Researcher: Nan Rich Wrong About Bestiality

• @cetude: Boo Hoo. You are joining the ranks of people that do not look into anything past what their feelings on the subject are. Get over yourself and do some research.

• WHAT PART OF PERVERTED AND SICK DO YOU PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND? PEOPLE DEFENDING BESTIALITY? I'M GOING TO SERIOUSLY VOMIT.

• So you are saying it's okay for humans to have sex with dogs and cats? Excuse me but I'm going to go vomit.

• Humans having sex with dogs. Horses. Chickens. Ever hear of the word OBSCENE and PERVERTED. Please get a life and get yourself castrated if you think this is normal.

• Bestiality is more common than you think. Go on Google. Type in "dog sex" "horse sex", "bestality farm": A million returns. Which even teenagers and children are accessing. It's rarely if ever reported because animals can't talk when they were assaulted by some pervert. It makes me wonder about the writer's motivation to write such a vile article because it makes me believe the person is trying to DEFEND the right to have sex with animals. This is SERIOUSLY sick.

• Bravo for the senator. At least she has the objectivity to be able to separate fiction and reality. It is ridiculous to think that it harms the adult male non-human counterpart having sex with a mature female person. After all, the male animal with an erection is most definitely not being harmed and knows exactly what he is doing and what he wants. And, obviously so does the female. Neither one is harmed and there is no crime.

• Oh my goodness!��Youre so right!��I really dont think anyones put it that way before!��You must be an expert on this because you just made it so easy to understand, made me want to learn more about it!��Do you, like, study this subject because you seem to be so in tune with the issue?��Keep it up, man.��Youve got a great mind for it!

• A thoughtful opinion and ideas I will use on my blog. You've obviously spent a lot of time on this. Thank you!

• There are so many different religions and passions in our world today. It is an evolution in progress. So many diverse groups fighting for their acceptance in our societies. There are laws created to suppress one group while supporting others. So many people think having sex with animals is wrong. It all comes out of the human uterance of society. There are commercials for these real-like baby toys for young children, you see family life on commercials and tv shows. Its all about the family these days. People try to make up the minds of the young as well as the old. Im not saying thats wrong. Its just that people treat nature like its some sort of disease and that we are not to be a part of it. Some people just feel closer to animals than they do towards humans. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are a terrorist, or a criminal or are going to do something to a child. They are just different. There is a little know saying that you can't convince an ignorant mind, and that saying can apply to many areas. Ignorance is a word that has diverse meaning. It can sometimes be related to a lack of wisdom or knowledge, or can also pertain to someone that doesn't have any vision towards an unexplored realm. If you don't realize that something exists or can exist, then how can you believe in it? Furthermore, how can one justify judging something they know nothing about? Like other people here have said...some people would just like to ban something rather than co-exist with something that is out of line with their morals. I find it rediculous that people talk about sexually assulting a horse for instance. How do you hurt a horse? A human genitalia is no wheres near as long or big around as a stallion is. I mean...how can you harm a horse? Its like sticking a jumbo hot dog into a horse. Do you really think you can hurt the horse with that?? Of course not. The only think getting hurt are peoples morals and ethics. Thats what it all comes down to. People dont want other people doing what they wouldn't. Thats all it really is. And it is sooo petty. It is true that there are cases where someone has abused an animal in a way that does cause harm to the animal. Im not denying that, but there are very good people in this world that have a special emotional attachment to animals, and i don't feel it is right to persecute these individuals based on their feelings alone. If they aren't bringing any harm to an animal, then its just a matter of someones moral and ethic beliefs being comprimised. That's mostly what the problem is. If some one is harming an animal, that is wrong, but if you have a person and an animal that are just enjoying each others company in a special way...i hardly see what its hurting, other than someones personal beliefs.

• If ever there was a concentration camp erected in our era that forced people to have an intimate relationship against their will in the name of christianity or the ethics of the majority, i would commit suicide. To try and turn a persons heart and soul against themself is one of the most terrible and torturous crimes i can think of.

• I had a beautiful dog for a mate when i was younger. We were always together hugging and snuggling. She always sat on my lap and layed in bed next to me everynight. We were very happy. She has since passed on. No matter what laws are put into effect or how much people hate us, our love for each other is eternal, and there is neither a law nor anyone that can take away the love we shared. The germans did it to the jews, christians do it to us and homosexuals. Who are the real criminals here, the haters or the hated??

• In the wild, wolves mate for life and are dedicated to their mate. Its not difficult to understand then, how a dog may associate its role in a humans life as a mate. Its not sick and wrong, just grossly misunderstood.

• It appears that you have placed a lot of effort into your article and I require more of these on the net these days. I sincerely got a kick out of your post. I don't really have much to say in response, I only wanted to comment to reply wonderful work.

• Well said, Cody B ;).

• Well said, Cody.

• Anne Rich's argument, and indeed many other anti-zoo arguments, might have logic behind them, but the logical arguments they have are based on incorrect information. I'll use a logic model to represent this: Anne Rich's Statement: All people who have sex with animals are animal rapists. Many animal rapists also have sex with children. Therefore, all people who have sex with animals also have sex with children. You see, this statement might appear logically secure. However, I'd like to draw attention to the first statement: "All people who have sex with animals are animal rapists." Anne Rich's argument is only logically correct if this statement is true. The entire argument that human-animal sex is harmful relies on this statement being true. But what if it isn't? What if there are people who have sex with animals, but do not rape them? You see, this question is what we're faced with. No one, regardless of where they stand on this issue, is saying animal-rape should be legal. The discrepancy lies with whether or not the sexual acts of zoophiles should be considered rape or not. So what is rape? Many people would roll their eyes at such a question, a question which they believe to have a simple answer. Well, it is a simple answer. But just for the heck of it, let's use a few slightly different definitions. 1. Rape is when one forces a sexual act upon another. Do all people who have sex with animals force their animals to have sex with them? No. Many times the human partner will kneel over on their hands and knees, in a submissive position, in front of the animal, and the animal will mount the human without any coercion. 2. Rape is when one feels pleasure from a sexual act while inflicting pain on another. Is sexual pleasure always one-sided with human-animal sexuality? No. An animal and a human can easily feel mutual physical pleasure from having sexual relations with one another. In fact, many zoo's care more about pleasuring their animals than pleasuring themselves. 3. Rape is when emotional trauma occurs either during of after a sexual act. Are animals always emotionally harmed by sexual acts? No. Many animals who are or have been in sexual relationships with humans have shown no signs of unhappiness or emotional damage by the sexual acts they participated in, and have lived long and healthy lives. And so, according to these common definitions, zoophilia is not rape. So, let's go back to the original argument, shall we? Anne Rich states that "All people who have sex with animals are animal rapists." Well, since zoophiles are a clear exception to this rule, we have proven this myth as BUSTED. So if we replace "all" with "some", the information on which the statement is based becomes correct. Here is the revised statement: "Some people who have sex with animals are animal rapists. Many animal rapists also have sex with children. Therefore, all people who have sex with animals also have sex with children." Now that all the information that this statement is citing is correct, we can see the conclusion is obviously illogical. The claim is therefore false. The point that we zoophiles are trying to make, is that there are people who rape animals, and people who merely have CONSENSUAL SEX with animals, and we do not deserve to be generalized into the same category and penalized when we have caused no harm whatsoever. And we certainly don't deserve to be hated and judged when we clearly have the utmost concerns for our animals and their well-being. We have logic, love, and truth on our side. And those three things ALWAYS win out in the end. No matter how long you're able to delay it, you can never stop the inevitable. Countless lives are being affected by laws such as the one Anne Rich is trying to pass, so I have to ask, are they really necessary? As these famous words of wisdoms tell us: "Live and let live, and if it's not broke, don't fix it!" Peace, Love, and EQUALITY FOR ALL!

• I see an awful lot of opinion, and not enough evidence. Innocent until proven IT IS A CRIME? Surely that means, innocent until guilty? Oh, yes, zoosadism figures. 95% of zoosadists aren't zoosexual, and are repulsed by even giving animals remotely any sexual satisfaction. The other 5% must have meant they are bestialists whom harm them by some somewhat sick (to me), psychological imbalance of coercion and/or desperation, etc. I don't respect zoosadists, at all. But I can't say any person who likes to have animals having sex with their taste buds in a one-way pleasure. Because, that really is sadism. At least the animal can experience the pleasure themselves, even if they also face being beaten. Is any better, in fact, worse. But zoosadists are often both, anyway. What a horrible world we live in. Don't you dare, ever put us under the same category. Sadism is exactly the same with intraspecific, too. Don't forget. If I didn't find it bad to hurt or kill anyone, or even remotely as to stoop down to their levels. I'd wipe every zoosadist I met off the face of the Earth, if I could. Especially with them and the bestialists, ruining the allowances for true love, by associating their crimes with the whole of zoosexuality. They are just... Regards, James

• Where are you Melissa? found out that your arguments don't hold any water and gave up, or what? I'm still waiting for a copy of that study cited in the article but I suppose all we'll get is the conclusionary summary and nothing proving the summary claims are even valid.

• Guest says: Maybe we need additional laws to protect us from wackos who think raping animals is "not hurting anyone"...and that laws in place to protect animals from abuse are "fundamentalist"...where do you people come from, anyway," You know what's funny? people like you think the answer to everything is passing more laws against everything, this seems to be all legislators do all year these days is dream up yet more arbitrary stupid laws to clog up the court system and drain the treasury even more. What you didn't know, is that as late as 1967, 17 states STILL had laws on their books making it a CRIME for a white person to marry a BLACK person! it was considered bestiality. Black people were forced to use "colored" washrooms, entrances and the back of the bus. Blacks were required by LAW to do that and were subject to arrest as Rosa Parks was for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. Sunday "Blue laws" forbade labor on Sunday- under penalty of law, heresy and blasphemy laws also carried penalties in this country. All of those foolish arbitrary laws were eventually stricken from the books. So now we have a rare instance of bestiality hitting the news now and then in a country of 305 million people where 30,000 people a year die on highways in automobile related accidents- many due to alcohol which is legal to buy. In a country where millions of cattle as well as horses a year are brutally raised, transported and slaughtered for a luxury item like meat, and millions more are brutally slaughtered legally every year by hunters for "SPORT", but see none of that matters to fools who justify it all but then scream bloody murder- abuse!!! abuse!! when someone is caught having sex with a dog or a horse. You want to see the real abuse? go watch some youtube videos of meat packing slaughter houses where animals have their throats cut and are gutted while still conscious, where cattle are branded, have horns cut off, castrated and have other surgical procedures done on them with zero anesthetics. I have seen the videos, including some on kosher meat production at a plant raided by the authorities in Postville Iowa. Here, I dare some of you who think all bestiality is automatically abuse to watch this film and come back here and tell me which is the bigger problem that needs a LAW, the 1-2 bestiality cases you might see in your state in a year or this which goes on every day around the coutnry perfectly legally; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ74SpTA_-o An abbreviated version of the documentary recording the horrific conditions within the world's largest glatt kosher slaughterhouse, AgriProcessors Inc. Narrated by author, Jonathan Safran Foer, this video records the multiple abuses inflicted on animals within the plant. These conditions have raised questions within the Jewish community on the consumption of meat and exposed a scandal in the kosher meat industry. Here's another one; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IObHEfD3QAE Laws have gotten way out of hand and people like RIch have their priorities all screwed out of shape, she should be pushing a bill outlawing factory farming of animals and the related slaughter house meat production practices.

• I just think its sad that anyone would sigle out anothers sexual preference when it clearly is a matter of opinion. I wonder how many pro bill supporters here think BDSM is ok? by the definition suggested and proof that bestiality leads to human violence. Would also mean that BDSM leads to human violence too even if its role play. You people are Sad.

• Posted by Melissa Gates Yet beyond any gateway connection between the two, the act of forcing oneself on another living being is abhorrent in and of itself and should not be tolerated by law." Explain Meslissa if you can, exactly how does a man "force" a male rottweiler to get an erection and mount them from behind while on the floor, undressed and vulnerable? How does a man "force" a 1500# stallion to do the same as the fellow in Enumclaw did? As far as "gateway" connections, you could make a plethora of connections that would be as "valid", what if they find 90% of rapists SMOKE? does that mean a smoker has a 90% risk of being a rapist? Someone who is a sex offender who is prone to RAPE or violence- some of which may have a genetic predisposition because you often see a father in jail for rape and his SON later in jail for the same thing, someone is not going to be started into violence and rape by bestiality, someone who is stalking and raping women is already off the deep end and a criminal.

• Melissa Gates says: Predation and rape of animals unwilling to consent to sexual acts is not only hard to understand, but is also highly offensive to the majority of people and illegal in many states." Being "offensive" is no justification for a LAW, if it was we would be in mighty dire shape, christian beliefs offend ME, maybe there should be a law against it since it's history is full of violence and bloodshed, including mass slaughtering and witch burnings. "is ignoring the fact that most cases of bestiality are non-consensual acts of violence. " SOME cases as in one or two instances in a year or two at best, not "most" cases. You fail to recognize that many people do have sex with animals every day, in every state and no harm comes about, it's only the RARE insanely violent cases that you see in the news precisely because they are violent. There are 305 MILLION people in this country, you find ONE guy kills ONE goat and suddenly it becomes a national epidemic we need laws for! Goats die by the tens of thousands every day in this country, billions of chickens are raised in brutal conditions, just research the factory farming issue and that Postvill Iowa meat packing plant that has 9,000 human and child work violations and many animal welfare violations. Videos on Youtube show the deplorable brutality in that plant and others, but instead of working on fixing THAT, you are obsessed with the ONE or TWO bestiality cases in a year you read about in the papers! I can see you have not read the wikipedia.org extensive article on bestiality with references, peer-reviewed journal studies and more. "If Mr. Francis actually looked into the facts when reporting this story instead of relying on the opinion of one clearly biased researcher," He did, in fact I applaud him for contacting Hani Miletski and Andrea Beetz, if you looked up their credentials and all that you would see how wrong you are. Those are not the only two by any means, R.E.L.Masters devoted an entire chapter in his sexuality book to bestiality in the 50's, Miletki has a published book that is used as THE "bible" by many other researchers and universities; "Understanding bestiality and zoophilia" Miletski, unlike your others personally went out and interviewed many zoos in their homes, SAW their animals, WATCHED the interaction as a pet owner and so on. She and Beetz conducted extensive psychological and other evaluations, beetz especially used a very comprehensive, detailed mental/psychological test in her study, and unlike the anonymously completed self surveys used on already incarcerated juveniles in one study, these studies used REAL identity and were conducted by Miletski and Beetz via phone, in person and emails. If people like you actually READ the studies cited by HSUS et al that claim "96% of juveniles who admitted to bestiality assaulted a person later" you would find that is total BS, I posted some of the study's fact above. The trouble with the Abel-Jordan "study" is that all we see is the conclusionary remarks in a two page summary, I want to see the actual study papers itself and the methodology so I can determine for myself what the validity of it's claims are. I suspect since I was unable to find the actual study, only the summary with an hour on Google, the paper is hidden, me wonders WHY. The Fleming-Joring study on 381 juveniles cited by PeTA *IS* published and I have it, that was how I was able to debunk that "96%" claim taken out of context. I suspect the Abel-Joring summary on bestiality is the same, show me the money or it's just dismissed as another biased anti bestiality "study" conducted on already convicted prisoners, 11 year old juveniles, or anonymously. As a life-long zoo with over 40+ years experience and many zoo friends, I think I am better qualified to judge whether there is abuse or not. People like you trying to tell me that I'm wrong and some dimwit researcher who never heard of bestiality before now knows best is like you trying to tell your dentist that he doesn't know how to put a crown in or fill a cavity. 40+ years experience qualifies me as more knowledgeable than some stuffed shirt in some university social studies class writing a dissertation paper on "beastiality", some radical animal rights group whose stated goal is eliminating pet ownership and likens pets to slavery, or some ding-bad hysterical legislator who never witnessed real zoophilia and never actually sat down and talked to a zoophile to learn what the differences between zoophilia and bestiality are. Post the link to that actual Abel-Joring study- not the two page biased summary, or it's dismissed as rubbish as far as I'm concerned, put the money where your mouth is instead of repeating the same false study papers the rest are, including that pet-abuse site.

• he public is uncomfortable about something or don't know how to deal with it, someone writes a biased letter to some politician that shares their view on that matter, and they start a moneywasting campaign to have something outlawed that doesn't really hurt anyone!" Its amazing how this country now seems to be headed down the path of customized laws instigated because of ONE case or ONE person, because of ONE isolated rare case like the guy STRANGLING a goat we pass a stupid law that affects 305 million people and that is as useless and ineffective as they come. The key is strengthen EXISTING animal cruelty laws instead of sub categorizing every little act into it's own law! We dont need a law against burning a dog with gasoline and another law against kicking a dog and an other law against running a dog over with a car and so on, ONE law that covers animal ABUSE is more than sufficient *IF* it is indeed abuse, if the animal is not injured or harmed then it's not abuse! Case in Washington involving bestiality with a horse where the man died, the cops spent hundreds of hours pouring thru videos, had every animal examined by veterinarians and they found not one animal had any injuries of any kind and not one of the hundreds of videos the men took with dogs, horses and other animals showed any animal forced or injured, tied down or harmed. In the end the best they could come up with after wasting scads of money and police time, was a trespassing charge. If the animals were not injured, well fed, vetted and happy, there was no abuse! but the cops were trying to find something, ANYTHING to pin on them and that my friends becomes a Nazi era police state or gestapo and should scare anyone. Where does that stop? you get pulled over on the highway and the cop searches your car for something, ANYTHING, even a beer tax that wasn't properly paid on a can of beer in your trunk so he can to arrest you for the sake of a prosecution? "Pro-Bestiality Bill, Bill says: The idea behind a law against bestiality is not to persecute people for consensual sex; nor is it to meddle in the mix of what consenting individuals do behind closed doors. The idea, rather, is to protect animals from the disturbing acts of sexual violence we have been witness to throughout history. " How wrong you are, the law will not affect anyone, it will not save animals and in all probability will cause them MORE harm, more harm you ask? YES! how, you ask? very simple, think about it- an animal owner who is NOT having sex with their animal notices a female dog of theirs has a vaginal discharge, hmm, should I take the dog into the vet for treatment or... if I do maybe the vet will THINK it's the result of a sexual assault and then call the cops and I'd be put on the spot trying to prove I did nothing! Result: the dog doesnt get treated! But see, idiots like Rich don't think that far ahead or consider the very real consequences of innocent people caught up in a stupid feel-good law, or animals with a problem involving their genitals or urinary tract being left UNtreated for fear someone might scream; BESTIALITY!!!!! "Pro-Bestiality Bill, Bill says: No one is trying to Bible-belt you into a lifetime of the missionary position. We are just trying to protect animals who currently have no protection from sexual assault...and no voice to consent." Again WRONG, the bills I have seen like this define "animal" as living OR DEAD, and last time I checked a dead animal feels no pain, the bill is not about protecting animals- stronger overall cruelty laws DO, but if you are concerned about animal suffering then DONT EAT MEAT! if you eat meat you support horrific suffering. Animals dont need protection specifically from sexual assault, an assault that causes pain or injury is already COVERED under existing cruelty/abuse laws.

• Oh and, an anoymous self-questionnaire is as poor as they come, how did anyone know that these already angry bitter incarcerated juveniles weren't just putting "whatever" down or on purpose putting BS in there to "get back at" the people in charge or for a laugh? They were anonymous, so there was no way to track it back, the study was skewed and flawed but radical groups like HSUS and PeTA cite it and others just as bad as "factual" QUOTE: "Animal sexual abusers defend their actions by claiming their victims consent, even though these acts usually require physical restraint," a House bill analysis states. "This is similar to adult sexual activity with a child where consent is presumed to be impossible. Animals are unable to communicate consent, or speak out about the abuse." END QUOTE. Let's examine this in depth because that broad dismissive claim is totally false. First mistake, they are comparing apples to oranges; children to animals. It may surprise some but animals are not children with fur, animals do not have morals, religious beliefs, guilt, shame or embarassment. Animals have the same genital equipment humans do, female dogs have a fully functional clitorus, and the ability to have multiple orgasms as do males. At least one study in a human sexuality book has proven they have the same physiological/biological responses to sex that humans do and in the same order- blood pressure rise, heart rate peaking at orgasm and dropping immediately and so on. Animals have sex very young and in many cases it can be violent or forced and rough. The writer is claiming animals can't "consent," so let me put out this question; when was the last time a human EVER obtained "consent" for anything done to an animal, livestock, pets etc? Do slaughter houses obtain consent from cows to raise them in filth, brutally kill them (documented films prove it goes on every day) all for the luxury of beef, leather etc? Does anyone obtain consent from a male dog before subjecting them to unnecessary surgical procedures called neutering, docking or cropping? So we know that no one ever obtains consent from an animal for anything as outlined above, but somehow the red flags and protest signs wave when it involves SEX- something the animal may enjoy? Okay, so how do we know a dog does display consent? well, any idiot who owns a dog long enough should be able to read their body language- note what happens to the dog and their demeanor when you get out a toy, treat, leash, or food bowl, now note what happens when you get out the nail clippers or bath materials and flea spray- the dog's demeanor totally changes to one showing they CLEARLY dislike these things. It is also quite difficult to FORCE a dog into submission into having their teeth scaled of tartar or their nails cut if they have not been conditioned to those early on- try it and see what happens. Using that easy to read body language, any idiot should be able to tell what the dog likes, doesnt like, approves of or doesn't, what is pleasureable and what causes discomfort, fear or pain. So when a zoophile says their dog consents to sex, they are reading the dog's body language- the wagging tail, the enthusiasm, the erection and trying to mount, etc that is what they are reading- the dog is clearly showing what they want or what they enjoy. As far as animals supposedly being unable to sopeak out against abuse, more BS, a dog is physically capable of KILLING a grown adult person. As the dogs Bain and Herra did to a woman in California, as a number do every year to kids, teens and adults who tease or torment them. I have never in my life read or even heard of any attacks or deaths of a person that occurrred during SEX with a dog- when the person is most vulnerable being undressed, prone, or in a submissive posture (if with a male dog) but I have read plenty of attacks, maimings and deaths from dogs who attacked people nearby for walking near them, teasing them, scaring them or hitting them. Dogs have powerful jaws with very large teeth, with 300% more strength than a human; "Humans: 120 pounds of bite pressure Domestic dogs: 320 LBS of pressure on avg. A German Shepherd, American Pit Bull Terrier and Rottweiler were tested using a bite sleeve equipped with a specialized computer instrument." 20% of human deaths involve unrestrained dogs off the owner�s property, 70% involve unrestrained dogs on the owner�s property, and 10% involve restrained dogs on the owner�s property. Unrestrained dogs are responsible for a high number of dog bite reports and attacks to other animals. Over 30 breeds of dogs have been involved in 400 human deaths in a 30 year period. Not one of these deaths has ever been reported to be due to any sexual activity, such a death would have been clearly seen as to the cause.

• Well at least Mr Francis did the leg work to get the facts! That legislator is totally wrong, those "studies" are flawed and I am familiar with one circulated as "fact" by PeTA with which they claim a 96% rate of people commiting bestiality go on to human sex assaults! When you find the actual study the true facts come out; CLAIMED: 96% of juveniles who had engaged in sex with nonhuman animals also admitted to sex offenses against humans Fleming, William M., Jory, Brian and Burton, David L. Vol 10., No.1, pp.31-45 (2002)" First, this study was of 381 juveniles already incarcerated for other crimes, out of 381 only 24 put down on their anonymous self-questionnaires that they had sexual contact with an animal. Further, 55% were African American; 17% were Asian, Hispanic and "other", only 28% were white, what does that suggest? draw your own conclusions. The average age of the time of contact with an animal was 11.3 years old- during the normal juvenile sexual exploration curiosity age! Furthermore, the alleged "abuse" claimed? out of the 34 acts listed below, 14 of them involved nothing more cruel than the boy rubbing his privates on the animal's FUR! None of the acts outlined suggest any were cruelty or even designed to be cruelty and appear to be nothing more than puberty explorations/curiosity. 42% of the 381 admitted to offending sexually against humans, but not to sex with animals (Sex offenders, n=161), and 51% admitted neither to bestiality nor to any sexual offenses against humans (Non Sex Offenders, n=196). Method Participants 381 institutionalized, adjudicated, male youth offenders completed an anonymous self-report questionnaire. Participants were residents of three institutions in a Midwestern state that serve delinquent, high-risk youth, and their families. The average age of the participants was 16.9 years, (S.D. 1.47). Of the youth, 55% were African American; 28%, white; 6%, Hispanic; and 11 % identified themselves as from other ethnic identities, including Native American and Asian. The nature of the sex acts with the animals was determined through a series of follow-up questions. No information was solicited from the juveniles that would explain what their relationships were with these animals companion animals, stray animals, animals on the farm, animals in the wild or what the sex acts meant to them at the time they committed these acts. However, Table 1 indicates that 14 of the 24 juveniles indicated they had, "rubb[ed] my private parts against it," and 10 of the 24 admitted to "putting my penis into its private parts." Ostensibly, rubbing one's private parts against the animal or inserting one's penis would be acts of self-gratification, involving sexual intercourse with the animal or masturbation against it. Two of the 24 juveniles indicated they had "inserted an object into the animal," and six had "inserted a finger into the animal." It is difficult to interpret what was accomplished by inserting fingers or objects into the animal, as these could be (a) acts of sexual curiosity (to see how the animal would react), (b) sexual gratification for the juvenile, (c) sexual sadism (by inflicting pain on the animal), or (d) some combination of these. Ostensibly, "putting one's mouth on the privates of the animal" would involve pleasuring the animal, and only 4 of the 24 juveniles admitted to this. The acts involved were; Mouth on Animal 4 Rubbed Privates 14 Inserted Penis 10 Inserted Finger 6 Inserted Object 2 -- And so, we find these horrific instances of animal rape were in most of the instances nothing more than a juvenile rubbing himself on the animal's FUR! As a life-long zoo I'm appalled by the plethora of complete BS put out there by people like this legislator who read "studies" fabricated and taken totally out of context by HSUS and PeTA minions, and completely dismiss professional researchers and sex therapists such as Beetz and Miletski et al, it's astounding! Also, the bills I have seen include language such as "animal living OR DEAD" obviously that gives it away, the bill is NOT about protecting animals as it includes DEAD ones. I can also state a law won't have any effect whatsoever, this will continue as always, as it always has even when the death penalty for it was in place.

• May I remind you guys that there is no link in bestiality and any other abuse. And for the people who say well what about the people raping animals and children, well then I say to you men rape human women and vise versa. Since humans rape other humans then human sex should be outlawed shouldn't it.

• Pro-Bestiality Bill, Bill: I completely agree that "animals being killed and mutilated in sexual acts" should be illegal. And I don't think hardly anyone would disagree with that. However, that is *not* what this bill says... Yes, zoonosis is the leading theory of the origin of AIDS. However, zoonosis only refers to the adaptation of a pathogen from an animal pathogen to a human host. It does NOT necessarily imply sexual transmission. In the case of AIDS, it is far more likely that the virus was transmitted by humans <i>butchering and eating</i> sooty mangabeys, which they are known to do in areas where SIV-infected mangabeys are prevalent. The "sex with monkeys" sounds like some ignorant nutcases misinterpreting the scientific evidence. If you really want to stop development of novel pathogens through zoonosis, you'd better support laws in favor of habitat protection and against hunting and butchering of wild animals...

• &#64;Melissa, you seemed to have not read my statement or misunderstood my point. I had already read that article before you even posted the link in this discussion. I will spell out my argument for you. Your facts might be true, but they are not an accurate representation of all people who have practiced bestiality or are zoophiles. Those facts only represent convicted criminal offenders, and certainly do not represent other law abiding citizens you want to also turn into criminals over a victimless crime.

• The idea behind a law against bestiality is not to persecute people for consensual sex; nor is it to meddle in the mix of what consenting individuals do behind closed doors. The idea, rather, is to protect animals from the disturbing acts of sexual violence we have been witness to throughout history. Unfortunately, there is no concise way for the human-made law to subjectively determine what is and what is not consensual sex when dealing with non-human animals. The alternative that Florida has adhered to for so long -- not having a law to protect animals from rape -- is clearly not working when we continue to see multiple animals being killed and mutilated in sexual acts (which I posit is a clear indication of non-consensual sex). When forced to chose between protecting animals from rape and protecting a human's right to guess what is and what is not consensual sex with another species, we must err on the side of protecting those without a human voice in order to stop the violence. I feel compelled to also mention here that one of the most widely spread theories on how AIDS was introduced to the human population was through zoonosis...sex between a human and a sooty mangabey (also known as the White-collared monkey). Inter-species sex poses incredible dangers, not only to communication breakdowns and misinterpreted consent...but also in potentially devastating disease outbreaks like AIDS. So, get a grip on yourselves. No one is trying to Bible-belt you into a lifetime of the missionary position. We are just trying to protect animals who currently have no protection from sexual assault...and no voice to consent.

• Sex is not abuse in itself. Animals can and do consent, regardless of what some might think. It's a simple truth. Abuse is abuse, human or animal, but if an animal is old enough to mate, and does so willingly and eagerly, that's not abuse, and not a problem. Just because some think it repulsive doesn't mean everyone does. And no, I don't do it myself, but I've known people who did. They're not evil monsters, just open-minded.

• If <i>sexually deviant acts</i> lead to <i>serious crimes</i> we must outlaw <b>homosexuality</b>! <b>Any form of cruelty should be outlawed but sex with animals is not morally wrong.</b> <i>Laws should not be based on what some people think are yukky.</i>

• Steele...as stipulated by my previous comment, the facts I mentioned are directly from an article. My apologies if you take issue with the facts and how they were presented in the article I quoted by Anne Sutton. Here is the link to the article again, since you obviously missed it the first time around: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_11966464?source=rss.

• &#64;Melissa Little bit of problem with those facts. Seems a little bit biased when you start with criminal offenders. Now what about all the people who are charged with bestiality but have no record of criminal/abusive activity.

• The audacity of critical thinking! Yes, shame on these people for not responding to this issue with their first gut feeling of disgust and not mindlessly agreeing to outlaw something there is very little research on. Here is an idea. Why don't we only pass a law that punishes people who actually hurt an animal. Not a law that also punishes people for getting frisky with fido.

• FYI:(from: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_11966464?source=rss) � FBI research on the backgrounds of serial sexual homicide perpetrators that uncovered high rates of sexual assault of animals; � A report in the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry that said twenty percent of children who sexually abuse other children also have histories of sexually abusing animals; and � A Utah State University study showing 37 percent of sexually violent juvenile offenders have a history of animal sexual assault.

• If raping animals is irrelevant, then society might as well give up.

• I'd love to see a law against precious time and resources being wasted on totally irrelevant issues such as this one.

• Maybe we need additional laws to protect us from wackos who think raping animals is "not hurting anyone"...and that laws in place to protect animals from abuse are "fundamentalist"...where do you people come from, anyway, to think that creatures who are at humankind's mercy do not need protecting from objectification and abuse? By your "logic" women, children and minorities should also be out on their own to fend for themselves against such abuse. You make me sick.

• I declare that Americans must now place Burkas on their pets. And no more capatalistic bailouts. And my friends in the bible belt, thank you for making America friendy for us, your beliefs in creation, breeding, law and television are just what we (praise be me) want in our fundamentalist mindset!

• Melissa, not to worry. It's probably the pathetic author of the article leaving multiple comments under one name. Apparently someone has a grudge against Senator Rich and would rather be out molesting animals than covering real news stories!

• Actually, the PD will in fact be able to disclose case reports on animal abuse, including acts of violence against animals, such as bestiality. It is sad to see comment-leaving people trying to justify the sickness that is the rape of an animal.

• &#64;Melissa You claim that the researcher is biased. That made me think if you read the full article? Because there are more 'experts' in there that give their views on this subject. They all make it perfectly clear that there are no grounds to pile 'zoos' and sex-offenders together. Still, it's easy publicity and that is exactly what that bimbo-politician is looking for. The saddest thing is that this sort of thing is happening all the time with a wide variety of subject. The public is uncomfortable about something or don't know how to deal with it, someone writes a biased letter to some politician that shares their view on that matter, and they start a moneywasting campaign to have something outlawed that doesn't really hurt anyone! Adding on YoMomaa's comment: The next logical step for Rich is to throw your dog in jail the next time it humps somebody, so beware!

• Melissa, you are wrong yet again: One must contact the prosecutor's office not the police dept. Living in this country one is considered innocent until proven guilty. PD can only investigate "allegations" of crime. And, how does one even begin to define, or even prove that an animal was indeed raped vs it being a willing participant. Many female dogs and cats are more than "willing" participants when in estrus. Another example: my male dog loves to hump the legs of guests. I wouldn't take much to imagine what would happen if the human was naked and on all fours. I can understand the strangulation of an animal being against the law. But the strangulation of an animal is a far cry from "willing" participant in a sex act. THAT WE CAN EAT ANIMALS BUT CAN'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM makes only sense to idiots.

• I suggest you call up your local PD and ask them about animal rape cases to attain supporting facts, since the goat strangling was not enough to convince you.

• Melissa: "most cases of bestiality are non-consensual acts of violence". Do you have supporting facts, or is that just the opinion of one clearly biased commenter?

• "Animals"? Does that include chickens?

• Predation and rape of animals unwilling to consent to sexual acts is not only hard to understand, but is also highly offensive to the majority of people and illegal in many states. Making the excuse that people are afraid of sexual difference and "can't get their minds around it" is ignoring the fact that most cases of bestiality are non-consensual acts of violence. If Mr. Francis actually looked into the facts when reporting this story instead of relying on the opinion of one clearly biased researcher, he would have found that acts of violence toward animals are indeed linked to acts of violence against people (http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection/risk_assessment.php). Yet beyond any gateway connection between the two, the act of forcing oneself on another living being is abhorrent in and of itself and should not be tolerated by law. Kudos to Senator Rich for being brave enough to introduce this sensitive bill to the Florida Senate, and shame on Mr. Francis for trying to stir controversy around a law designed to protect animals in Florida from rape.

TotalComments: 47