Man Gets 3 Years in Prison for Sex With Horse

Neigh means NO ! Look it up in your women's lib handbook under para 6-1-3, Titled "Variations of No means NO !"

A Celtic Chieftain was expected to have sex with a selected mare (selected for its good looks ?) as part of a fertility ritual for the lifestock. Obviously the mare was only too prepared to have a real stallion after such a pathetic little one. But the warriors (perhaps all the tribe - it is unclear) would stand around and make encouraging comments to the chieftain. The Celts did drink beer, you know.

holy ****.
three years?

Im sorry but animals do not have the same thinking process humans do. Sexual abuse ? On an animal? unless it causes physical damage ( someone having sex with a cat for example) I dont see the issue.
The man was not drugging the horse, not hurting the horse and horses dont have the same mental capacity.

Trespassing, several times, several charges.. yes.. ok bub. Time to go to jail. You didnt get it the first time.
Wanna have sex with a horse? Go buy one.

A mans penis will not tear the anus of a horse.
A horses penis will tear the anus of a man.
If he is that dumb.. by alllll means.. have at it dude.

Not unless the pig farmer who produces my bacon does, too. I'm pretty sure those pigs suffered more from the slaugter and their life leading up to it than the horse did from the rape. Plus, I'm pretty sure the pig farmer repeated his offense more than once.

The offender may deserve whatever punishment Virginia laws require for trespassing, but the buggery part is horseshit.

Intent makes a big difference. Would you treat the pig farmer the same as someone who stomps a cat to death for fun?

3 years in prison because of intent? I would sentence the cat stomper to 3 years of 8 hrs of volunteer service every sunday at an animal shelter, and I hate cats.

I didn't say anything about "3 years". But intent can often make a much greater difference than 3 years to a sentence.

And the cat stomper I have in mind is someone who I would like to see do real jail time, not just community service on Sundays.

so, I guess our opinions differ, so it goes.

On the other hand, having sex with a pussy should do good..

How so? Personally, I tend to judge people's acts and social norms by their consequences. And the consequences are similar whether someone tortures cats for fun or tortures pigs to make our ham cheaper.


I have to admit that's a very embarrassing question to me, because my answer is going to expose me as a total hypocrite. I don't enjoy being a hypocrite, but whatamIgonnado....

In theory, my answer is this: Yes, we ought to treat pig farmers -- and their customers! -- the same as someone who stomps on a cat for fun. For a great majority among us, smoked, firm tofu is a perfectly healthy and nutritious alternative to ham. So if we choose to eat ham instead, that's a convenience, not a necessity. This means we're killing animals for convenience. (We're torturing them, too, if they're factory-farmed animals, which is the case for most animals we eat.) I don't see how killing and torturing animals for our convenience is morally superior to doing it for the excitement.

In practice, I'm embarrassed to say, I live my life in total conflict with this insight. My moral reasoning would require me to become a vegan, or at least an exclusive consumer of products "certified humane" or similar. But in reality, I eat meat just like the next person, and I don't usually pay attention to any labels suggesting humane treatment of the animals.

As I said, there's a hypocrite for you. You have been warned.

Slight amendment: My moral reasoning would require me either to become a vegan (yaddayaddayadda), or to embrace a sadist's right to stomp on cats, or to find some intermediate standard of animal protection I can consistently apply to both cases in good conscience. In practice, I have failed at all three so far.

There's always that risk.

Indeed there is.

By the way, I borrowed the metaphor from Elizabeth Kolbert's review in the New Yorker of Levitt's and Dubner's book Superfreakonomics. You may well enjoy reading the review -- it puts the metaphor to even better use than I did.

So, Thomas....if you do not consider intent, you would treat the person, with a long, safe, driving career, whose car slips on black ice and ploughs into a car full of people and kills them no differently from a serial killer who stalks and kills the same number of people?

I think using animals sexually ought to be punished.

But it gives me pause that I am aware of a man who was sentenced recently here for numerous counts of sexually abusing his daughter over a number of years.

HE got sixteen months....suspended.

No, I think the law should be more lenient to the driver.

A serial killer will want to kill again, and nothing short of putting him in prison is likely to stop him. The driver, on the other hand, does not need to be jailed for him to stop running into people. Hence, I would reject a law imprisoning the driver, because its consequences would be more harmful than beneficial. It would yield no advantage to motorists, while imposing grave harm on the driver.

I know, that's what the joke referred to.

That's an interesting quibble re intent, really.

The serial killer has the intent to kill again.

The difference is that he intended to kill previously, whereas the driver did not.

I don't see that you are supporting your dismissal of intent at all.

I didn't say I categorically dismiss intent. I said I judge behavior by its consequences. Sometimes the intent behind a behavior has consequences. And when it does, it will make a difference in my judgment. I just don't think that intent is morally important per se, beyond its practical consequences.


No, that's not the relevant difference to me. What's done is done. We can't change the past with our reaction to the killings. The only thing our reaction can affect is the future, and any killings that may happen in it.

Serial killers will kill again in the future unless we lock them up. That, to me, is the reason that the law ought to lock them up. By contrast, unfortunate drivers will probably not accidentally kill other motorists in the future, and any punishment we might submit them to will make practically no difference to whether they will. That, to me, is the reason not to punish them, and to merely make them pay damages. The offenders' intent matters to me only insofar as it affects their expected behavior in the future.

Anyway, our digression about intent is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. My conclusion about cat torturers, horse rapists, and pig farmers would be the same even if I agreed with you about intent. In all three cases, the human acts consciously, deliberately, and with the intent to do it again. And in all three cases, the benefit to the human is trivial compared to the suffering of the animal. In the horse rapist's case it's sexual pleasure, in the cat stomper's case it's sadistic satisfaction, in the pig farmer's case it's so that humans can eat ham rather than smoked tofu. What's the great difference between the human's intent in each case? I simply don't see it.

my grampa was a pig farmer (really)

I still love bacon.

(i could not watch some of the stuff went on then. gramma said no)



mostly I just wanted to be able to say i posted on a horse molesting thread.

(great conversation starter for work tomorrow)