If that's the best story on bestiality ever written, then there must be a very small literature on the subject. Which, come to think of it, one hopes is the case.
All that high-falutin' pontificating on "human exceptionalism," as if the presumption that human life is more worthy than bovine life is the only thing preventing civilization from collapsing into a giant orgy of incestuous fetus-aborting gay polygamy with animals.
Wouldn't it be sufficient simply to note that because sex without consent is always wrong, and animals are incapable of consent, sex with animals is always wrong? If, someday, a species of bears evolves -- or, um, gets intelligently designed -- with the capacity for moral thought and speech, then we can start asking questions about whether sex between humans and consenting super-bears undermines human dignity. Until then, bestiality is just a form of rape that we really don't have to think very hard about to condemn.
Human exceptionalism is an important belief -- one that, for example, allows me to lightly sear and then broil the six-ounce filet of beef I'll eat for dinner tonight. But acceptance of bestiality is not based mainly on a rejection of human exceptionalism. It is, instead, based on an acceptance of rape as a morally permissible activity. Defend the taboo against sex without consent and the taboo against sex with animals will stand as a matter of course.
Kudos to Anonymous for catching the Spinal Tap reference. That passed under my radar.
My own favorite phrase from the article was "Mecca for bestiality." If columnist Jamieson's excruciating PC attitude prevails, I'm thinking that might replace "Evergreen State" on Washington's license plates...
6 comments:
If that's the best story on bestiality ever written, then there must be a very small literature on the subject. Which, come to think of it, one hopes is the case.
All that high-falutin' pontificating on "human exceptionalism," as if the presumption that human life is more worthy than bovine life is the only thing preventing civilization from collapsing into a giant orgy of incestuous fetus-aborting gay polygamy with animals.
Wouldn't it be sufficient simply to note that because sex without consent is always wrong, and animals are incapable of consent, sex with animals is always wrong? If, someday, a species of bears evolves -- or, um, gets intelligently designed -- with the capacity for moral thought and speech, then we can start asking questions about whether sex between humans and consenting super-bears undermines human dignity. Until then, bestiality is just a form of rape that we really don't have to think very hard about to condemn.
Human exceptionalism is an important belief -- one that, for example, allows me to lightly sear and then broil the six-ounce filet of beef I'll eat for dinner tonight. But acceptance of bestiality is not based mainly on a rejection of human exceptionalism. It is, instead, based on an acceptance of rape as a morally permissible activity. Defend the taboo against sex without consent and the taboo against sex with animals will stand as a matter of course.
i just like how the article repeatedly uses the phrase "sex farm," which was also Spinal Tap's best song.
So, uhm, was the horse--how to put this delicately?--catching or pitching? Because the article isn't all that clear.
I heard that the horse was "pitching" and that the injuries included a ruptured colon (if you know what I'm sayin').
Kudos to Anonymous for catching the Spinal Tap reference. That passed under my radar.
My own favorite phrase from the article was "Mecca for bestiality." If columnist Jamieson's excruciating PC attitude prevails, I'm thinking that might replace "Evergreen State" on Washington's license plates...
Am I understanding Smith rightly to say that only a doubting Thomas wants equine a**?
And if Pam can be with a Roach why can't Phil E. have a night with a mare?
Post a Comment