A news story out of Wisconsin sort of piqued my curiosity, although I’m not delving too far into this one, except to make a few general observations (h/t G):

A Wausau man accused of performing a sex act with a horse has been charged in Marathon County with bestiality.

[Name and age redacted but available almost anywhere else] was charged with sexual gratification with an animal sex organ, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana as a repeat offender and bail jumping, according to court records.

I vaguely remembered hearing somewhere that “bestiality” is not actually a criminal offense in many U.S. jurisdictions, so I set about to try to look that up without actually using Google. Wikipedia is our friend in this regard: “As of 2012, bestiality is illegal in 37 U.S. states. Most state bestiality laws were enacted between 1999 and 2012.” As it turns out, bestiality was usually included, expressly or by implication, in state-level “sodomy” or “crimes against nature” laws, which were mostly struck down in 2003 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas. I do not, let’s be clear, think that this negatively affects the importance or validity of that decision in any way.

This is a heavy topic, so here’s a picture of Yosemite Valley to marvel at.

Since I am of the opinion that consent is the most important factor in any sort of sexual activity—i.e. if the participants all give knowing, willing consent, they can pretty much do what they want; and by “all” participants I really do mean all participants, including anyone who can see what you’re doing (it’s fine by me if you like stuff involving clown noses and Cool Whip, but I never agreed to watch you do it in public, so get behind closed doors, or at least high walls, please)—I am generally of the opinion that sexual activities with animals is not permissible. They cannot give consent in any way that we humans can unambiguously understand as consent.

Now, I am also of the opinion that (to paraphrase Donna Moss of The West Wing again), in a free society, you need a reason to make something illegal, not to make it legal. I think the lack of capacity to consent is a good enough reason to make this illegal, but I’m willing to hear other views on the subject. I just don’t promise I won’t get squicked out. The key point, though, is that I do not think this should be illegal because of my own personal reaction (squicked out), but because of the consent issue.

The Wikipedia article mentions that “laws which prohibit non-abusive bestiality have been criticized for being discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional.” It cites an article (PDF file), which I haven’t read in its entirety, posted at Inter-Disciplinary.net, which…..well, here’s a small snippet:

By showing that some of the practices approved of by organizations such as the the American Kennel Club are similar to, or more invasive than, acts for which criminal convictions for zoophilia have been secured, the author seeks to establish that laws that condemn zoophilia while permitting these practices are logically incoherent and are therefore inherently unjust.

I’m not sold on this argument. The only other specific mention of the American Kennel Club involves a description of a surgical method of artificial insemination (page 5). The author mentions this as part of a distinction made by the law, which he says is arbitrary, between “sexual contact with animals for [people’s] own sexual gratification” and other “acts involv[ing] sexual interference with the animal carried out for the benefit of the human owner rather than for the direct and necessary therapeutic benefit of the animal involved.” Now, I’m all for taking a closer look at the American Kennel Club’s procedures, especially if they don’t involve any sort of anesthetic, but I don’t think that’s where the author is going with this.

The other question that occurred to me was inspired by a post from about six months ago, in which I explored certain stereotypes about certain states and their proclivities for marrying within the family. (States which allow first cousins to marry: California, New York, Texas, etc.. States which do not allow first cousins to marry: Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, West Virginia, etc.) Luckily for me, the Animal Legal and Historical Center has already done the research on this. Here are the states that currently, according to the ALHC, have no express criminal prohibition on “animal sexual assault”:

• Colorado
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Hawaii
• Kentucky
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Texas
• Vermont
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

That’s fifteen states and the District of Columbia, which doesn’t match up with the numbers offered by Wikipedia, but I’ll leave it to someone else to resolve that discrepancy. I’m also not offering any specific opinions on what these states’ legislatures and D.C. should do, precisely, since I don’t know for sure what laws they do have on the books.

Texas, the only state for which I know an above average amount about animal welfare laws, has no express prohibition on bestiality, although it has statutes prohibiting “cruelty” to animals.

The statute on “cruelty to livestock animals” prohibits “intentionally or knowingly…tortur[ing] a livestock animal.” Tex. Pen. Code § 42.09(a)(1).

The statute on “cruelty to nonlivestock animals” prohibits “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly…tortur[ing] an animal or in a cruel manner kill[ing] or caus[ing] serious bodily injury to an animal.” Tex. Pen. Code § 42.092(b)(1). It also prohibits “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly…caus[ing] serious bodily injury to an animal” and “caus[ing] bodily injury to an animal,” but in either case this must be “without the owner’s effective consent.” Tex. Pen. Code §§ 42.092(b)(2), (6).

Note that the statute on livestock animals does not include the word “recklessly.”

Another interesting note is that the statute on nonlivestock animals expressly defines the terms “cruel manner” and “torture,” Tex. Pen. Code §§ 42.092(a)(3), (8), while the livestock statute does not.

Photo credit: By chensiyuan (chensiyuan) [GFDL or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons.