×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Florida Fails To Pass Bestiality Law

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the love-your-pets-but-don't-love-them dept.

Idle 56

One would think it would be easy to get lawmakers to agree that having sex with an animal should be outlawed. However, Florida lawmakers are proving just how hard it is for them to make an agreement on anything after failing to pass a proposed bestiality bill. From the article: "The inability to outlaw something so repugnant reveals how difficult it can be to get even the most carefully crafted, widely supported bill passed in the Florida Legislature. Its advocates say that in the political stew of a legislative session, the very outrageousness of the topic worked against it. Lawmakers said they did not want to be accused of wasting time addressing a rare crime when Floridians needed them to help create jobs. They also did not want to debate the icky subject in public meetings occasionally frequented by children."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

56 comments

Wont some please... (1)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 3 years ago | (#32159938)

Think of the children and NOT allow this law to be read?! We'll at lest people who are into this kind of kink can still buy American...

Why do they CARE... (0, Troll)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32159972)

What business is it of theirs to legislate what should or shouldn’t happen between consenting adults of any species?

Re:Why do they CARE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32160074)

I pretty much agree that they shouldn't waste time on this subject... but I would have thought this would be covered under animal cruelty or abuse.

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32160174)

What if the animal was the instigator?

Re:Why do they CARE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32162920)

What if the animal was the instigator?

Ooooh,.... can't resist.

Think of the kids - and the foals, and the calves, and the lambs, and the puppies, and....

Re:Why do they CARE... (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32164660)

BTW, was classifying this under "animal cruelty or abuse" ever explained in a sufficiently logical way, considering how many millions of animals we slaughter, kill as pests with various neurotoxins or outright drive to extintion?

Only Necrophilia is Legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32173334)

In most jurisdictions, if you kill an animal first and then have sex with it, then this is completely legal. If however you have sex with an animal when it is still alive, then this is illegal. So for example, if you go to a supermarket and buy a sausage, then you can pleasure yourself with it however you please. The same with a chicken. As long as the animal is dead, then you can have sex with it. That is the law.

Re:Why do they CARE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32162882)

What business is it of theirs to legislate what should or shouldn’t happen between consenting adults of any species?

Animals can't consent. We call that rape.

Re:Why do they CARE... (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32164578)

Do they? I would guess that most (all?) animals that are in any significant way useful (big enough, for example?...) for bestiality purposes can also pretty severely mutiliate a human, if they don't approve ("approve" at least as far as animal mind goes)

Plus many dogs seem to have an uncanny desire at the least for human legs...

Heck, my cat (when normally stroked during whatever remains of heat it has) appears, sometimes, to take on a vaguely mating position...
When you think about it, the kind of stroking that is typically performed by humans on many domesticated animals means, when a close equivalent is performed between consenting humans, a powerful turn-on. But try doing it on any random human (or an animal!) that doesn't approve...

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32164904)

Well, the argument goes that an animal isn’t mentally cognizant enough to consent or not to a sexual act. Just like a 15-year-old isn’t considered mentally cognizant enough (in all of the US and many other parts of the world), or a person who is physically of age but who has a mental retardation isn’t considered mentally cognizant enough to make that decision.

However then you’re in a very gray area that I frankly don’t like. Why is statutory rape called statutory rape? Because it isn’t just plain ol’ regular “rape”; it’s only statutory rape. Statutory = “the law says it”. They basically made up a new crime called “the law calls this rape”. Well, the law already called certain things rape, and they are just referred to as plain jane “rape”; isn’t statutory rape by its very name redundant? The very existence of its name implies that it isn’t rape... it’s just legally categorized as a form of rape because it creeps us out and we think it should be made illegal.

No, we have to protect 15-year-old girls from creepy 40-year-old men, because they aren’t smart enough to know that they should never have sex with a 40-year-old man (even if they for some reason want to), and if they did like the guy a whole lot and for some reason decided to have sex with the guy and enjoyed it just fine, it would later end up scarring them for life because it should scar anyone for life – merely a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s the power of suggestion.

Then when she turns 17, or 18, or whatever the magical age may be, she’s suddenly old enough to be treated like dirt by the 21-year-old asshole she’s somehow been attracted to, and when she regrets that abusive relationship five or ten years down the line, it’s her own fault for being such a slut because she should’a known better.

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#32165932)

I might be going a little too far here ... maybe I am just paranoid. But, I have been analyzing some evidence, fossil and more recent too, and I have reasons to believe that there has been some fucking going on in here. The evidence is subtle, you know, just billions of individuals going around, and, I sure, I am almost sure I've seen some babies from multiple species around here. Do you think maybe animals have been braking the law without being punished for, I don't know, 3.7 billion years? I know it sounds crazy that animals have been braking the law for so long without anyone noticing, but the evidence is there. We might want to take a closer look at it. There is a terrible, pornographic book (that should be banned) that is basically an apology of all this animal sex crimes. It's called The Evolution of Species. The guy that wrote it looks like a total pervert.

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 3 years ago | (#32166052)

Well one thing's for certain: they got the magic ages wrong. Female humans don't mentally mature until around 20. And males?! Those animals aren't even remotely mature until around 25! Out of fairness, the age limit can't be unequal; therefore, I insist that no one 25 years of age or older be permitted to inflict sexual acts upon another younger than 25 years!

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32168218)

Yes, but didn’t it ever occur to anyone that screw-ups, or at least the ability to make your own decisions and face the legitimate consequences of your decisions, are a certain part of the learning process – possibly even an important part of it? Growth only lasts so long, and if it is stunted during that time, the child will never fully reach its potential; this is clearly evident in one’s physical development but is there any reason to believe that it’s any less true for the development of one’s brain?

When I say “legitimate” consequences, I mean natural ones, not unnatural consequences imposed by us to force someone to comply and essentially take away the difficulty of the decision process. If you’ll go to jail for something, it’s (usually) a pretty easy decision to not do it, but making certain difficult decisions might be an important part of learning to be responsible and make difficult decisions, and adding unnatural repercussions prevents this from happening to some extent.

If you’re training a child and you never let him hurt himself, what does that teach him? No, he’ll never be scalded by a pot of boiling water because you’d never dream of leaving the handle pointed outward... but he’ll also not properly realise that certain rules are there for his protection and violating them will cause painful consequences that you won’t always be able to shield him from, and the older he gets the more such rules he’ll be faced with. If mommy doesn’t always come running the instant he does something he knows he isn’t supposed to and she allows him to occasionally meet some mildly painful and unpleasant consequences he’ll much quicker learn that breaking rules is a risky business and he’ll learn to be more cautious.

Yes, exercising their sexuality is something that’s very easy for kids to screw up, particularly when it’s just beginning and they don’t know much better. Screw-ups are not the end of the world, and they don’t have to scar someone for life... if we let every screw-up be a life-ruining event none of us would ever be able to function.

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

Alexandra Erenhart (880036) | more than 3 years ago | (#32175462)

I agree with what you say here except on the sex part. I'm not against teens exploring, but sex is a two person thing (if we keep it "basic"). When a kid is playing or exploring and gets hurt, a scratch in the knee for example, only him/her gets hurt. Sex is trickier because it involves two, and you can get consequences that will be there for life (ie. pregnancy). So I'd be more careful on that particular issue

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32176744)

It’s a process. Kindergartners are worried about cooties, skinned knees, and the sweater their mom made them wear. Grade schoolers are worried about their sneakers, getting beat up on the playground, and the sweater their mom made them wear. Junior highers are worried about their hair, their sneakers, getting beat up on the playground, and the sweater their mom made them wear. High schoolers are worried about their car, their hair, their sneakers, getting beat up on the playground, and hopefully their mom isn’t still making them wear that sweater. And so on.

At some point they start seeing decisions that could really screw things up if they make the wrong choice, and they should be gradually prepared to make those choices. Sex is one of those choices and you can’t protect your kids from it. They’ll do it anyway. You have only the hope that they’ve learned enough by that time to make the right decisions, or at least not to make the really bad ones, when you aren’t going to be there to rescue them.

Re:Why do they CARE... (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32164800)

There are at least a few directions I could take this argument.

Consent? You’re concerned about animals giving consent? We don’t seem to have that hang-up when we’re subjecting them to medical treatments or drugs. You don’t have to worry about getting your dog’s consent before the vet cuts his balls off, do you?

Rape? That is the forcible commission of an act of sexual intercourse upon a human without their consent. Just like killing an animal isn’t called murder, sexual intercourse with an animal without its consent (which it isn’t of a high enough mental state to properly give, according to the argument) shouldn’t be called rape. That takes you outside of the realm of loaded language such as “rape” and into a matter of whether or not you did physical harm or caused mental trauma. If the animal obviously wasn’t harmed and enjoyed it, then it wasn’t cruel or abusive.

I love playing devil’s advocate. :P

Re:Why do they CARE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32165992)

So far it's been pesky dogs trying to hump me without my consent.

And yes, they were all below 16 years old.

AFAIK dogs that aren't crippled or otherwise restrained can give you a nasty bite if they don't like whatever you're trying.

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32168306)

So... I’m curious. If someone had sex with a 15-year-old dead dog, would it be rape, bestiality, necrophilia, or pedophilia?

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32168426)

Well, I’m honestly a little bit surprised. I asked why politicians felt justified to legislate on a clear morality issue, and I got moderated troll. Maybe the moderator thought I was trying to subtly argue the slippery-slope fallacy?

Re:Why do they CARE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32170376)

The sad fact that you are moderated "Troll" still says volumes about people's attitudes towards sexuality. The sad thing is that any laws against bestiality will likely hurt children the most, because statistically speaking, children living on farms are more likely to have their first sexual encounters with a sheep than with another human being (see Note).

In terms of consent, it shouldn't even be an issue. Animals will bite you if you even touch when they don't want you to, or at least growl, walk away, etc. If a dog jumps up on your leg and starts humping it, then that is a totally different matter. Dogs don't seem to have sexual inhibitions like some neoconservatives and religious people do.

Note: the stats I remember reading about in a sex education book in a high school library. No doubt a book covering childhood or teenage sexuality these days would likely be banned or outlawed based on the "progress" of society. The politically correct form of sex education these days is abstinance, and NOT tolerance.

Note also that the Wikipedia also has a politically correct (and bogus statement [wikipedia.org] that "Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere." Which is funny, because as a former Anthropology student, I will say that this statement is complete bullshit. For example, among the Arembepeiro of Brazil,

Boys were encouraged to masturbate, to engage in homosexual play, and to have sexual relations with willing girls and woman, and with livestock--from chickens (that's right) to mares.

(Ref. Assault on Paradise, Conrad Phillip Kottak, p. 73)

Epilogue:
I find it interesting that there isn't a psychiatric term for "consenting" adults of the opposite sex (and of the same species) who engage in sex with each other. Interesting too, that many people don't seem to mind people having sex with other "races", but get all up tight about different species. For some people, sex is not about pleasure, it is about morality and "mental illness".

Re:Why do they CARE... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32178244)

Love the sig! He's still out there somewhere, sometimes posts on Slashdot. Total freedom from self-awareness makes for a spectacle on many fora, still funny enough to become a meme.

Ellie K (1)

Ellie K (1804464) | more than 3 years ago | (#32160044)

Yes, it is kinda ludicrous that Florida lawmakers cannot overcome some relatively minor obstacles, and manage to pass a law that most everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would agree to. But remember, Florida was one of only 7 or 8 states that still had sodomy laws in place until Federal repeal in 2003. So if I wanted anal with my husband in our own home, we'd could be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months in jail and fined for as much as $5000, both of us, if apprehended! No, I didn't hear about a lot of arrests on heterosexual consensual sodomy charges, but efforts to repeal the law were unsuccessful until the Fed's changed everything, so there must've been enough support somewhere to keep the law in place.

That is such a charming animal picture included. The dogs are a bit hideous looking, but look so sweet together!

Re:Ellie K (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32163022)

Wait... there are women out there that actually _want_ anal? Damn... why haven't I ever met any of them?

Personally, I've always been confused that anal and oral are both legally referred to as "sodomy". In the interest of unambiguous communication, shouldn't their be a clear and distinct label for each and every act?

Re:Ellie K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32164556)

Oral sex is called fellatio, not sodomy.

Re:Ellie K (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32169406)

In some states premarital sex, sex in a position other than missionary and/or sex outside of your bed are also considered sodomy.

In Mississippi, any house with more than 6 unmarried adult women living there was legally a whore house. It prevented the forming for sororities in the state for a long time.

Re:Ellie K (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32170612)

It prevented the forming for sororities in the state for a long time. Just as well... "What's the difference between a sorority house and a whorehouse? The whorehouse charges."

Re:Ellie K (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32172960)

More to the point, why did Sodom have SO MANY sex acts named after it, while Gomorrah had none?

Re:Ellie K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32174776)

One is the cause, another is the effect:
You Sodomize, then you get Gomorrhea.

Re:Ellie K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32178312)

Gomorrah got the diseases. Why do you think it's always listed second as in "Sodom and Gomorrah"? They're in chronological order.

Re:Ellie K (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#32166696)

Wait... there are women out there that actually _want_ anal? Damn... why haven't I ever met any of them?

You don't go to the right sort of party.
If you read the various serious sex science, you'll see estimates that around one in 3 or one in 4 of women enjoy being the recipient of anal sex. Which sounds around right in my experience.

Personally, I've always been confused that anal and oral are both legally referred to as "sodomy". In the interest of unambiguous communication, shouldn't their be a clear and distinct label for each and every act?

Don't blame the deficiencies of your legislature on the language. There's no shortage of precise and unambiguous terms for different sex acts, so I guess that your lawyers are just afraid of the subject.

Re:Ellie K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32172784)

"Sodomy" as legally defined is "any unnatural sex act." Of course, I don't know what "natural" is.

Re:Ellie K (1)

Ellie K (1804464) | more than 3 years ago | (#32176496)

It is confusing @Locke2005, re the legal defn of "sodomy". I learned a bit working in public health (I'm not an atty, but some policy training was req'd). "Sodomy" is legally equiv to oral AND anal, for same-gender as well as opposite-gender. Why is this relevant to the FL bestiality law?Because Justice Scalia AND Justice Clarence Thomas ruled to uphold the sodomy laws in 2003, but the rest of the court were in favor of repeal, which was the ruling. Scalia's concern [cornell.edu] was that if the sodomy law were overturned, then laws against incest, adultery, masturbation (yes, it was illegal!) and of course, bestiality might be weakened.

Even more confusing, the sodomy laws were explicit, but inconsistent at the state level. About 75% applied the law to same-gender activity only. Other states said it was punishable for "all gender couples".

I'll close by responding to your first point. @RockDoctor knows it's true, and so do I: some women LIKE anal. This is nothing new. If it were, the states of Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina wouldn't have included the M-F scenarios in their no-sodomy laws. Nor oral, nor anal....

Re:Ellie K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32173152)

I don't think it's ludicrous at all to oppose such laws. Such laws give the state unnecessary powers. "Smith, a writer for the liberal XYZ newspaper, is being investigated for bestiality charges" is a surefire way of killing someone's career and credibility.

flabbergasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32160108)

sooo.... turtle sex [wikiquote.org] is still legal in Florida then? he asks, in an overly casual manner...

Hurray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32160702)

My cat-girl sex slave isn't illegal in Florida!

Come here, Pink, I have a job for you!

Murder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32162994)

We shouldn't really make any laws about murder either, I don't like to think about it and it disturbs the children.

Why do they need this law? (2, Insightful)

CyberBill (526285) | more than 3 years ago | (#32165638)

I have a question... If we already have laws that prevent animal cruelty, then why do we need a law specifically for having sex with an animal?

If you ask me, the process of butchering millions of chickens, cows, pigs, and sheep every year is far bigger deal for those animals than the perhaps ten thousand a year that are forced to have sex with a human.

I don't think that we should put people in jail for bestiality for the same reasons I don't think we should put people in jail for having anal sex or a scat fetish. The law should not be used to dictate morality, and no matter how icky you think something is, there is someone else who enjoys it.

Re:Why do they need this law? (1, Troll)

Ekhymosis (949557) | more than 3 years ago | (#32165858)

But it makes Baby Jebus cry, and anything that makes that twat cry is a big no no in Good Ole America (TM). People need any excuse to justify their hate, especially by the religious zombies.

Re:Why do they need this law? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32172252)

So... you like bestiality, then?

No, what this issue shows is that people are hypocrites. They'll demonize people for having different moral standards, while their own invisible line is just drawn a hair further back. Maybe 20 years from now, we'll be looking at all the people who were against bestiality as hate-mongers.

Cruelty? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32170638)

we already have laws that prevent animal cruelty

I seem to remember one case where it was tried under "animal cruelty" type laws, and the basis of the defence (which I believe won) was "the sheep liked it"

Icky. But hard to prove or disprove, really.

no kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32172002)

anybody who knows a male dog, well lets just say the dog might not be the one with consent problems.

Re:Why do they need this law? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32172232)

Animals are considered property. Are you really going to feel the same way about eating that cow after finding out your neighbor has been fucking it? If it is your own animal that you are having sex with, then how is anyone else going to find out? I'd say your cow didn't consent to it, but then she probably didn't consent to being artificially inseminated just to keep her giving milk either.

Only way for some slashdotters... (1)

Ekhymosis (949557) | more than 3 years ago | (#32165854)

Bestiality is probably the only way for some /.'s. Whatever floats your boat, I don't judge. Just be responsible!

Of course shagging a sheep with a sheep-skin condom would be ... ironic?

Re:Only way for some slashdotters... (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#32167052)

Of course shagging a sheep with a sheep-skin condom would be ... ironic?

Seriously? Is it really that difficult for Americans to learn/use the concept of irony?

Re:Only way for some slashdotters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32180102)

your sheep not putting out huh?

On the internet... (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 3 years ago | (#32166022)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Re:On the internet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32166598)

So then, would you happen to be a weasel?

Re:On the internet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32175080)

apparently, Joy is a dog.

was CAIR lobbying against this law??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32183104)

http://www.homa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=58 --- yes, zoophila is allowed in Islam

And the punishment for the animal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32198488)

Haha. It just seems like the usual. You can slaughter an animal, but you can't make love to it. Next there will be a huge outcry over cows udders being visible to children. Of course it must be the religious nutbags. Remember the Bible says you can keep slaves, rape women, murder (don't give me that commandment crap - Deuteronomy 20:10-1), but is very explicit about what to do with someone who 'knows' an animal. Will the Florida law require that the animal be punished as well? The bible requires that it and the human both must be killed. Hilarious.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...