–wringing hands frantically-- Oh my, why won’t someone think about the necrohomobeastalists !!!
My oven? Why, how dare you !! The very thought…
I’m sure that if you used protection you wouldn’t have anything to worry about. Not that I know, or anything, just WAGging here.
My thoughts exactly.
Personally, i find the whole thing pretty disgusting, but the idea of criminalizing such activity strikes me as even more stupid than engaging in the activity.
Would you criminalize some guy who decided to rub his dick between two pieces of steak? If not, why does it matter that this particular meat had not yet been properly butchered?
The only legal restrictions on sexual activity, in my opinion, should be based on issues of consent. If a partner to the sex act does not or cannot give consent, then we have a problem. The most obvious case of non-consensual sex is rape; we also criminalize sex with minors and sex with animals, and for me the main reason for this is (or should be) that such participants cannot give proper and informed consent.
I fully support prosecuting someone who has sex with a live animal, but if the animal is dead, then it’s literally just a piece of meat. Fucking it is strange and gross, but not a matter for the legal system, IMO.
Well, it was taking place along side of a public road, as I read the article. Someone must have seen it and I’m just glad it wasn’t me.
I think this comes under the heading of, “It’s so gross and ewwwwwww that it should be a crime and at the very least the goofball should be held up to public ridicule.”
In which case, he should be charged with indecent exposure, public lewdness, or whatever.
I agree with you that it’s “gross and ewwwwwww.” But my evaluation of a sexual practice as being “gross and ewwwwwww” is not, in my opinion, sufficient reason to make it illegal, especially if no-one is being hurt by it.
Or put it on eBay. Starting bid $5000! 
When vagina starts tasting canned, you’ve, eh, strayed from the main dish. 
Might I humbly sumbit this bash quote?
Aw man, are you going to drag horses into it?
Actually, sort of. They are part of the life-cycle and spread of the causitive agent of Lyme Disease. *Treponema pallidium * causes spyphilis, and *Borrelia burgdorferi * causes Lyme disease. Both organisms are bacterial spirochetes. It’s certainly a loose connection, but it’s the best I got!
Best part… Lyme disease is not sexually transmitted, so go nuts!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
bwaaaahahahaahaaaaaaaa.
Brilliant.
Seriously, now. I agree with what mhendo said- but people want to legislate based on their own moral codes, don’t they? If enough people think something is bad, then it becomes Bad.
If he had taken the time to drag the carcass off to his house, and uh… cleave himself unto his deerly beloved in the privacy of his own flora and fawna, nobody would be the wiser. Now that the public knows about it, he’s in for a good tanning.
Oh, you just hit on one of my pet gripes! A couple of my (molecular epidemiologists) more than half suspect that it may be sexually transmissible (or at least some variant borellioses may be) They have some interesting theories on the historical impact of arthridities in Europe/colonial N. America.
You’re absolutely correct to say that it isn’t sexually transmissible-- to the best of scientific knowledge. The CDC has said so clearly for more than 20 years. However, my friends claim there isn’t a single good study proving this. It was just an expert opinion from an early report, which has been perpetuated ever since. They showed me a current CDC summary on Lyme and that one claim was the only one in the paragraph that wasn’t footnoted to within an inch of its life with supporting studies.
And please “go nuts”? So… many… puns… Couldn’t you have phrased that differently?
No, but possibly sheep.
Never really thought about it like that. I just assumed there would be plenty of data regarding human transmission and the “experts” would just say the same about animal → human. Until there is an official study about it though, I guess I withdraw my claim. Any volunteers?
Oh, and the pun was unintended… unfortunately. 
Well, the judge has ruled and apparently it does matter.
The judge noted that the statute at issue, Wisc. Stat. 944.17(2)(c) [pdf] prohibited “an act of sexual gratification involving his or her sex organ and the sex organ, mouth or anus of an animal.” (Just in case you are wondering if this is not fully inclusive, subsection 2(d) prohibits acts of “sexual gratification involving his or her sex organ, mouth or anus and the sex organ of an animal”. so it’s illegal no matter which way is up, so to speak.)
The judge found that the statute was sufficient to allow a judge and jury to determine if it were violated regardless of whether or not the animal was alive at the time of the act. If there were sexual contact between the accused and the animal’s “sex organ, mouth or anus”, it was a crime whether or not the “sex organ, mouth or anus” (and the animal they were connected to) were alive at the time. Had our protaganist gotten his jollies between two venison steaks, there would have been no violation because there was no involvement of the aforementioned body parts.
Boy deer, huh?
Bad SDMB! Bad!
Taking a quick break at work and sneaking a peak on this thread. Now I’m busted by my staff who can hear smirks coming from my office. 
But what if there’s a tick up the deer’s hoo-hah, or the boy deer’s ho-hum, like on House, and it transfers itself?
So, kids, the next time you want to have sex with a dead animal, remember, don’t use one of the handy orifices already available, you need to punch a new hole of your own.
I liked it better back when “Who’s fucked a deer?” was a rhetorical question.