Skip to content

Bestiality Is A Sexual Orientation

The picture is from the Wikipedia article “Legality of bestiality in the United States.” I have no idea if it’s perfectly accurate, but I’m guessing it’s close. And so the old joke “Wyoming: where the men are men, and the sheep are nervous” has a basis in truth.

There is another chart under the first one, which can see by surfing over, entitled “Legality of sale and distribution of zoophilic pornography in the United States”. You won’t be surprised to learn California is one of these paradises. The pr0n itself is legal in all but Oregon, which is surprising, given that state has a large contingent of Antifa.

Well, whatever. Bestiality, a.k.a. zoophilia, is a sexual orientation.

And since lusting for goats and for the beasts of the fields is a sexual orientation, it will be protected under the new sexual orientation laws that are coming to a location near you. Not “it”. I mean the people who you don’t want as cat sitters. They will be protected.

“Come on, Briggs. Everybody knows bestiality isn’t a sexual orientation.”

Is it not? Why not? I mean, why not specifically?

“Everybody knows sexual orientation means LGBT.”

So sexual orientation only applies to sodomy? No. That doesn’t make sense. The “T”s who play dress up might even opt for normal sexual relations, i.e. reproductive ones. And they’re protected.

Is isn’t a matter of “consent”. We don’t ask chickens if they wouldn’t mind eating them, so we needed ask them if they’d be first interested in a little foreplay.

And if you’re worried about sexual orientation not applying to live animals, well, it could apply to dead ones. No worries at all about consent, then. We could all the orientation zoonecrophilia. Road kill could take on a whole new meaning.

Besides, there is nothing in the world that privileges sodomy. Singling it out for special protection is bigotry. A prejudice. Saying zoophiles, or zoonecrophiles, can’t have simulated sex with animals “dehumanizes” them. It says they “don’t exist” as people. Or at least I think that’s how the argument goes.

As long as we’re at it, and we have now come to the enlightened view that zoonecrophilia is a sexual orientation, then so is old-fashioned necrophilia (as we said a week back or so) a sexual orientation. No question of consent here, either. And anyway, consent could always be given by the pre-deceased in anticipation of their sexy demise.

You might not like it, but once you cast aside natural law and allow “sexual orientation”, there is no justification whatsoever in denying any behavior as legitimate. Of course, lines will be drawn. I’m betting zoonecrophilia won’t show up in any library story times taught by zoonecrophilic drag queens any time soon — though I do not say it is impossible. I do insist that disallowing such thing is utterly inconsistent with the espoused philosophy of sexual orientation.

The people advocating for zoonecrophilia, or for whatever perversion that strikes their fancy, will use this point in their advocacy. “You let them, so why not let us? We have rights, too.”

How long before we hear Fr James Martin announcing, “God made necrophiliacs that way. They are differently ordered. They have unique spiritual gifts to offer us. The Church has historically treated them badly. We need to welcome them with open arms”?

I’ll tell you how long. Not long.

If Martin, SJ, does not say such things, he too is being inconsistent; he too is a bigot and is prejudiced. Call him that and he will weaken and be forced to agree.

19 thoughts on “Bestiality Is A Sexual Orientation Leave a comment

  1. Anything that requires self control is bad.
    “If it feels good, it must be good.”
    “Children as young as two can give consent.”

    Not enough lamp posts. Not enough rope.

  2. One of your hottest posts yet! An erotic tour de force…

    Though I am disappointed that your pan-cis (cis-gendered/cis-specied) privilege has so brutally un-personed all the solo-sexual, tri-spirited, zoohomonecrotransphiliacs who live life in the shadows because of bigots like you. Someday one of us will be president and, on that day, thanks to our hordes of illiterate, foreign allies imported to bolster the justice of our cause, vengeance will be ours.

  3. But I thought that all those prohibitions in the Bible had been shone to be only recommendations. The 10 commandments are really the 10 recommendations and you get to pick which ones you like.

  4. It’s ‘flyover country’, WM Briggs phrase, or Bible Belt, where deliverance is set?

    It’s often the butt of a joke! amongst movie buffs.

    Good point that Sodomy is defined as male rape, although legally, according to TV documentaries it is the same crime if the victim. Is female.

    Joe Kender, was on today, he said, at the end of the programme:

    “Just Who, do you think you are, taking the place of God, in a matter of life and death, based on YOUR heated emotion, your own opinions and the hearsay of questionable characters.”

    *because of which Mr X was found dead in a culvert. An innocent man. It was the work of Vigil anti’s who think free man means take the law as I like it, into my own hands. “Go as you likeys”.

    The ultimate consequences of purely Natural Law. Criminality and Christian morality are not one and the same. Which is why Briggs is free to hate his own sin with impunity, more than the sin of a long list of serious crimes.

    So there are innate morals, (which is lucky for law enforcement.)
    Natural law,
    Criminal law,
    Old Testament law.
    Sharia Law, Jewish Law, common law, international law, civil law….

    The Criminal law is what matters in a civilised society. Anything else is barbarism, or anarchy, the opposites to tyranny, although barbarian tyrants exist, and are not always tall.

    Assuming the wiki map is true, I’d say that bestiality wasn’t considered something worth legislating for, it’s so unlikely to occur, or is not expected, just not encountered. What date was it ‘decriminalised’? Not a good case for pretending to fret that perversion is being ‘rolled out’.

    If you’re worried about a sheep near you, call animal cops. They carry guns in America and have powers of arrest the same as police. It’s animal cruelty people are concerned about.

    They tell the same jokes about Welshmen.
    Rob Brydon speaks again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNJStquFEGk\

  5. I see that you still mix up sexual orientation and sexual orientation.

    You can only be oriented toward male or female or both.

    You cannot be oriented toward animals or children. You prefer animal or children.

  6. Mchuck,
    Rant, suggests anger. I’m not angry, if I was angry about bestiality! I would say so. It would be insane in it’s truest sense, to be ‘angry’ about a criminal label assigned to nobody in particular. Like being angry about an imaginary murderer! Or the crime itself! Not a great way to go through your day getting angry about the crime of ‘X’ in the abstract. As for Briggs claim about hating his own sin most, that was his claim. Maybe he was exaggerating?

    Joe Kenda was angry, though, rightly so, about Vigil anti’s. Being a police officer you can understand that. My comment was about people who take the law into their own hands.

    It was long, so rambling? Many things joined together? Yes. Perhaps I should have put helpful dotted lines or big paragraph spaces. I assumed you don’t read my comments. The inappropriate full stop wasn’t me though, It’s happened a few times lately in the comment box.

    The point about law stands and wasnt’ controversial.
    This is a problem for the vigil anti. They can’t bear the thought of the rule of law. I never saw that movie above, it sounds dreadful, but it has entertained many, Christians, apparently and Atheists alike!

    “Lawless are those who make their wills thier law.’

    I am a Chartered Physiotherapist. I have had friends who are in law enforcement, police, barrister and a judge. However, the point about TV documentaries stands. The crime is distinct. The only time the word is used, (ordinarily), is in a criminal case.

    One of the things people tend to believe, is that they know the written law of the land, which they rarely ever do. People can know a particular point of law, which is not enough.

    Apart from the threatened £100. Fine or points on my licence for not wearing a seatbelt for fifty yards along the high street, I’ve never been on the wrong side of the law. I asked if I could have the points, since I’m registered blind and don’t have one. *can drive, though, and won a blind fold race with colleagues, many of whom were males. Just good at following instruction when I trust the source. If I’d known it was a race I would have gone faster!

    I might hate elements of the laws they are bringing in, but I trust that the situation will resolve itself in the fullness of time. It’s speech that needs to be free, not criminals.

  7. Joy

    I’m not certain I’ve seen “Deliverance” all the way through.

    I never knew where the movie was set, and first guess would have been Kentucky or WVa where there are no laws against bestiality. So I looked up the movie and then Tennessee. The premise was that once the Hill Billy had his way, he “had” to kill Ned Beatty since Sodomy was theoretically a capital crime there (the rape aspect wasn’t mentioned – murder would have turned it).

    Not sure why or even if Burt Reynolds turned vigilante (sort of self defense or defending Ned Beatty). I don’t remember people “celebrating” deliverance about its vigilante-ism in the same way that “Death Wish” was celebrated. I just remember the very strange ending of the arm coming out the water (guess it was a dream).

  8. Oh yeah! The importance of specifying male in conjunction with sodomy is that male-male sodomy is supposedly the only thing on the books

  9. Hmm, well John, as I’ve mentioned on here before; there is a woman called ‘The God Girl’, I think it’s what others started calling her, not sure, who is based in, I think LA or Las Vagus, (couldn’t find the documentary on line to check). She was a prostitute turned evangelical social worker. She was helping women get rid of drug habits that kept them “IN trouble”, and I’m going to leave the rest to your imagination, but the topic is not, shall we say, being covered accurately by the religious right. There are women being paid to pretend. There are pretending men who to pay women to pretend.

    On the crime documentaries, where revenge is a motive or sexual jealousy, the crime is often male on female. It’s the worst thing they, can think of to degrade a person.

    You’re probably right about the ‘vigilante’ part with respect to the film. It’s always quoted by men when they want to make someone seem backward, in particular, if they are Christian and white. It’s a psychological version of the reason for the act itself. Same for anyone attempting such a label on anyone. It’s low brow, seedy, and speaks volumes about the person making the claim.
    (I prefer ‘anti’, they sound like wicked Aunts.)

    Anyway, It’s a disgusting topic. Briggs once said he wanted to attract more women to the site? Hmm.

  10. Vigil Antis are found everywhere but mostly on social media ready to pounce to express their Anti-isms. Not much different than the Vigil Ants who constantly are on the lookout for interesting thought tidbits to render unpalatable by swarming over them.

  11. I looked up the Wikipedia entry on sexual orientation. It’s a thorough, detailed and interesting article complete with 142 references. I’m sorry to dissappoint Mr. Briggs, but it contains not one mention of zoophilia, necrophilia, or any of the other practices with which he appears to be completely obsessed.

  12. That’s because, as you know, it doesn’t mean that. There is a certain juvenile style of argument that depends on deliberately misconstruing the meanings of words. Briggs obviously enjoys practicing this. I say, let him enjoy himself. It might matter if there was a chance of someone taking him seriously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *