believe it is wrong. Some speak of the animals not consenting, for example. But that isn’t it. After all, steers don’t consent to become steak and sheep don’t consent to let us have their wool for clothing.
Rather, by definition, bestiality is abuse. Animals did not evolve, were not created, and/or were not intelligently designed–take your pick–to be mere outlets for our lust, and using them in this way denigrates the respect we owe them as living beings with intrinsic value. And yes, it is not disrespectful to eat a food animal–food chains, after all, being part of the normal cycle of life–but it would be to use it as a sexual vessel or outlet.
Connected to this, but even more importantly, bestiality undermines and besmirches human exceptionalism. As I wrote in the wake of a man who died after sexual intercourse with a stallion, and in the wake of resistance in some quarters in Washington to legislation to outlaw the practice, bestiality is a frontal assault against human dignity. From my Weekly Standard article on the issue, ”Horse Sense:”
Bestiality is so very wrong not only because using animals sexually is abusive, but because such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as “human exceptionalism.”…
Nothing would more graphically demonstrate our unexceptionalism than countenancing human/animal sex. Thus, when Roach’s legislation[to criminalize bestiality] passes [it eventually did], the law’s preamble should explicitly state that one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.
Some things are not defensible. It seems to me that abusing animals sexually, which simultaneously debasing one’s own humanity, falls clearly within that category.
April 18th, 2010 | 5:58 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, topsy_top20k_en, topsy_top20k, michele gal, Wesley J. Smith and others. Wesley J. Smith said: Bestiality: Besmirching Intrinsic Human Dignity » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/mvq2d [...]
April 18th, 2010 | 9:00 pm
“it is not disrespectful to eat a food animal–food chains, after all, being part of the normal cycle of life”
Aren’t you confusing an is with an ought? Naturalness does not make right.
April 18th, 2010 | 9:32 pm
Josh, you have a point, in that what is “natural” has little to do with what is “right or wrong.” Nature just is, right and wrong are human concepts.
Staying close to nature is not a bad rule of thumb if you’re, say, deciding between a salad and a Big Mac. But some of the other things that are natural include high infant mortality, cycles of starvation and disease, and violent conflicts between human populations over scarce resources.
So, we don’t have to accept basic nature as our ethical boundary. That is our asset and our burden as a “higher species.” Which is pretty much what Wes is on about here, if I’m not mistaken.
April 19th, 2010 | 12:28 am
Wesley seems to be saying that sex with animals is abusive. That is, constitutes improper or wrongful use. But, there’s nothing to back up the claim that it is proper to mount a stallion, but not proper to let a stallion mount you.
All the stuff about human exceptionalism is all well and good if the pro-bestiality argument was about humans being ‘just animals’ or something (and perhaps it is, but that would be a poor argument).
April 19th, 2010 | 12:36 am
Unless we understand nature as a divine endowment…
April 19th, 2010 | 8:24 am
The “disgusting story” to which Wesley refers can only be checked out if your eyesight is good enough to notice that he omitted one letter in the URL — the “S” in “seattle.”
That said, the man appears to have been arrested on a technical violation of his Federal probation: communicating with a known felon. The felon, it should be added, had been convicted of criminal trespass a while back when he entered someone’s farm in order to videotape an accomplice subjecting himself to the ministrations of a stallion. The stallion did what stallions will do, the accomplice didn’t survive, and I imagine copies of the the videotape are now fetching enormous prices in some circles. Who knows? Maybe someday you’ll see it on “America’s Funniest Videos.”
Personally I think egregiously stupid conduct of the kind that qualifies someone for a “Darwin Award” ought to be recognized for what it is: egregiously stupid. Whether it merits a full-length lecture on human exceptionalism is questionable.
April 19th, 2010 | 11:19 am
“Wesley seems to be saying that sex with animals is abusive. That is, constitutes improper or wrongful use. But, there’s nothing to back up the claim that it is proper to mount a stallion, but not proper to let a stallion mount you.”
He’s saying it’s bad for both the human and the animal. Degrading to the human, possibly physically damaging (and I would guess unpleasant) for the animal. I would add that sex with any partner, human or otherwise, that does not or cannot grant consent can be considered rape.
Plus, I think you are mixing up the different kinds of “mounting”… ;)
April 19th, 2010 | 1:13 pm
Recently, there was a post at the Scientific American website (google Scientific American Bering blog) about the question of whether bestiality is, as claimed by practitioners, simply an alternative lifestyle, so to speak. A large number of ‘zoos’ posted comments and there was even a comment by Spink aka Fausty. Spink was so thrilled with the article that he even posted a Twitter update for it.
To me, the issue is a matter of having a sense of *healthy boundaries.* Nor would I be surprised if many of these creeps have a constellation of disorders and perversions that include either Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Psychopathic Personality Disorder.
April 19th, 2010 | 4:11 pm
I equivocated intentionally.
So why isn’t saddling a horse, that cannot consent to being ridden, some sort of abuse too? And I’d say we do far more damaging things to animals, but you’re right that hurting an animal is bad. But of course, not all human-animal sex acts hurt the animal.
As for degrading, well, that’s a reason not to do it but not really a reason to prohibit it.
April 19th, 2010 | 4:22 pm
Mr. Smith, thanks for posting this. As another reference, I include Leon Kass’ article “The Wisdom of Repugnance.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0006.html
April 19th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
I forget to say that I am sure that you aware of Mr. Kass’ essay.
April 20th, 2010 | 11:42 am
Your post, and some of the responses to it, are a reminder of what John Stuart Mill says in On Liberty: that unless one practices vigorous defense of positions that one deems to be obvious, one could be caught off-guard when the “obvious” truth is assailed. That bestiality is findamentally wrong seems obvious to many of us, so obvious that serious defense of the practice catches us off-guard: thank you for providing and explaining the very good reasons why such practices ought to be opposed.
April 29th, 2010 | 7:49 am
Humans are unique, and special? I can sign that.
But: So are animals.
Each animal has a personality, things he or she likes or dislikes.
Each animal can feel the basic feelings it shares with us humans.
Joy, fear, trust – and love.
“Human Exceptionalism” and “to be of the highest moral worth in the known universe!” are in my eyes constructs Mankind has made not to feel guilty for all the pain it causes to the non-human animals: Factory farming, industrial killing, burning the rainforests and ever so on, but basically: the disdainfulness.
Zoophiles regard their compagnion as equal to themselves, and thus surely are a danger for “Human Exeptionalism.”
After all Humanity has done bad to the animals it is high time for this.
April 29th, 2010 | 7:59 am
People who take animals as an outlet for their sexual urges – if the animal consents, I see no problem. But they are no zoophiles in my eyes.
People who force the animals to be an outlet for their sexual urges do a rape and are to be punished like any other rapist.
People who take an animal as an outlet for their sexual urges and risk to cause pain or even deliberately cause pain to the animal should be whipped and then put to jail
Well – my opinion.
May 2nd, 2010 | 4:59 pm
So, “Animals did not evolve [...] to be mere outlets for our lust” and so human-animal sexual relations “denigrates the respect we owe them”. Which means, in turn, if you assume they actually did evolve in order to be “mere outlets for our lust” everything would be a-okay, morally? Come on…
Plus, talking about human dignity is shallow chatter without explicating your metaphysical concept of which human capacity or attribute it is, that evokes dignity. Take Kant or J.S. Mill and you’ll discover it’s the human capacity of developing an own concept of the good life that justifies human dignity. Not because such a concept would be the absolute best, but because it simply is your own.
To me, it seems all you’re trying to do is trying to force your own moral and aesthetic judgements down everyone else’s throat. Your usage of words like “disgusting”, “besmirching”, “debasing” and that “powerful intimacy and profound symbolism” of yours speak a clear language.
May 3rd, 2010 | 10:23 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alesandro Schneider. Alesandro Schneider said: Bestiality: Besmirching Intrinsic Human Dignity http://ow.ly/1GgUT – Totschwache, tendenziell aristotelisch-christliche Argumentation [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact