It was all really just a simple misunderstanding.
She was told to give the dogs a bone and she thought they said to give them boners.
re: Criminal. Sick and disgusting, yes. Crimimal, no.
Criminal, yes, as it happens.
Oklahoma Statute §21-886, “Crime against nature,” provides:
And §21 887 clarifies the elements:
I think it’s irresponsible to mis-socialize animals that way. Just like people shouldn’t teach dogs to viciously attack every other human, or every other animal, you shouldn’t be teaching dogs that this is an acceptable and rewarded behavior when interacting with humans. If this behavior was never discovered and (for instance, maybe the woman died) the dogs were adopted out to another family, they could end up sexually attacking a person while thinking everything was A-OK. Bend over to pick up your socks and find this big dog not humping your leg but actually jumping on you and humping you.
I read a true crime book where the criminal had a girlfriend on the side, and he would make her have sex with a big pet dog, maybe a German shepherd. Then (I forget why), he ended up taking the dog home to his wife and teenage daughter, and the wife mentioned that she didn’t like how the dog kept insisting on trying to get up/in bed with their daughter, and IIRC kept the dog outside.
I am aware that it is a prosecutable offense. I was stating an opinion that while the practice is nauseating at best, making it a crime rates right up there with jail time for possessing a joint. ie. A waste of taxpayers time and money.
Thing is, they can’t give consent to have sex with each other either; are they raping each other ? The human version of consent ( about sex or anything else ) simply doesn’t apply to animals.
OK, so what precisely is ‘the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind’? Sodomy? Doing it with a dildo? The Cleveland Steamer? I’m assuming the legal ‘or’ means the same as the common-English ‘or’ here (either/or, meaning the crime against nature could be committed with human-human contact alone).
I’m not saying that the behavior should be encouraged, Lord no! I’m just responding to jayjay’s strange belief that “consent” is somehow an issue here.
My own opinion – and it’s not the first time I’ve been reminded of this – is that I’m extremely happy laws are made by elected legislators and not a conclave of the participants on the SDMB.
Can bestiality fans really be that selective?
It is odd that people can kill and eat animals but not fuck them, but I think the issue is just oogy enough that one feels a fool defending it for too long.
Ah, I see your point; my mistake, and I apologize for misinterpreting you. I guess it depends on how you define real “consent” but that’s a philosophical argument I’m not prepared to make.
Pure Gold.