Taking One For The Farm Team (or, Unnatural Acts And The People Who Love Them)

Fair warning: The following post has to do with subjects which are not appropriate for children and/or animals to view...it may unnecessarily confuse and upset the children, and the animals might start getting ideas.

Tip o'the rock to the esteemed Jim Quinn.

--------------------

Folks, I've never been to Seattle, or Spokane, or anywhere else in the state of Washington, and I've never really had the urge to give it a try. That used to be because I didn't think I was missing much of anything that went on there.

Apparently, I was wrong. I mean, check out THIS night life:

King County sheriff's detectives are investigating the owners of an
Enumclaw-area farm after a Seattle man died from injuries sustained while having sex with a horse boarded on the property.
Investigators first learned of the
farm after the man died at Enumclaw Community Hospital July 2. The county Medical Examiner's Office ruled that the death was accidental and the result of having sex with a horse.

Strangely enough, the article goes on to say, no charges have been filed from this man's death:

Deputies don't believe a crime occurred because bestiality is not illegal in Washington state and the horse was uninjured, said [sheriff's Sgt. John] Urquhart.

You heard right, folks. Apparently, in this case at least, the welfare of a horse residing in the state of Washington takes precedence over the welfare of a human being.

As one might expect from any sane person in a position of power, State Senator Pam Roach is in the process of trying to have bestiality banned in the state.

The amazing thing about this, though, is not just that it took a man's death to inspire this action.
And, stunning though this is, it's not the fact that she actually has to TRY to make this happen.
And, even more stunning, it's not that I have finally found something that PETA and I actually agree on.

The amazing thing about all this, in my humble opinion, is that the subject of bestiality actually has legal implications AT ALL. And I'm not even taking in health considerations here.
Would not ANY human being in their right mind look at something like else and say (at the very least) "Why the hell would anyone WANT to do that?"

Who do we have to thank for this state of affairs, I hear you ask?
Well, among others....this gentleman.

According to his official bio, Peter Singer is currently "Laureate Professor, University of Melbourne, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, part-time 2005- ".
He has held several academic positions in several academic institutions---including, rather recently, the Bioethics Chair at Princeton University.
(That's right...the CHAIR. Parents currently paying tuition at Princeton, take note.)
His appointment there was fought rather vociferously because of his attitudes towards disabled infants.

But he has some interesting views about bestiality, too. From his essay, "Heavy Petting" (no, that's not my phrase -- that's actually his own title):

...there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals....

But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.

"Mutually satisfying activities"? Please tell me he just meant playing Catch with a tennis ball.

Sadly, he is but one of several others who have put forth such opinions. Those of you willing to peruse this subject further are invited to do so at their leisure. (The name Ingrid Newkirk also comes to mind.)

Now, y'all know I'm not one to pry into what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
But come on...isn't "screwing the pooch" supposed to be something you want to AVOID doing?