Creative Commons license icon

Florida passes bestiality bill; awaits Gov's signature

Your rating: None Average: 1.9 (16 votes)

A long-standing issue regarding the potential legality of bestiality in Florida is expected to be put to ease soon with the governor's signature.

Animal abuse cases have been known in Florida; many may have seen a story where a blind man named Alan Yoder, known as Jayren in the furry fandom, admitted performing sex acts with his guide dog — although in that case, the lack of a specific law did not prevent him being charged with felony animal cruelty.

Senate Bill 344 (full text), which makes acts of bestiality a first class misdemeanor, passed the House Wednesday at 115-0 and awaits Governor Rick Scott's signature before becoming law. If signed, it becomes effective October 1. The Senate bill previously passed on a vote of 38-0.

Update (May 7): Noted the identity of the man sparking the case, provided by rodox_video.

31 U.S. states currently ban bestiality. It had been outlawed in Florida before, but in 1971 a Florida Supreme Court decision (Franklin v. State, 257 So.2d 21) struck down a 1868 law banning "unnatural" sexual acts using language such as "abominable and detestable":

We do not, of course, here sanction historically forbidden sexual acts, homosexuality or bestiality. We only say that in this, as in any other conduct which is made a crime by statute, the forbidden conduct must be stated in terms which meet the constitutional test, i.e., that it is understood by the average man of common intelligence.

Last year the bestiality bill failed to pass, even though such a bill has been pushed for years in an attempt to stop animal abuse.

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 4 (8 votes)

I don't see how this article is relevant to the fandom what so ever.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

I agree with you.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

I agree completly

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (6 votes)

Furry is suffering from a bestiality epidemic. The only way to fight it is to (GASP) go out into the world and join animal-welfare groups in lobbying for stronger animal cruelty laws.

The case that touched off the fight for this law also involved a furry. There was an incident in 2005 where a blind man raped his guide dog. That man was Alan "Jayren" Yoder, who was active on FurryMUCK and bitched about what happened to him to all who would listen. Prosecutors had a tough time finding something to charge him with, although from the offender registry it looks like they settled on an assault charge.

Relevant enough now?

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

I think it would also help your cause if you presented your case without the dick question at the end but yes, thanks for giving context.

I also think it doesn't help with people's perceptions when people are saying it's a "Fandom epidemic" as if it were some sort of pathogen that is spreading from person to person. The fact is probably more that the culture of Zoophiles are becoming furries, not the other way around. Furries are not becoming zoophiles.

People can do their part to inform the community of incidences, WITH EVIDENCE, not just witch hunting finesse, and yes doing as you said getting laws passed in states that allow it.

Though, speaking of dick, I am personally wondering how a blind man participated in a MUCK.

Your rating: None

There are such things as screen readers and Braille displays. Indeed, MUCKs are quite popular among the disabled.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

Yeah, that was dickish. Sorry about that.

As for the "epidemic" comment, it actually does work both ways, though to a minor extent. There are some important exceptions, but with the majority of cases it does look like zoophiles are turning to the furry subculture as a means of giving themselves cover.

It bears mentioning that (as Xydexx helpfully pointed out a few posts down), the problem has been with us pretty much since the very beginning. Zoophile infiltration of furry dates back to to the 1990s, and it looks like then (as now), efforts to respond to the problem have been haphazard and disorganized.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

And those efforts actually create more problems than they solve.

Scattershot and vague accusations of an "epidemic" of zoophile "infiltration" is just making a mountain out of a molehill and won't accomplish anything other than tarnishing the fandom's reputation. You're doing a huge disservice to the fandom by painting the majority as zoophiles. They're not a majority. Not even close. The only reason it's news is because it's a rarity.

The problem is best handled via the legal system, not by wild speculation and trying to start a moral panic.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Bestiality epidemic?

I think the word you're looking for is "chronic case."

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Oh, shoot, that came out wrong.

I was doing a sarcasm thing with the extremism.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Well... this is a good thing, is it not?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

What does this have to do with Furry fandom?

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

1) The story has to do with animals, a common topic on Flayrah

2) The story gives fair warning to those furs who love conversing their abuse of animals. I'm sure you know at least one person on FA/IRC who has publicly shown their love for animal abuse.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I'm sure you know at least one person on FA/IRC who has publicly shown their love for animal abuse.

I've seen a lot of weird stuff on FA, but have not seen that. I am not saying it is not there, but just that without specifically looking for it, I have not seen it despite having seen quite a few different user's journals on their sexual and fetish interests. If such things were common, it would seem I would have to be rather "lucky" to not bump into that.

I would question if that is really common enough to warrant being a motivating factor for an article like this.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Every time someone goes on about bestiality, posts a photo, etc someone takes a screenshot and posts to various sites. There are certain well known individuals in Florida who've made certain posts to FA regarding bestiality, as to date they are not banned from the site.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

1) The story has to do with animals, a common topic on Flayrah


Fair enough. I'm just curious, with no less than three articles on the front page mentioning bestiality and pedophilia, what's driving Flayrah's recent fervor of linking Furry fandom with these topics.
2) The story gives fair warning to those furs who love conversing their abuse of animals. I'm sure you know at least one person on FA/IRC who has publicly shown their love for animal abuse.

I'm sure I don't.

I do know that several years ago on alt.fan.furry (remember alt.fan.furry?), there was an awful lot of talk about bestiality (in a misguided effort to do something about Furry fandom allegedly being overrun by these folks) and how the only effect it had was to make alt.fan.furry the #1 relevant group to discuss bestiality (to the point of outranking even alt.sex.bestiality).

And I found it ironic how the people who were going on a crusade against it and said they didn't want it associated with Furry fandom succeeded in doing exactly that. Because as much as they said it wasn't part of the fandom, they certainly did talk about it a lot. But I guess people who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them, right?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

You make some very valid points, all most people do is talk talk talk, not do do do. You've probably read about me or at least heard rumors on action I take, do I look like a talk-only person to you?

I'll gladly inform and expose people who abuse their animals to authorities, I've no problem having someone arrested. If a person gets arrested, it's the individual's fault for engaging in said unlawful activity, even more so for publicizing the activity on the Internet.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Flayrah's readers are also its content-providers, and many see Flayrah as a place for "hard news" (e.g. law/crime).

Of course, "news" rarely represents the common activities of its readers. It is news because it is unusual.

For comparison, here's what I see above the fold at BBC News:

Death of Bin Laden
Six killed at syrian protests
US Employment up again
Deadly US drone raid in Pakistan
Ballesteros condition 'worsens' (brain tumor)
Morning business round-up
Delays 'did not cause 7/7 deaths'
SA minister's wife gets 12 years (drug trafficking)
Commodities' volatility continues
English voters punish Lib Dems
Sex and coffee 'trigger stroke'
Pink Floyd's star son admits demo violence
Stealth choppers (Bin Laden raid)
First Person (art by Picasso)
London bombed
The long war (Al-Quaeda again)

Presumably the lives of most BBC readers are not filled with death, violence, brain tumors and drug trafficking. Similarly, the lives of most furs are not filled with animal abuse or high-decibel purring, but apparently some feel such things are worth talking about.

Personally, I'd like to see more furry-specific reviews, interviews, profiles and the like (30 Furs Under 30? :-D).

Your rating: None

30 furs above 30 would be much more impressive as I don't even think I know that many.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

The bar for furry drama has been irreversibly raised to true crime.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Facts verified and added to the article. I'm not sure if this should go under the "furries ruin everything" category or "furries making us all look bad" since the issue is dog abuse.

Your rating: None

Towards your second point I don't really think this story provides the fair warning, because if someone was in Florida was there just to abuse animals, I'm sure they knew this the moment it happened. I think this was made more towards that then just being an animal story, you wrote it for furs, those people aren't furs they're zoophiles.

I mean if we're going to go by president what about here? http://www.flayrah.com/archive/200605

Notice something missing? Arizona passed their animal sex ban in that time period: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0525bestiality0525.html?...

You make a good point that we all know at least one person calling themselves furry being a animal abuser, but I also know at least one person in Education and Handyman work (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhcauw_grade-school-music-teacher-handyman-accu...) that have done this as well, but the story really wouldn't and shouldn't wind up on http://www.edweek.org/tm/, or http://www.familyhandyman.com/ as a result of the action of solitary sickos.

Your rating: None

To be fair, Flayrah wasn't quite powering on all four cylinders in 2006. The majority of those "stories" are promotional.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (8 votes)

The problem is that furry is saturated with dog fuckers, child molesters, and rapists.

Marginalize it all you want but furry is full of these people. And by association, you might as well be one yourself. That is the truth of the matter.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

The WORLD is full of those people, you can't blame a whole fandom full of many innocent people just because zoophiles decided to taint it for us. :/

Your rating: None Average: 1 (7 votes)

The world is full of those people to the point that there's more of them than you and I will ever know.

Some parts of the world are more full of them than others.

In your case, those people are the majority of the people involved in your fandom.

It's not blame: It's fact.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

"those people are the majority of the people involved in your fandom."

Trolling requires a little more subtly and plausibility in the claims used. Otherwise people might just mistake you for an idiot.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (3 votes)

Bearing false witness is a sin, you're no better then a dog fucker, because you're going to the same place after you die.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

It doesn't matter what you think. There have already been far more than enough headlines in the news about a furry getting arrested for touching a kid or a dog and the rest of the world has already made it's mind up about you. For the rest of us, you're a ticking time bomb. Another sexual deviant on the verge of raping someone (or something).

If I were you, I'd start worrying about what everyone's opinions are of me, and the consequences of those opinions mean.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

Yes and all black men are ticking timebombs who are going to kill people in a gang shoot out because those make the headlines too. White people who think that are called racists. What does that make those who would do the same here? Certainly not those in the right.

I will not fear ignorance, I will face it and fight it head on and if I am persecuted for it, so be it. Idiots are free to be who they are, but I will not let idiots rule my life.

You're telling me to fear the ignorant masses, but if you don't know how to overcome the ignorant, what does that make you?

If they are making opinions of me based off of their opinions of another, they are not making opinions of me. I would be more worried about how they wipe their ass in the morning with logic like that rather then the consequences of an opinion where the basis is completely separate from the subject of their thesis.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Agree with everything above.

Regarding topic: FINALLY.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (7 votes)

These bills are stupid because they never provide a decent justification other than the disgust some people feel with the act. The whole idea of it being abusive is laughable because then there is no need for a law against bestiality. You don't have a law against hitting a dog with a pole, you just prosecute that under animal abuse. The reason people want laws against bestiality is because when they try to prosecute them under animal abuse they can't find any evidence of abuse. That's exactly what happened in Washington. Tried a bestiality case, bestiality was legal and no evidence of abuse was found so after that they made bestiality illegal.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

I do agree that one of the reasons that these bills are passes is because some people feel disgusted by the thought of bestiality, but another one is that animals can not give verbal consent to sex, which is what all of the other sex laws revolve around. So it is hard in court to tell whether or not the animal consented to the sex or whether it was suffering. Bestiality could be filled under animal abuse if the animal is being hurt in the act, and we can't just ask the animal if it was hurt, so it falls to us to assume that it was hurt. That's why it is animal abuse.

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

There are two problems with that. Firstly it might be your objection to bestiality but I can't recall off-hand seeing anyone really putting that forward as a serious opposition to bestiality. It has been a while since I read up on it though but I remember arguments about dignity and trying to link bestiality with other crimes but nothing about consent.

Secondly I disagree with them not being able to consent. As we study animals more we are finding them to be much more mentally complex than was previously thought. Also animals are very easily able to express their own desires, for example if you try to take a toy away from a dog and it growls at you. I'd say that that can count as consent.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

Most people I've heard talk about it in any detail talk about the consent issue, as it is a more consistent approach to several issues. Even if animals are complex, there are mentally handicap and other humans that can communicate clearer than animals that are not considered capable of giving consent. It is often difficult to distinguish what animals want, as opposed to conditioning or what they are putting up with because the owner has some alpha role. It is not like humans accepting sex from authority figures is considered in the clear just because they didn't complain or acted like they wanted it.

Also a lot of laws can be different depending on intent and motivation. Otherwise, the argument that there is no need for bestiality laws since there are animal abuse laws could be easily paralleled by an argument that there are no need for rape or physical parts of sexual harassment laws because we have assault laws that make unwanted touch illegal.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Agreed. I could easily compare acts of animal abuse to slaves.

Where would slaves go, they can't run. They're property by law to people, they don't have a choice in saying where they want to live. They could bite the owner, but then the animal would get punished, or worse... put down.

Laws are created to protect the animal from the owner, not just for reasons of disgust.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Absolutely. In fact, throwing a stick for your dog to fetch should be outlawed because it can't consent. Just think of the thousands of dogs out there every day, conditioned to endlessly retrieve sticks, only to have their owners THROW THEM AGAIN.

Such horrible mental abuse. It must drive them crazy.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (5 votes)

The consent issue is a less consistent approach to animal care and probably the reason why no one seriously proposes it when trying to pass laws against bestiality. If you consider the animal's consent important then the law breaks down in terms of ownership of animals, neutering animals, breeding programmes, showing animals and killing animals as some examples.

Trying to claim that the animal cannot make clear what it wants compared to what it tolerates is not a criticism that would just be confined to sex. That will apply to guide dogs, do they want that or are they being forced. Playing fetch, going for walks, having it's belly rubbed, eating treats. How can you say they want that rather than they are just tolerating it? That argument is not developed and then applied to the treatment of animals, rather it is a post-hoc justification for making bestiality illegal that is inconsistent with other aspects of animal care.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

If you consider the animal's consent important then the law breaks down in terms of ownership of animals, neutering animals, breeding programmes, showing animals and killing animals as some examples.

Or maybe that is why many people consistently argue against those things too. Or maybe why some people argue against some of those, but not others, because they take into account the intent and purpose of various actions, some of which are related to the animal's health. And yeah, there are many other people who have inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the ideas are necessarily inconsistent.

Sometimes it does require attaching special significance to acts of sex compared to other acts, that might not be universal. But then one could ask what need is there to risk being wrong about, when you could seek out a companion of the same species for the animal? And arguments that animals are more complex don't help, as they open up more possibilities of negative consequences on the animals' psychology parallel to what can happen to humans with sex.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

I don't doubt there are some people against those ideas (though PETA is the only one I can think of and they aren't exactly a good example of anything) but if they are wrong for the same reason that bestiality is wrong why are the objections so much less visible when the problem is so much bigger? I've seen furs argue against bestiality (though mostly just saying it's bad rather than arguing anything) and there are at least two anti-bestiality groups on FA but I've never seen an anti-animal-ownership or anti-sterilisation group.

You're going to have to do a lot more to support why sexual acts should be given special significance. I'm not denying there are possible negative consequences but there is very little evidence for them. Things can go wrong and when that happens we can observe that and if the risk of harm from bestiality is unacceptably high then it would be right to make it illegal. There is no research showing that harm and there are good reasons to doubt it will ever come.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

The point mainly was to point out that there are people addressing it in terms of consent, contrary to your post a few replies back. A lot has been written on the topic by people who are better writers and who probably have put more thought on it than any one posting here. So there isn't much point in trying to make an inferior restatement of what can be found elsewhere in material of the level that would possibly be included an introduction to ethics course.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Can you link to anyone discussing it in terms of consent? I don't remember seeing that anywhere and I don't remember any talk about consent in the short course on animal ethics that I did.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Everything I've read on it was in books, and my notes from back then are buried in storage somewhere. Wikipedia seems to only have dead links and citations to books published after I studied such material, so I don't know how relevant their citations are. But the topic did come up in various sources as it was discussed in several contexts in what were general courses on ethics or morality. I know it is also a popular topic in some feminist philosophy works, because they like to use animals sometimes as counter-examples to test and contrast moral arguments related to humans, but I didn't study that in very much detail.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Or maybe they're trying to segregate sex crimes from physical crimes? I mean, if you read on someone's record "animal abuse" people are all going to assume they had sex with it unless those are separate terms.

I mean if we did that for humans, and made the crime of "rape" fall under "assault" everyone would assume the person who was charged with assault committed rape.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

That's not a bad idea for distinguishing between the two but that is already treating bestiality as a crime. There is no good justification for bestiality as a crime that would not make most accepted treatment of animals illegal as well. Prosecuting bestiality where it can be shown to be abusive would be consistent but is unsatisfactory because then most cases of bestiality would be legal. The problem with anti-bestiality laws is that lack of justification.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1.9 (9 votes)

Ah, see how quickly the old "If my dog gets a hard-on when I fondle its willy, it MUST want me, being the 'Alpha Wolf', to sodomise it!" arguments popped up?

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (5 votes)

No, I don't see. Because nobody said that, and if you need to put words in your opponent's mouth, it shows your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own merits maybe?

That being said, I do see folks getting into a huge argument about things that have nothing to do with the fandom. As usual.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (5 votes)

Who said that where what now? I think this comment kind of shows more a drug problem in the fandom then a bestiality one.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

POPPED UP!

FREUDIAN SLIP! FREUDIAN SLIP!

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (10 votes)

And this has what to do with the fandom?

Oh wait, it's another IK baw thread. Nothing new here.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (10 votes)

Furry Dr Doolittle:
Even without talking to the animals
He'll expound at length online about how it's obvious they want humans to fuck them up the arse

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (5 votes)

I think you mean Zoophile Dr Doolittle not Furry Dr DooLittle, but unintelligent people get those confused all the time. Like the words "Gay" and "AIDS carrier"

Your rating: None Average: 1.2 (5 votes)

How does zoophilia have nothing to do with the fandom? I think the prevalence of so many yiffy porn sites, as well as toy shops, the overwhelming undertones and topics of discussion on irc, suggest otherwise. It seems to me that zoophilia is the rule, not the exception. It does not seem as much of an epidemic, as it does a longstanding aspect of the community.

I dont believe the anthropomorphism is enough to distinguish the fandom from zoophilia. Does someone who engages in bestiality not give their dog a human name, laugh at "Bacon bacon bacon! Its Bacon!", have conversations with their dog, and assume human intent behind their pet's actions? Do they not personify their dog's sexual advances as "love", as understood in the human sense? Isnt all of that behavior represented in furry porn? Is a person who looks at shota not just as much of a pedophile as a person who looks at actual photographs of child pornography?

I think theres a lot of denial going on, and I believe that anyone who studies the definition of zoophilia would have a hard time rationally disassociating the overwhelming fandom from it. Zoophilia being understood of course as a paraphilia, a sexual affinity towards animals. Bestiality falls on the zoophilia continuum, and regardless of where you fall on that continuum, you cannot remove the fandom, or bestiality from it. Bestiality is always going to be a part of the fandom.

Rakuen: Consider your argument against the rape of mentally disabled people or children. The ability to prosecute relies entirely on their lack of capacity to consent. Are you suggesting that if a woman with downs syndrome, or even a child, seemed to be happy with the sexual advances, that there shouldnt be any justification for legal consequences? And then to go further and say that any legal justification would also involve making illegal all other interactions between caretakers and the mentally disabled, and parents and their children?

On the topics of children, denial, and abuse, anyone who has been to a convention, or weekend event, would be hardpressed to not have seen minors being groomed, filled with liquor, and sexually exploited, or at the very least have seen minors exposed to the conspicuous sexual displays that are so widespread in the hotel halls and behind bedroom doors. And this is just an extension of the interactions on the forums and irc. I think that should be a more pressing matter to address than a guy blowing his dog and how it relates to the fandom, but *nobody* talks about it! Its only a matter of time until the next big furry news story. Of course, youll all probably still be in denial and stick to self-victimization and whining "Why does the media misrepresent the furry community, We're PG! (really!)"

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Anthropomorphism is enough to distinguish between the two. Bestiality concerns real animals which are not anthropomorphic by definition. People do anthropomorphise their pets but that doesn't make them anthropomorphic in the sense that they have human-characteristics. Furry concerns characters that are not real and have been given attributes that they do not have in reality. If they did have those attributes then they wouldn't be anthropomorphised. They are not the same thing, although the interests may overlap, and there is a very real difference between fantasy and reality, such as between shota art and child pornography.

The disabled and children is they have diminished mental abilities compared to what would be considered normal.
Sex with children has serious psychological effects, so harms the child, and the child has not yet fully developed to a point where they are ready to make such decisions for themselves. They need to be protected until that time, at least from adults. Often while it is illegal to have sex with children under a certain age it is still legal if both participants are within two years of each other's age or so.
The situation is more complicated with the mentally disabled because they can have a variety of levels of mental health and that can differ for different areas in their life. They do need to be protected from being taken advantage of but I don't think that it should always be illegal to have sex with someone who is mentally disabled, particularly if they like it. If there is no one taking advantage and no harm being done to the individual then it is probably okay. That's why I disagreed with the cases in the UK a few weeks or months ago over a retarded man and his lover. There was also a second case but I can't remember the details there.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

On the topics of children, denial, and abuse, anyone who has been to a convention, or weekend event, would be hardpressed to not have seen minors being groomed, filled with liquor, and sexually exploited, or at the very least have seen minors exposed to the conspicuous sexual displays that are so widespread in the hotel halls and behind bedroom doors.

Maybe I've been lucky, but no, I've not seen such things. The little bit of underage drinking I've seen has been people with their own fake ids, not someone forcing liquor on them (and often they were warned they wouldn't be allowed back to the meet if they did that again once their age was found out). And while some people seem less mature than others about sexual jokes, they were nothing compared to junk I've seen at college parties by people of the same age groups. There are some problematic people around, but if looking for sexual exploitation of minors, you would have much better chances at a generic high school party.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Tell me what convention you went to so I can make it a point not to go. I avoided "frat parties" in college for those reason.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Beastiality is to furry what Islamic terrorists are to mainstream, law-abiding Muslims.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Beastiality is to furry what Islamic terrorists are to mainstream, law-abiding Muslims.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Beastiality is to furry what Islamic terrorists are to mainstream, law-abiding Muslims.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

That's kind of like saying that child rape is to pedophilia what Islamic terrorists are to mainstream, law-abiding muslims. Yiffy porn is afterall just cartoon depictions of bestality.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Well I guess that was poor wording. A more apt comparison to bestiality vs the fandom would be child rape vs pedophilia. The paraphilia is still there regardless of whether or not you act on it directly.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

Anyone who views, appreciates, and admires furry porn is engaging in bestial ideation. What percent of Muslims engage in radical jihad, what percent of furries view, appreciation, and admire furry porn?

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (6 votes)

Dude, dogs don't have boobs.

Its my right to view, appreciate and admire boobs as a red-blooded American male wherever I find them, whether its on furry porn, a real woman, or a freaking lamppost.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Islamic terrorism stems directly from the teachings of the Koran where there are passages calling on Muslims to kill infidels and wage Jihad. There is no teaching or anything in furry that says you should go out and have sex with animals.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Well the law has been mocked by a number of scientists for poor wording where you could interpret animal as human and so it bans sex between humans. (http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=10369 and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/there_goes_the_florida_tourism.php?ut...).

It's also been defended here http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019463.html where they claim "The problem with this interpretation is that the statute itself explicitly distinguishes between "persons" and "animals,"." Looking through the statute they provide though I can't find anywhere where it distinguished between person and animal.

The contradiction already show up where certain actions are exempt from this law, certainly making one wonder what the other actions involve that they don't.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

828.02?Definitions.—In this chapter, and in every law of the state relating to or in any way affecting animals, the word "animal" shall be held to include every living dumb creature;

So you can have sex with it as long as it can speak — or if you kill it first.

Your rating: None

Thank you, though that's still a loose definition. It allows sex with an animal you can teach to speak but denies it with a human who can't speak. But then again I suppose any time you try to define human and non-human animal separately you're going to struggle.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

How are you going to struggle? You just did it in that sentence.

Your rating: None

I didn't try define them. The struggle is to find some sort of category where there is no overlap. We all know what the intention of this law is and it's obvious that the sort of problem I pointed out is not what they want but it's what you get when applying their definitions.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

It's not the wording of the laws, but meerly the precedent of it's usage. The courts interperet the meaning of the law based upon the history of the law, it's not about having it written down at all unfortunately, courts write new "laws" all the time simply based on the decisions they make.

And trust me, if it didn't kill tax revenue I'm sure they'd find a way to make sex illegal. That's the real reason polticians hate gay people, they're a tax sink. They're not generating new taxable people.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Insane Kangarooread storiescontact (login required)

a network administrator and Kangaroo from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, interested in software engineering, information technology and tactical operations