- Zoosexuality and the law
Zoosexuality and the law looks at the laws governing human-animal sexual interaction (also sometimes known as bestiality or zoophilia) around the world.
Because it is easy to determine when there is a law against, but (for reasons discussed) often less easy to reliably identify when it is legally acceptable, this article focuses upon laws against zoosexual activity and does not attempt to address where it may be legal. Only in a few confirmed cases, where it is clearly permitted, will these be stated.
Background to the legal framework
Zoosexualityis the spectrumof human-animal sexual interaction. Other than for breeding or veterinary purposes, in many countries humans are frowned upon if they interact with a non-human animal in this manner. Historically, sex with animals has been seen negatively in the West, generally either as a religious offense against God, or as a suspect or abusive act unsuited to the civilized world. Both of these are generally held societal views which persist to the present time.
A pivotal researcher in the field,
Hani Miletskidescribes [Miltetski, 1999, p.1] how: "Throughout the literature review, it is very obvious that authors perceive sexual relations with animals in very different ways. Definitions of various behaviors and attitudes are often conflicting, leaving the reader confused. Terms such as 'sodomy,' 'zoorasty,' 'zoosexuality,' as well as 'bestiality' and 'zoophilia' are often used, each having a different meaning depending on the author." Vern Bullough, a renowned professor emeritus who reviewed her work, states: [ Review of Miletski's book, published in "Journal of Sex Research," May 2003. ( [http://www.dynomind.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518225 Online version] )] "It seems clear from Miletski's summary of the existing literature that very little is actually known about bestiality and there is not anything approaching a consensus as to why animal-human sexual contacts occur... many of the existing reports and studies should be classified more as pseudo-science than serious research."
Historical and cultural context
Historically, European and western views on zoosexuality can often be traced back to religious influences and more specifically to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions under which it was viewed as an abomination and breach of God's will. During the
Middle Agesthis led to people being burned for zoosexual activity, viewed on a par with homosexualityunder the term " sodomy", as one of the most horrific acts possible from a religious point of view. Animals suspected were also put on trial and faced being killed if found guilty (See: Animal trial).
In other cultures, it was at times accepted, or tolerated, and at other times
tabooor punished, and this varied very widely.
However an examination of Hittite and Near Eastern Laws(Akkadian/Sumerian) shows the bestiality was punished in these ancient cultures as well. For instance a Hittite law reads "If anyone has sexual relations with a pig or dog, he shall die. He shall bring him to the palace gate(i.e. the royal court). The king may have them (i.e. the human and the animal) killed or he may spare them, but the human shall not approach the king. If an ox leaps on a man(in sexual excitement) the ox shall die; the man shall not die. They shall substitute one sheep for the man and put it to death. If a pig leaps on a man (in sexual excitement), it is not an offense." Additionally "If a man has sexual relations with either a horse or a mule, it is not an offense, but he shall not approach the king, nor shall he become a priest." For further information Martha Roth's 'Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor' is an essential text. Because many cultures in Africa and the Americas did not leave written records the evidence for zoosexual activity arrives to us through the observations of westerners. This can be problematic for creating an overall idea of practice vs. law in these cultures, just as observation among the practice of Bedouins in the 19th century may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding Islamic law since the former did not widely practice the later despite being considered Muslims. Thus written records are the best indication for what other cultures, such as India or China, have felt about human sexual activities with animals through the ages. Further research needs to be done in these areas but aversion to Bestiality are not found only in west, aversions have been documented throughout the world, just as the widespread practice has been documented as exisitng side by side with laws condemning the activity.
In more recent centuries the subject was studied as a medical aberration, some form of
throwbackor degeneracy within medicine, and finally within the 20th century, came to be recognized as a sexual orientationin many cases.
Zoosexuality and Jewish law
The important citations for Bestiality in the Hebrew Bible can be found in the following laws:‘Whoever lies with a Beast shall be put to death’ Exodus 22:19‘Do not have carnal relations with any beast and defile yourself thereby; and let no woman lend herself to a beast to mate with it; it is perversion.’ -Leviticus 18:23‘If a man has carnal relations with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast.’ –Leviticus 20:15‘If a woman approaches any beast to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death-their bloodguilt is upon them.’ –Leviticus 20: 16‘accursed is one who lies with any animal.’ And the entire people shall say ‘amen’. –Deuteronomy 27:21
The Mishnah elaborates:Sanhedrin 7:4 “These are they that are to be stoned: he that has a connection with a beast, and the woman that suffers connection with a beast”
These important passages provide a basis for some understanding of the interpretation of Bestiality that is found later in various legal codes throughout Europe and the United States. Many of them will also appear in some form among legal codes in 17th century Europe.
Clinical and scientific context
In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the "British Journal of Sexual Medicine" commented over 30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced." (Jan/Feb 1974, p.43)
People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to
zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoosexuality, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.The finding that attitudes to alternate sexualities correlate strongly with nature of contact and beliefs, is stated in a variety of research into zoophilia and also mirrored in societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which have been more thoroughly researched over a longer time period. Thus Herek, who established the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale in psychology, states "The ATLG and its subscales are consistently correlated with other theoretically-relevant constructs. Higher scores (more negative attitudes) correlate significantly with high religiosity, lack of contact with gay men and lesbians, adherence to traditional sex-role attitudes, belief in a traditional family ideology, and high levels of dogmatism (Herek, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1994; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1995, 1996)" [http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/atlg.html] , and that "the strongest predictor of positive attitudes toward homosexuals was that the interviewee knew a gay man or lesbian. The correlation held across each demographic subset represented in the survey--sex, education level, age--bar one: political persuasion. [Conservative men and women] " [http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/articles/nowack.html] ] Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive. "Ethologists" who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexualityand animal approaches to humans; their research into animal behavior, emotion and sexuality is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues.
Attitudes outside science are discussed in greater length in the article on
Laws on zoosexuality tend to be shaped by three main factors:
* Animal welfare concerns
* Personal moral views of shapers of opinion
* Cultural beliefs about the act
Issues confusing the matter are that such research as is available is not widely known, and that cases which come to public light may not be representative of the whole spectrum of this behavior.
Posner (1996) states, "there is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early
common law, there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of [ cruelty to animals ]statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anticruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while anti-bestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards." Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 0-226-67564-5. Page 207.]
Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoosexuality or zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse, or at the least, of concern. A notable exception is the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency, which in 2005 addressed concerns over a surge in
horse-rippingincidents by reviewing the matter and concluded that although animal cruelty legislation needed updating, a ban on zoosexual activity was not justified by research.
Why is it difficult to list zoosexuality laws?
There are two main reasons why it is hard to be certain whether zoosexual acts are legal in a country or area. The terminology used in law may be vague, so it is not clear what is covered, and whilst it is usually clear if a specific law prohibits zoosexual activity, it is not always so clear (for several reasons) whether the absence of an obvious law means the opposite.
Vagueness of terms
Some countries list laws very clearly, such as the
United Kingdom, which specifically prohibits penetration of a human being by the penis of an animal, and penetration of an animal by a human's penis. [" [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30042--b.htm Sexual Offences Act 2003] ", Office of Public Sector Information. Section 69.]
By contrast many countries are quite vague about the exact scope of law. Terms such as "sex with animals", "sexual contact", ["Sexual contact" - Arizona] "sodomy", "crime against nature", ["Crime against nature" - Michigan] or "bestiality" ["Bestiality" - Canada] are significantly lacking in legal precision, and as with many laws, what may seem very straightforward from a distance is very vague close-up in a courtroom. This also makes them indeterminate and leaves it unclear what exact activities such terms might encompass. [Examples of some hypothetical borderline cases:
* Should lying naked in contact with an animal, as many people do whose pets sleep next to them, be counted as "sexual contact"?
* For people who finding the sensation of fur to be erotic, does this automatically render any contact with animals (eg scratching their heads) a felony?
* What should the law make of the many pet owners and breeders who
masturbatetheir animals, not for their own pleasure, but because they view that as the ethical, responsible way for a person who owns an animal to handle animal sexuality, and who would see it as a form of cruelty (similar to refusing to squeeze anal glands) to refuse to acknowledge the discomfort to an animal of unrelieved libido [http://www.neutering.org] ? (And would the morality of the act depend on whether it is 'enjoyed' or not? If so, what about horse breeders?)
* If a girl finds she gets sexually aroused by the feelings and sensuality of riding a horse bareback (as is often noted to be the case), is she enjoying "sexual contact" with an animal?
oral sexalone, performed by or on an animal, constitute "bestiality"? (Notably, a US court has ruled that in the case of past president Bill Clinton, he did not commit perjury exactly because it was reasonable to have a belief that "sexual relations" did not include oral sex; see Lewinsky scandal.)
kissingsexual? Does society agree whether allowing a dog to engage in a more than passing kisswith a human is "sexual contact" or a "crime against nature", should the human not find it repugnant? These and other examples may serve to indicate not what should or should not be allowed, but rather, that the apparent clarity of an obvious term, is extremely unclear in practice unless very carefully defined.]
Difficulty in establishing legality
It is difficult to state with certainty which countries beyond these accept zoosexual actions in law. This is for many reasons, the main ones of which are:
;1) Assumption of crueltyEven if zoosexuality is not explicitly prohibited, there are often many other laws which can be used to effectively prosecute cases. For example, most countries have animal cruelty laws, and a prosecutor will argue that all zoosexual activity is animal abuse. [The argument that "all sexual activity with animals is automatically abuse" was made for example, in 1) the 2004 case of [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchell] (Florida), 2) the 2004 Pony case in Utrecht, Holland (cited below), and 3) the 2006 Washington state law which asserts as its foundational premise that "animal cruelty in the first degree is committed when a person knowingly engages in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal." [http://washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6417 SB-6417 2006] ]
;2) Creative law useSome countries have a range of historic but vague laws on their statute books (for example
sodomy laws, " crime against nature" laws, or other laws based upon the historical religious beliefs of the culture), and will prosecute under that. [For example a man found to have committed a zoosexual rape of a sheep in Michigan2006 was not charged with animal cruelty, but with crimes against nature. It is notable that a first offence of animal cruelty, which includes any "unnecessary neglect, torture, or pain", carries only up to a 93 day sentence ( [http://www.animal-law.org/statutes/michigan.htm MI 750.50 section 2(f) and section 4] ), whereas a zoosexual act prosecuted as a crime against nature is capable of a 20 year sentence.] Even when these type of laws do not exist, it is often the case that a prosecution will be found on some ground or other, however contrived.From alt.sex.bestiality [http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/2269/zoocurrent.html] : "Sometimes prosecutors are imaginative, and will creatively apply irrelevant laws. For instance, statutory rape if the animal is less than 18 years old."] Three examples:
* In one case, prosecutors charged the individual with "sex with a minor".
* In the case of
Kenneth Pinyan, reports suggest that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of abuse was found. Not only was there no abuse found, but the state had no law against zoosexual activity at the time. Nonetheless, as one news source comments:::"It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue ... The prosecutor's office wanted to charge [his friend] with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely [having sex with] one horse, the prosecutors could only charge [him] with trespassing."cite news|url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30811|accessdate=2006-04-30|title=The Animal In You|publisher=The Stranger|date=February-March 2006]
* In a
2005 Floridacase, media reports state: "Florida has no law prohibiting sex with animals, so [the defendant] is charged with ... disorderly conduct, specifically a 'breach of the peace by engaging in sexual activity with a dog'..." [ [http://www.guidehorse.org/news_guide_dog_abuse.htm Man charged with having intercourse with his Guide Dog ] ]
;3) Non-codified cultural prohibitions
Often there are traditions or unwritten cultural beliefs, such as tribal law or custom, which although not codified as legislation, carry an equal weight to any other law. These are sometimes called
customary law, and are one of the main four legal systems in the world.
;4) Social taboosFinally, whether or not legal, there are often social mores which frown strongly upon it. For example, even in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944, Beetz comments [Ullerstam, 1966, p.119, cited by Beetz, 2002, "Love Sex and Violence with Animals", section 5.2.13] on the findings of Ullerstam: :"It has to be noted in this context, that not having laws against a behavior and acceptance of it by society are two completely different matters... no acceptance of the persons engaging in this kind of sexual activity was adopted by the population. [...] Furthermore, Ullerstam referred to alleged evidence that showed, that many remarkable men had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those man had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a 'primitive moral reaction'."
For these reasons, this article only asserts legality where it is both confirmed and openly acknowledged custom and law that zoosexuality is legal, and where in fact it is openly confirmed, acknowledged or able to be practiced.
Overview of legislation
Laws in the West are in flux at the moment. Some countries such as the UK have recently (2002) relaxed their laws, whilst others (several US states) have recently introduced new ones where none previously existed.
A key factor seems to be the motive behind the change: in the UK the motive was a complete review of all sex offences, which concluded that a
life sentencewas inappropriately harsh. By contrast in ArizonaUSA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" [http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/122006] , and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating::"Arizona appears to be in the minority of states that does not make sex with animals a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong. But why shouldn't we be in line with everybody else if the rest of the nation thinks it's a problem?"
Common reasons given for laws
In cultures with a strong background in
Abrahamic religions ( Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), personal or cultural beliefs about God's Biblical laws or God's plans for human sexuality are a strong influencing factor.
Against this, in some countries (notably the
United States), courts have ruled that views on morality are not sufficient justification for law (" Lawrence vs. Texas"). In other cases (" Muth v. Frank") have ruled adversely to a broader reading of that case.
A second major reason is the strong desire of society to outlaw and punish
animal crueltyand animal abuse. Cultural and personal assumption, lack of informed knowledge, and cases of zoosadismhave left society as a whole wary or hostile towards any belief that animals may engage in sex with humans on a mutual or non-abusive basis. (The article on zoosexualityconsiders research in this area in more depth). A factor in this is that prior research, often performed only on known incarcerated violent abuser populations and mis-cited by parties with vested interests, and described by professor emeritus Vern Bulloughas "more as pseudo-sciencethan serious research""A contemporary look at sex between humans and animals - Understanding Bestiality & Zoophilia" by Hani Miletski. Book review, "Journal of Sex Research", May, 2003 by Vern L. Bullough [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518225/pg_2] ] and author assumption, was used for many decades as proof that zoosexual activity should be classified as a rare but profound sexual pathology.
Studies suggest that
zoosadism, or wanton abuse, torture, violent rapeor cruelty to animals, for example pet abuse or animal crushing, is a potentially strong indicator for abuse towards humans. Despite investigation, a similar link has not been shown with sexual activity in general or with zoophiles more specifically.
A major social factor in the proposed introduction of laws is the coming to light of specific cases to public attention; this was the case in Washington,
Missouriand ArizonaUSA, and also behind recent attempts in 2004to change the law in Holland.Washington on the back of the Kenneth Pinyancase, Missouri following the Jerry Springer Showepisode 'I married a Horse', Arizona following "A spate of incidents" [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0525bestiality0525.html] , and Holland following a case in Utrecht: "MPs were outraged at the start of March when a man caught raping a pony in Utrecht could not be punished because he had not broken any law... Veerman will now investigate the possibility of adding sex with animals to the list of acts classified as animal cruelty, news agency ANP reported." [http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=6363] ] In such cases it often does not seem to matter whether there was abuse or not,Eg Washington where the police looked for abuse but failed to find any evidence: Pinyan was the passive partner in an act of sexual penetration by a stallion videotaped by a friend. This was the only incident of its kind in the state's history, and it could be said the human, who died from internal injuries, was the victim of his own act. Police concluded despite examination of many video tapes that there was no evidence of animal abuse and that the only crime was the relatively minor one of trespass. Nonetheless, almost instantly, legislation was proposed in a form of moral panic, covering every aspect conceivable: the act, the videotaping of the act, the knowing granting of permission for the act, the observing of the act. [http://washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6417 SB-6417 2006] . In a similar manner, no prosecution for cruelty was ultimately found to be viable either, or indeed brought, in the televised case of the self-confessed Missouri zoophile highlighted on 'Jerry Springer', nor in the self-confessed Philip Buble case. Cases such as these have led commentators to observe that the connection between zoosexuality and cruelty seems assumptive at best.] or how rare or commonly such matters arise. Rather it seems to be a case of moral panic, or "not in my back yard."
Overall much of the concern can be summarized as coming from lack of knowledge, combined with repugnance at the concept of human-animal sexuality, presented in a societal context of religious or social abhorrance, and a desire to reduce abuse.
Laws against zoosexuality
Zoosexuality is permitted in a few countries, such as
Swedenand Denmark, although ordinary animal treatment laws apply. In other countries, such as Germanyand Russia, zoosexuality is legal, but zoosexual pornographyis illegal.
Elsewhere in the developed world, it is a prudent assumption that it is illegal or at the least against social custom.
There are also commonly laws against forcing another person to engage in zoosexual activity, especially minors (usually considered equivalent to
rape), and laws related to exposing others (either non-consensually or minors) to the sight of a sexual act. In some jurisdictions, laws against zoosexual conduct also include provisions for seizure of animals where convicted.
Sexual handling of an animal for the purposes of veterinary practice, or
animal husbandry(breeding), is normally exempted where such laws exist. In public discussion for the recently passed Oregon law, however, one animal shelter's spokesperson wanted the husbandry exemption kept out, as he was concerned that someone might use these "accepted farming practices" as a legal loophole to then have (legal) sexual contact with an animal only for personal enjoyment. One of the legislators responded by asking if they were trying to outlaw an act (of sexual contact), or a state of mind. The veterinary and husbandry exemption was left out of Oregon's law in the final, enacted version.
:"Main articles with legal sections:
Obscenity, Pornography, Legal status of internet pornography"Animal pornography is governed in the United States by the same Miller testand obscenity laws as any other form of pornography. In many countries such as Canada, Hungaryand the Netherlands, such material is legal, although in some countries where zoosexual acts are legal, zoosexual pornography is not (Belgium, Germany, Russia).
Legality of any given pornographic material has three components: legality of production, legality of sale and transportation, and legality of ownership.
In general, animal pornography is legal to produce anywhere that zoosexual activity and the creation of pornography in general are both legal. Laws concerning sale, transmission and ownership vary more widely.
Erotic art, such as animal pornography in cartoons and the like, which does not require the recording of an actual sexual incident, are not usually considered sex with animals by the law, and so their status depends upon more general laws such as legal limits upon obscenity or pornography alone, and the thin line between erotic art and pornography. The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of "
Omaha the Cat Dancer", a furry comic book, which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by Torontopolice for pornographic depiction of bestiality, [As noted, "furry", or anthropomorthic cartoon art, is not usually considered "bestiality".] and the subject of praise by the New ZealandIndecent Publications Tribunal which considered that it was "not indecent", for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality.
Religious lawIn certain religions, sex with animals was part of the legal framework of a theocratic state, and as such the matter also falls under religious law. This is particularly the case for Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianityand Islam, although many other religions and traditions such as Hindu, Buddhismand even Satanismhave religious views and rules on the matter which did not form part of a national legislative regime.
Historical and other laws
In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old
Peruvian law prohibited single males from keeping a female alpacain their residence.
Impact of laws
Impact of anti-zoosexuality laws has been in four main areas:
# A culture of fear, ignorance or witch-hunting, in which the "presence" of a law becomes evidence that a group are inherently "deserving" of a law. (A similar effect was noted in respect of the UK's
Section 28law on homosexuality when passed).
# The placing of such people outside the law has led to inhibitions on zoosexuals' ability to report animal abuse (due to unwillingness to come to legal attention as a witness or otherwise), or alternatively increases zoosexuals' vulnerability to blackmail (a proportion are reported by vindictive human ex-partners and the like, or the threat used to obtain advantage).
# Reduced ability to determine what, if any, support, counselling or other assistance may be appropriate, or to provide or seek the same openly. (A notable exception is in
Germanywhere zoosexuality is legal, and a telephone based charitable crisis support service similar to "Samaritans" is available)
# The personal impact of living with such fears - of loss of partners, or criminal charges - and the need to maintain secrecy even from loved ones (due to lack of legal protection), is a stressor to zoosexuals and their relationships.Connected with this, fear of consequences is reported to prevent zoosexuals from seeking clinical advice, for example, by raising zoosexuality or losses connected to it with doctors or therapists.For example this description by one person of difficulty seeking support after the loss of a dog to
congenitalkidney disease despite being able to confide in his wife: "I thought I was O.K., and then I burst into tears in the kitchen and couldn't stop crying. I didn't have any idea how much I loved [my dog] until she was gone... My work was suffering and my relationship with my wife was suffering... After I found myself idly wondering how I'd commit suicide (just as an intellectual exercise, you understand), I realized that something had to be done.... Eventually my doctor referred me to a free counselling service.... Eventually I told him of my sexual relationship with [my dog] . I have to confess that I was expecting him to denounce me and wheel out a straight-jacket."
He continues, "But he surprised me by declaring happily that THAT was the reason I was so feeling so damned rotten. I hadn't lost a dog, I had lost a lover! And I couldn't express that pain to my friends because of the social taboo. Even my wife couldn't fully comprehend the extent of the loss I had suffered. So I was being forced to carry the pain of my loss all alone. That man saved my sanity, and possibly my life." [http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/t28848-whats-like-zoophile-.html] ] This is similar to the manner in which homosexuals' issues are under reported in countries where homosexuality is punishable.
In one Canadian incident, a person was reported to authorities on the basis of a web page allegedly seen by a close relative on their computer. In fact no substantive evidence of any activity was offered, nor was any testimony of abuse offered, and the charges were withdrawn within a few weeks. By that time, however, the
pets in their home had all been seized. One was euthanized (due to its chronic medical condition), while another had been forcibly rehoused and was not returned. The owner, reported to lack means to seek compensation, seems to have received none Fact|date=April 2008.
There are many cases of zoosexuality and the law, so only the most notable are related here.
* "Freddie the Dolphin" (1991, UK) - man accused of masturbating a well known tame
dolphinat sea. Charged with a "lewd act". Acquitted. Expert witnesses testified male dolphins use their erections not just sexually, but socially as well, and no sexual inference could be drawn. Judge summing up said of the £30,000 trial cost, "this has been the most expensive lesson in dolphin sociology that he has ever heard of". [http://www.praxagora.com/sierra/flum/9203.htm]
Kenneth Pinyan(2005, USA) - man died following anal penetration by stallion. Police determined that no cruelty took place. Nonetheless, moral panicled to rapid introduction of laws in the state involved and a search for grounds to charge his companion with at least an offence of some kind.
Sudan, February 2006 - man caught having sex with a neighbour's goat, is ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbour a dowryof 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm]
Cambodia, 2005 - man caught having a "passionate embrace" in bed with dog, by wife, confessed he loved the dog more and they separated. Cambodian police commented: "As police, we could only solve the problem of his wife then wanting a divorce. We cannot solve the problem of his relationship with his dog, because under Cambodian law it is not strictly illegal... It is amazing, but this husband is not crazy. It seems he is a passionate human being who looked at a dog, and the more he looked, the more passionate he became." [http://www.news24.com/News24/Backpage/Crime_Court/0,,2-1343-1345_1655555,00.html]
Wisconsin, USA, 2007 Bryan James Hathaway was convicted for having sex with a dead deer. The court case raised some interesting legal issues because the statute prohibits sex with animals, but not carcasses. The defence raised the issue that if a dead animal was an animal, at what point would it cease to be an animal. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/deer_man_convicted/]
Homosexuality laws of the world
Legal status of internet pornography
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.