An Animal Rights Critique of State Laws
From an animal rights perspective, the laws that seek to criminalize bestiality are flawed. One would hope that these laws should seek to offer animals protection from harm and unwanted sexual contact. Instead, what these laws criminalize is human pleasure, while only offering the non-humans protection so long as it doesn’t interfere with the meat and dairy industry’s objectifying treatment of animals as products. To examine this point in further detail, what follows is a sampling of laws criminalizing bestiality in The United States of America state by state, with emphasis added.
Please note: This sampling was done with all due diligence, but will become outdated and was not compiled by a legal expert, and should therefor not be taken as legal advice but only as a means of starkly highlighting the actual motives of these laws.
Also of note, the following four states of the total fifty were omitted because they have no laws specifically pertaining to bestiality: Hawaii, New Mexico, West Virginia, Wyoming. It is possible those states have laws tangentially relevant to bestiality, but this article is focused on laws that criminalize bestiality specifically.
I want to start with a blast of states that say it outright: sexual contact between humans and animals is a crime if it is done for the pleasure of the human. For these states, we have Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.
Arkansas
From § 5-14-122
A person commits bestiality if he or she performs or submits to any act of sexual gratification with an animal involving his or her or the animal’s sex organs and the mouth, anus, penis, or vagina of the other.
Connecticut
From § 53a-65 and 53a-73a
“Actor” means a person accused of sexual assault. “Sexual contact” means any contact with the intimate parts of a person for the purpose of sexual gratification of the actor or for the purpose of degrading or humiliating such person or any contact of the intimate parts of the actor with a person for the purpose of sexual gratification of the actor or for the purpose of degrading or humiliating such person.
A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when such person engages in sexual contact with an animal or dead body.
Delaware
From § 775
A person is guilty of bestiality when the person intentionally engages in any sexual act involving sexual contact, penetration or intercourse with the genitalia of an animal or intentionally causes another person to engage in any such sexual act with an animal for purposes of sexual gratification.
North Dakota
From § 12.1-20-02 and 12.1-20-12
“Deviate sexual act” means any form of sexual contact with an animal, bird, or dead person.
“Sexual contact” means any touching, whether or not through the clothing or other covering, of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person, or the penile ejaculation or ejaculate or emission of urine or feces upon any part of the person, for the purpose of arousing or satisfying sexual or aggressive desires.
A person who performs a deviate sexual act with the intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
South Dakota
From § 22-22-42 and 22-22-43
No person, for the purpose of that person’s sexual gratification, may: engage in a sexual act with an animal; or coerce any other person to engage in a sexual act with an animal; or use any part of the person’s body or an object to sexually stimulate an animal; or videotape a person engaging in a sexual act with an animal; or kill or physically abuse an animal.
Utah
From § 76-9-301.8
A person commits the crime of bestiality if the actor engages in any sexual activity with an animal with the intent of sexual gratification of the actor.
So, whether or not these laws are well written for purpose does depend a lot on your perspective on animals and human/animal sexuality. If you’re somebody who thinks that animals were put on this earth to be food for humans, or that bestiality is unnatural, sinful, or gross, then the stipulation “if done for a human’s pleasure” probably doesn’t sound jarring. It’s the perspective that these laws were first written from, after all.
But from an animal rights perspective, “if done for a human’s pleasure” seems like a completely inconsequential line to draw. If the animal doesn’t want to be touched right now, what does she give a shit if the human is doing it for pleasure or business?
But hey, this isn’t too many states so far, at least. If my dog and I want to move to a state where I can give him a handjob without us having to be all “no homo” about it, I’m sure we can look around for other locations that are less interested in what our feelings are on the matter, and more interested in just the nuts and bolts mechanics of what it is that we’re up to, and maybe some state will be cool with it.
For states that have exceptions to their bestiality laws based on whether or not the human/animal sex act is for animal husbandry, we have Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.
(Animal husbandry essentially just means getting animals to produce offspring by the way. Often in the context of factory farming this is done forcibly without any interest towards the animals’ will, as they would not naturally reproduce as rapidly as the industry needs in order to keep up with demand.)
Arizona
From § 13-1411
A person commits bestiality by knowingly doing either of the following: engaging in oral sexual contact, sexual contact, or sexual intercourse with an animal; causing another person to engage in oral sexual contact, sexual contact, or sexual intercourse with an animal.
This section does not apply to: Insemination of animals by the same species, bred for commercial purposes; accepted animal husbandry practices that provide necessary care for animals bred for commercial purposes.
Colorado
From § 18-9-201 and 18-9-202
“Sexual act with an animal” means an act between a person and an animal involving direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth, anus, or genitals of the other. A sexual act with an animal may be proven without allegation or proof of penetration. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit accepted animal husbandry practices.
A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in a sexual act with an animal.
In addition to any other sentence imposed for a violation of this section, the court may order an offender to complete an anger management treatment program, a mental health treatment program, or any other appropriate treatment program designed to address the underlying causative factors for the violation — this subsection does not apply to the treatment of pack or draft animals by negligently overdriving, overloading, or overworking them, or the treatment of livestock and other animals used in the farm or ranch production of food, fiber, or other agricultural products when the treatment is in accordance with accepted agricultural animal husbandry practices, the treatment of animals involved in research if the research facility is operating under rules set forth by the state or federal government, the treatment of animals involved in rodeos, the treatment of dogs used for legal hunting activities, wildlife nuisances, or to statutes regulating activities concerning wildlife and predator control in the state, including trapping.
Massachusetts
From § 272-77c
A person who willingly: engages in sexual contact with an animal or advertises, offers, accepts an offer for, sells, transfers, purchases or otherwise obtains an animal with the intent that the animal be used for sexual contact; organizes, promotes, conducts or knowingly participates in as an observer an act involving sexual contact with an animal; causes, aids or abets another person to engage in sexual contact with an animal; knowingly permits sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under the person’s control; induces or otherwise entices a child younger than 18 years of age or a person with a developmental or intellectual disability to engage in sexual contact with an animal or engages in sexual contact with an animal in the presence of a child younger than 18 years of age or a person with a developmental or intellectual disability; forces another person to engage in sexual contact with an animal; or disseminates photographs, videotapes or other depictions prohibited sexual contact with an animal shall, for a first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 7 years or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 21/2 years, by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment and, for a second or subsequent offense, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.
This section shall not apply to lawful and accepted practices that relate to veterinary medicine performed by a licensed veterinarian or a certified veterinary technician under the guidance of a licensed veterinarian, artificial insemination of animals for the purpose of procreation, accepted animal husbandry practices, including raising, breeding or assisting with the birthing process of animals or any other practice that provides care for animals, or conformation judging.
Nevada
From § 201.455
A person commits the crime of bestiality if the person knowingly and intentionally: engages in sexual conduct with an animal; causes another person to engage in sexual conduct with an animal or aids or abets another person in engaging in sexual
conduct with an animal; permits any sexual conduct with an animal to be conducted on any premises under the control of the person; engages in, organizes, promotes, conducts, advertises, aids, abets, participates in and is physically present as an observer, or performs any service in the furtherance of an act involving any sexual conduct with an animal; or photographs or films, for purposes of his or her sexual gratification or the sexual gratification of another person, a person engaged in sexual conduct with an animal.
“Sexual conduct” means any sexual act involving: the genitalia of a person and the genitalia, anus or mouth of an animal; the genitalia of an animal and the genitalia, anus or mouth of a person; any insertion, however slight, of any part of the body of a person or of a foreign object into the genitalia or anus of an animal; or any touching or fondling by a person, directly or indirectly through clothing, of the genitalia or anus of an animal.
“Sexual conduct” does not include: any accepted practice of animal husbandry which provides care for an animal; any accepted method of insemination of an animal for the purpose of procreation; any accepted practice relating to conformation judging; or any accepted medical procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian while engaging in the practice of veterinary medicine or by his or her employee while acting under his or her supervision.
New Jersey
From § 4:22-17
It shall be unlawful to purposely, knowingly, or recklessly use, or cause, or procure the use of, an animal or creature in any kind of sexual manner or initiate any kind of sexual contact with the animal or creature, including, but not limited to, sodomizing the animal or creature. As used in this paragraph, “sexual contact” means any contact between a person and an animal by penetration of the penis or a foreign object into the vagina or anus, contact between the mouth and genitalia, or by contact between the genitalia of one and the genitalia or anus of the other. This term does not include any medical procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian practising veterinary medicine or an accepted animal husbandry practice.
Tennessee
From § 39-14-214
A person commits an offense who knowingly: engages in any sexual activity with an animal; causes, aids, or abets another person to engage in any sexual activity with an animal; permits any sexual activity with an animal to be conducted on any premises under the person’s charge or control; engages in, organizes, promotes, conducts, advertises, aids, abets, participates in as an observer, or performs any service in the
furtherance of an act involving any sexual activity with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose; or photographs or films, for purposes of sexual gratification, a person engaged in a sexual activity with an animal.
Nothing in this section may be considered to prohibit accepted animal husbandry practices or accepted veterinary medical practices.
Texas
From § 21.09
A person commits an offense if the person knowingly: engages in an act involving contact between the person’s mouth, anus, or genitals and the anus or genitals of an animal, or the person’s anus or genitals and the mouth of the animal; fondles or touches the anus or genitals of an animal in a manner that is not a generally accepted and otherwise lawful animal husbandry or veterinary practice, including touching through clothing; causes an animal to contact the seminal fluid of the person; inserts any part of a person’s body or any object into the anus or genitals of an animal in a manner that is not a generally accepted and otherwise lawful animal husbandry or veterinary practice.
It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful animal husbandry or veterinary practice.
Vermont
From § 351, 351b, and 352
As used in this chapter, “sexual conduct” means: any act between a person and animal that involves contact between the mouth, sex organ, or anus of a person and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of an animal; or without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose, the insertion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or of any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal.
This subchapter shall not apply to: activities regulated by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Part 4, including the act of destroying feral swine in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 4709(f); scientific research governed by accepted procedural standards subject to review by an institutional animal care and use committee; livestock and poultry husbandry practices for raising, management, and use of animals; veterinary medical or surgical procedures; and the killing of an animal as provided by 20 V.S.A. §§ 3809 and 3545.
A person commits the crime of cruelty to animals if the person: engages in sexual conduct with an animal; possesses, sells, transfers, purchases, or otherwise obtains an animal with the intent that it be used for sexual conduct; organizes, promotes, conducts, aids, abets, or participates in as an observer an act involving any sexual conduct with an animal; causes, aids, or abets another person to engage in sexual conduct with an animal; permits sexual conduct with an animal to be conducted on premises under his or her charge or control; advertises, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal with the intent that it be subject to sexual conduct in this State.
Washington
From § 16.52.180, 16.52.185, and 16.52.205
No part of this chapter shall be deemed to interfere with any of the laws of this state known as the “game laws,” nor be deemed to interfere with the right to destroy any venomous reptile or any known as dangerous to life, limb or property, or to interfere with the right to kill animals to be used for food or with any properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations, which experiments or investigations shall be performed only under the authority of the faculty of some regularly incorporated college or university of the state of Washington or a research facility registered with the United States department of agriculture and regulated by 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2131 et seq.
Nothing in this chapter applies to accepted husbandry practices used in the commercial raising or slaughtering of livestock or poultry, or products thereof or to the use of animals in the normal and usual course of rodeo events or to the customary use or exhibiting of animals in normal and usual events at fairs.
A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when he or she: knowingly engages in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; knowingly causes, aids, or abets another person to engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; knowingly permits any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his or her charge or control; knowingly engages in, organizes, promotes, conducts, advertises, aids, abets, participates in as an observer, or performs any service in the furtherance of an act involving any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose; or knowingly photographs or films, for purposes of sexual gratification, a person engaged in a sexual act or sexual contact with an animal.
Nothing in this section prohibits accepted animal husbandry practices or prohibits a licensed veterinarian or certified veterinary technician from performing procedures on an animal that are accepted veterinary medical practices.
Wisconsin
From § 944.18
In this section, “sexual contact” means any of the following types of contact that is not an accepted veterinary medical practice, an accepted animal husbandry practice that provides care for animals, an accepted practice related to the insemination of animals for the purpose of procreation, or an accepted practice related to conformation judging: an act between a person and an animal involving physical contact between the sex organ, genitals, or anus of one and the mouth, sex organ, genitals, or anus of the other; any touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organ, genitals, or anus of an animal or any insertion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or any object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal; any insertion, however slight, of any part of an animal’s body into the vaginal or anal opening of a person.
No person may knowingly do any of the following: engage in sexual contact with an animal; advertise, offer, accept an offer, sell, transfer, purchase, or otherwise obtain an animal with the intent that it be used for sexual contact in this state; organize, promote, conduct, or participate as an observer of an act involving sexual contact with an animal; permit sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his or her ownership or control; photograph or film obscene material depicting a person engaged in sexual contact with an animal; distribute, sell, publish, or transmit obscene material depicting a person engaged in sexual contact with an animal; possess with the intent to distribute, sell, publish, or transmit obscene material depicting a person engaged in sexual contact with an animal; force, coerce, entice, or encourage a child who has not attained the age of 13 years to engage in sexual contact with an animal; engage in sexual contact with an animal in the presence of a child who has not attained the age of 13 years; force, coerce, entice, or encourage a child who has attained the age of 13 years but who has not attained the age of 18 years to engage in sexual contact with an animal; engage in sexual contact with an animal in the presence of a child who has attained the age of 13 years but who has not attained the age of 18 years.
Well, these laws are at least more objective. A step in the right direction?
Again, depends a lot on your perspective.
With animal rights in mind, I would say that replacing “illegal if done for pleasure” with “illegal if not done for animal husbandry” is mostly a lateral move, with nothing of consequence gained and nothing of consequence lost. Both still prohibit bros being bros for my dog and I if he starts inquiring about my interest in giving him a handjob right now, and both still allow forced insemination of farm animals no matter how vocally they do not consent. Any of the other details in these laws may be marginally for better or for worse, but in terms of the central issue here, I don’t believe that there is a significant different whether a state phrases it as criminalizing pleasure or exempting business. Either way they’re doing the same thing.
At least there aren’t any states that qualify their bestiality laws by forbidding pleasure and making explicit exceptions for animal husbandry at the same time because that might start to sound vaguely hypocritical oh hey look it’s
Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon:
Alabama
From § 13A-6-220 and 13A-6-221
For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
Sexual conduct: Any touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs or anus of an animal or any transfer or transmission of semen by the person upon any part of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person.
Sexual contact: Any contact, however slight, between the mouth, sex organ, or anus of a person and the sex organ or anus of an animal, any penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration of the sex organ or anus of the person into the mouth of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification or sexual arousal of the person.
A person commits the crime of bestiality if he or she: knowingly engages in or submits to any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; knowingly causes, aids, or abets another in engaging in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; knowingly permits any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal upon premises under his or her control; knowingly organizes, promotes, conducts, advertises, aids, abets, observes, or performs any service furthering an act involving sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose.
This article shall not apply to accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medicine practices.
Alaska
From § 11.61.140
A person commits cruelty to animals if the person: knowingly engages in sexual conduct with an animal; photographs or films, for purposes of sexual gratification, a person engaged in sexual conduct with an animal; causes, induces, aids, or encourages another person to engage in sexual conduct with an animal; or intentionally permits sexual conduct with an animal to be conducted on any premises under the person’s control.
It is a defence to a prosecution under this section that the conduct of the defendant was part of scientific research governed by accepted standards; conformed to accepted veterinary or animal husbandry practices.
This section does not apply to generally accepted dog mushing or pulling contests or practices or rodeos or stock contests.
In this section, “sexual conduct” means any: touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the genitals or anus of an animal or any transfer or transmission of semen by the person on any part of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person; contact, however slight, between the mouth, genitals, or anus of a person and the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any intrusion of the genitals or anus of the person into the mouth of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification of the person.
California
From § 286.5
Every person who has sexual contact with an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor.
This section does not apply to any artificial insemination of animals for reproductive purposes, any accepted animal husbandry practices such as raising, breeding, or assisting with the birthing process of animals or any other practice that provides care for an animal, or to any generally accepted practices related to the judging of breed conformation.
As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: “Sexual contact” means any act, committed for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, abuse, or financial gain, between a person and an animal involving contact between the sex organs or anus of one and the mouth, sex organs, or anus of the other, or, without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body of a person or any object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal, or the insertion of any part of the body of an animal into the vaginal or anal opening of a person.
Florida
From § 828.126
“Sexual conduct” means any touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs or anus of an animal or any transfer or transmission of semen by the person upon any part of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person. “Sexual contact” means any contact, however slight, between the mouth, sex organ, or anus of a person and the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration of the sex organ or anus of the person into the mouth of the animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or sexual arousal of the person.
A person may not: knowingly engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; knowingly cause, aid, or abet another person to engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; knowingly permit any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his or her charge or control; or knowingly organize, promote, conduct, advertise, aid, abet, participate in as an observer, or perform any service in the furtherance of an act involving any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose.
This section does not apply to accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medical practices.
Illinois
From § 5/12-35
A person may not knowingly engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. A person may not knowingly cause, aid, or abet another person to engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. A person may not knowingly permit any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his or her charge or control. A person may not knowingly engage in, promote, aid, or abet any activity involving any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit accepted animal husbandry practices or accepted veterinary medical practices by a licensed veterinarian or certified veterinary technician.
In this Section: “Sexual conduct” means any knowing touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs or anus of an animal or any transfer or transmission of semen by the person upon any part of the animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person;“Sexual contact” means any contact, however slight, between the sex organ or anus of a person and the sex organ, mouth, or anus of an animal, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person. Evidence of emission of semen is not required to prove sexual contact.
Kentucky
From § 525.137
As used in this section, “sexual contact” means any act committed between a person and an animal for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, abuse, or financial gain involving: contact between the sex organs or anus of one and the mouth, sex organs, or anus of another; the insertion of any part of the animal’s body into the vaginal or anal opening of the person; or the insertion of any part of the body of a person or any object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose.
A person is guilty of sexual crimes against an animal if he or she: engages in sexual contact with an animal; advertises, solicits, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal, or possesses, purchases, or otherwise obtains an animal, with the intent that the animal be subject to sexual contact; or causes, aids, or abets another person to engage in sexual contact with an animal. Sexual crimes against an animal is a Class D felony.
Nothing in this section shall apply to: accepted veterinary practices; artificial insemination of an animal for reproductive purposes; accepted animal husbandry practices, including grooming, raising, breeding, or assisting with the birthing process of animals or any other procedure that provides care for an animal; or generally accepted practices related to the judging of breed conformation.
Louisiana
From § 89.3
Sexual abuse of an animal is the knowing and intentional performance of any of the following: engaging in sexual contact with an animal; possessing, selling, transferring, purchasing, or otherwise obtaining an animal with the intent that it be subject to sexual contact; organizing, promoting, conducting, aiding or abetting, or participating in as an observer, any act involving sexual contact with an animal; causing, coercing, aiding, or abetting another person to engage in sexual contact with an animal; permitting sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his charge or control; advertising, soliciting, offering, or accepting the offer of an animal with the intent that it be used for sexual contact; filming, distributing, or possessing pornographic images of a person and an animal engaged in any of the activities described in this subsection.
For purposes of this section, “sexual contact” means: any act committed for the purpose of sexual arousal or sexual gratification, abuse, or financial gain, between a person and an animal involving contact between the sex organs or anus of one and the mouth, sex organs, or anus of the other; the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body of a person or any object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal, touching by a person of the sex organs or anus of an animal, or the insertion of any part of the animal’s body into the vaginal or anal opening of the person.
This Section shall not apply to any of the following: accepted veterinary practices; artificial insemination of an animal for reproductive purposes; accepted animal husbandry practices, including grooming, raising, breeding, or assisting with the birthing process of animals or any other procedure that provides care for an animal; generally accepted practices related to the judging of breed conformation.
Maine
From § 1031
A person, including an owner or the owner’s agent, is guilty of cruelty to animals if that person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly commits bestiality on an animal. For purposes of this paragraph, “commits bestiality” means that a person: engages in a sexual act with an animal for the purpose of that person’s sexual gratification; coerces anyone to engage in a sexual act with an animal; engages in a sexual act with an animal in the presence of a minor; uses any part of the person’s body or an object to sexually stimulate an animal; videotapes a person engaging in a sexual act with an animal; or for the purpose of that person’s sexual gratification, kills or physically abuses an animal. For purposes of this paragraph, “sexual act” means any act between a person and an animal involving direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth or anus of the other, or direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the genitals of the other. A sexual act may be proved without allegation or proof of penetration. This paragraph may not be construed to prohibit normal and accepted practices of animal husbandry.
Missouri
From § 566.111
A person commits the offense of sex with an animal if he or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit generally accepted animal husbandry, farming and ranching practices or generally accepted veterinary medical practices.
For purposes of this section, the following terms mean: “Animal”, every creature, either alive or dead, other than a human being; “Sexual conduct with an animal”, any touching of an animal with the genitals or any touching of the genitals or anus of an animal for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the person’s sexual desire.
New Hampshire
From § 644:8
A person commits bestiality by knowingly committing any of the following acts: engaging in sexual contact or sexual penetration with an animal for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification; offering or accepting the offer of an animal for consideration with the intent that it be subject to sexual contact or sexual penetration by a human; photographing or filming or distributing such photographs or films, for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, of a person engaged in sexual contact or sexual penetration with an animal.
This section shall not apply to: accepted veterinary medical practices; insemination of animals for the purpose of procreation; accepted animal husbandry practices that provide care for animals.
“Sexual contact” means any act between a person or an animal involving direct physical contact between the genitals or anus of one and the mouth, anus, or other part of the body of the other, or direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the genitals of the other, where such contact can be reasonably construed for the purpose of the person’s sexual arousal or gratification.
“Sexual penetration” means any intrusion, however, slight, of any part of the person’s or animal’s body into the body of the other, or any object manipulated by the person into the body of the animal, where such penetration can be reasonably construed for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
Ohio
From § 959.21
As used in this section, “sexual conduct” means either of the following committed for the purpose of sexual gratification: any act done between a person and animal that involves contact of the penis of one and the vulva of the other, the penis of one and the penis of the other, the penis of one and the anus of the other, the mouth of one and the penis of the other, the mouth of one and the anus of the other, the vulva of one and the vulva of the other, the mouth of one and the vulva of the other, any other contact between a reproductive organ of one and a reproductive organ of the other, or any other insertion of a reproductive organ of one into an orifice of the other; Without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal, anal, or reproductive opening of an animal.
No person shall knowingly engage in sexual conduct with an animal or knowingly possess, sell, or purchase an animal with the intent that it be subjected to sexual conduct. No person shall knowingly organize, promote, aid, or abet in the conduct of an act involving any sexual conduct with an animal.
Oregon
From § 167.333 and 167.335
A person commits the crime of sexual assault of an animal if the person: touches or contacts, or causes an object or another person to touch or contact, the mouth, anus or sex organs of an animal or animal carcass for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person; or causes an animal or animal carcass to touch or contact the mouth, anus or sex organs of a person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person. This section does not apply to the use of products derived from animals.
Unless gross negligence can be shown, the provisions of ORS 167.333 do not apply to: the treatment of livestock being transported by owner or common carrier; animals involved in rodeos or similar exhibitions; commercially grown poultry; animals subject to good animal husbandry practices; the killing of livestock according to the provisions of ORS 603.065; animals subject to good veterinary practices; lawful fishing, hunting and trapping activities; wildlife management practices under color of law; lawful scientific or agricultural research or teaching that involves the use of animals; reasonable activities undertaken in connection with the control of vermin or pests; and reasonable handling and training techniques.
Okay, is it strictly accurate to say that these laws are hypocritical? From the perspective of a lawmaker who wants animals to be food and humans to be supremely above the food, or for humans to eat the food and for that food to make somebody a lot of money, no, there is nothing hypocritical occurring here. It’s just scummy and ignorant, and carries all of the same weight as disregarding every nonhuman animal’s personhood from every available angle, while also pointedly demonizing the humans who think animals deserve to enjoy a little love if they’re interested. Because the types of humans who are into that probably tend to be less into the human supremacy idea, which makes them dangerous to have around freely talking about their animal escapades. Especially if we want everyone to buy in to the animals as human food thing. It’s not hypocritical, it’s tactical: and from a zoosexual perspective, it’s tactical in a directly lawful evil direction.
With all of these laws criminalizing pleasure and exempting business, it does raise the question of what would be better, and again, the details will depend on your perspective.
From the perspective of someone whose dog is still really holding out for that handjob sometime soon here, I would like to see the question of the human’s pleasure omitted entirely. If the human is having a bad time then that’s certainly a separate matter to be addressed, but whether the human is having a good time or an indifferent time should not really be a question that should be tackled by our legal system in this year of our lord 202X. Instead when it comes to human/animal sexual contact, I would prefer to put the legal focus on whether or not the animal is being harmed (they should not be), and is agreeable to the sexual act that’s going down (they should be, based on the criteria of the courtship behaviors of their species and by the idiosyncrasies of that individual animal’s communication. To someone in tune with these things it should be very obvious one way or the other). All exceptions for animal husbandry can, politely, fuck off; specifically I would like them to fuck off so hard that it is enshrined in the law that those practices are not exempt from paying attention to animal consent and they have to play by the same rules as everyone else; mainly I want it stated explicitly so that there is no assumed exception, and so that some clause about veterinary care isn’t used to continue the practice anyways.
But again, bringing it back to perspectives: Even if someone thinks bestiality is bad because it is always raping animals because humans and animals have different ways of communicating, and so my dog should under no circumstances receive any of the handjobs that he wants, I would nonetheless think that even me and that raving lunatic could still agree that exemptions for animal husbandry should be removed. If I think it can be rape and they think it’s always rape, we should logically be on the same page that it’s absurd to consider it never rape. Unless they think that rape is okay if it’s for business, or they think that the business-ness of the act makes rape not in the realm of possible consideration anymore, which, they’re already talking nonsense so fuck it maybe they do feel that way, who could know. But anyone off that far in the weeds is totally missing the point of why animal cruelty is bad, and probably shouldn’t have a voice in this discussion..
At this point we’re going to get into laws that are a little more sneaky about their motives. Albeit, only sneaky in the sense that they will take a little bit of analysis and explanation to unravel rather than literally just being able to take a highlighter to them. So, yknow, points for effort I guess.
We’ll be starting off with Georgia, Indiana, and Iowa, because they all basically use the same shtick.
Georgia
From § 16-6-6
A person commits the offense of bestiality when he performs or submits to any sexual act with an animal involving the sex organs of the one and the mouth, anus, penis, or vagina of the other.
Indiana
From § 35-46-3-14
A person who knowingly or intentionally performs an act involving: a sex organ of a person and the mouth or anus of an animal; a sex organ of an animal and the mouth or anus of a person; any penetration of the human female sex organ by an animal’s sex organ; or any penetration of an animal’s sex organ by the human male sex organ; commits bestiality, a Level 6 felony.
Iowa
From § 717C.1
For purposes of this section, “sex act” means any sexual contact between a person and an animal by penetration of the penis into the vagina or anus, contact between the mouth and genitalia, or by contact between the genitalia of one and the genitalia or anus of the other.
A person who performs a sex act with an animal is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.
The thing to note about these laws is that they get really specific about what body parts can touch what other body parts. And, importantly, none of these three states outlaws touching animal wieners or animal vaginas with your hands, or with instruments such as those that might be used for artificial insemination. So on the positive side, we have finally found three states where my dog can get his handjob legally 🎉. Also apparently you can go butthole to butthole with an animal in any of these states if I’m reading it right, seems like a weird omission but not a bad time. Kissing is also allowed.
Back to the point though, the laws of the three states above are still written in such a way that they “criminalize bestiality,” but really they’re just criminalizing the bestiality that isn’t animal husbandry.
The next two are similar to the above, but worth addressing as their own group because of an added feature. Up next is Maryland and New York.
Maryland
From § 3-322
A person may not: take the sexual organ of another or of an animal in the person’s mouth; place the person’s sexual organ in the mouth of another or of an animal; or commit another unnatural or perverted sexual practice with another or with ananimal.
New York
From § 130.00 and 130.20
“Sexual intercourse” has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.
“Oral sexual conduct” means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the anus, or the mouth and the vulva or vagina.
“Anal sexual conduct” means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the penis and anus.
“Sexual contact” means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. It includes the touching of the actor by the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing, as well as the emission of ejaculate by the actor upon any part of the victim, clothed or unclothed.
“Sexual conduct” means sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, aggravated sexual contact, or sexual contact.
“Aggravated sexual contact” means inserting, other than for a valid medical purpose, a foreign object in the vagina, urethra, penis, rectum or anus of a child, thereby causing physical injury to such child.
A person is guilty of sexual misconduct when he or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human body.
So yeah, playing the game of specifying what body parts can touch what other body parts, but then also using perversion and gratification as a catch-all. Which, to their credit, has successfully prohibited me from giving my dog a legal handjob in Maryland or New York. I think butt to butt is back off the table as well, although to be fair the mechanics of that for most animals did seem a little advanced anyways. Maybe like a pony and a human sharing a double sided toy would be the chillest way to go about doing that. Anyways.
At this point we still have 13 states left to cover, and these states have been saved for last because they get strange. Let’s start off by looking at Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Rhode Island:
Oklahoma
From § 21-886 21-887
Every person who is guilty of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast, is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not exceeding ten years.
Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime against nature.
Mississippi
From § 97-29-59
Every person who shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years.
Rhode Island
From § 11-10-1
Every person who shall be convicted of the abominable and detestable crime against nature, with any beast, shall be imprisoned not exceeding twenty (20) years nor less than seven (7) years.
So, question: What is the abominable and detestable crime against nature? Oklahoma at least gives us a hint that it involves sexual penetration. Is that only penetration with the penis of either party, assuming some party with a penis is present? Would fingering a mare for her pleasure be fine? Would fingering a mare for your pleasure be fine? How about penetration with the fingers for a medical exam of a mare? Does this include medical instruments such as those used for artificial insemination, making those animal husbandry practices actually fully illegal in these three states? If we’re trying to go by common sense based on the tone that these laws are putting down then animal husbandry probably actually is fine, but then, Oklahoma and Mississippi also appear to be criminalizing human-on-human anal sex here in these laws, and those sodomy laws were struck down by a later supreme court decision, so does that mean that this entire law is stricken from being enforceable and the criminal code will have to rewrite it and try again, or is it only that one specific human-on-human application of the code that is no longer enforceable, and the rest is still punishable? “The abominable and detestable crime against nature” doesn’t appear to be defined anywhere else in the legal codes of these states, or, well, anywhere at all, actually. Not anywhere that seems like an “official” legal reference for these states that I could find, which seems concerning if I was interested in moving to these states and wanted to be informed of their laws. Especially considering that these laws allow someone to be imprisoned for ten years, ten years, and twenty years respectively, we should really get to the bottom of this huh.
So this brings us into a deeper question: If you are residing in the United States of America, how do you know what is illegal? The answer is very straight-forward: Take a lawyer’s legal counsel, and if you do what they said and this results in you breaking the law then you have at least some degree of reasonable deniability that it’s their fault, not yours. If you don’t have a lawyer, then the answer is to brush up on the historical legal jargon and practices of the nation from which your nation’s laws are based (mostly Britain and France for U.S. laws, around the 1700s), then read the entire city, state, and federal founding documents and revised legal codes of where you are (this will be at least hundreds of pages), then review every court or council ruling that has ever happened in those jurisdictions in case any of them set a different precedent than what is stated in the legal code (which happens constantly). Where do you find these legal codes? It’s different for every place, a lot of states don’t even have them posted on their own website and use various third party sites to host them; are they up to date?; sometimes; would it be better to just get all of this at a library?; shit maybe, make sure to articulate everything that it is that you want to the librarian and also rely on them to know what it is that they’re bringing you and also hope that what they have is up to date and comprehensive.
And no, common sense isn’t going to cut it if it actually ends up in a court of law. First of all, if you’re tuned in to the news, you’ve seen people in the last few years very publicly get away with murder, which should be among the most straightforward common sense crimes. Conversely, in Oklahoma if you take the Lord’s name in vain, you’re looking at a misdemeanor and/or a fine of one dollar for each offense:
§21-901. Blasphemy defined.
Blasphemy consists in wantonly uttering or publishing words, casting contumelious reproach or profane ridicule upon God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Scriptures or the Christian or any other religion. R.L.1910, § 2398.
§21-902. Serious discussion not blasphemy.
If it appears beyond reasonable doubt that the words complained of were used in the course of serious discussion, and with intent to make known or recommend opinions entertained by the accused, such words are not blasphemy. R.L.1910, § 2399.
§21-903. Blasphemy a misdemeanor.
Blasphemy is a misdemeanor.
R.L.1910, § 2400.
§21-904. Profane swearing.
Profane swearing consists in any use of the name of God, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, either in imprecating divine vengeance upon the utterer, or any other person, or in light, trifling or irreverent speech.
R.L.1910, § 2401.
§21-905. Punishment for profane swearing.
Every person guilty of profane swearing is punishable by a fine of One Dollar ($1.00) for each offense. R.L.1910, § 2402.
…Unless of course those profanity laws are actually voided by your constitutional rights to free speech, in which case the state of Oklahoma and the United States of America may disagree on whether you have committed a crime, but if you are theoretically prosecuted and convicted in Oklahoma, you can spend months of your time and likely thousands in legal fees to appeal that conviction up to higher and higher courts until one at the federal level (assuming they are interested in taking their time to see your case) acquits you and gives you your dollar back. Easy.
So yeah, that’s pretty gross. Besides being why rich people are more easily able to get away with enormous crimes by hiding behind lawyers, this also leads us into our question for the rest of this article: What actually is a bestiality crime or not a bestiality crime in the remaining states that we have left to look at? The answer is probably the same sentiment as all of our earlier states —sexual interaction for pleasure is forbidden, sexual interaction for commerce is allowed —but these ones are a lot weirder about it.
For some that are quite similar in character to the above states, let’s now look at Virginia, Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina:
Virginia
From § 18.2-361
If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
Minnesota
From § 609.293 and 609.294
“Sodomy” means carnally knowing any person by the anus or by or with the mouth. Whoever voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
Whoever carnally knows a dead body or an animal or bird is guilty of bestiality, which is a misdemeanor. If knowingly done in the presence of another the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000 or both.
Montana
From § 45-2-101 and 45-8-218
“Deviate sexual relations” means any form of sexual intercourse with an animal.
A person who knowingly engages in deviate sexual relations or who causes another to engage in deviate sexual relations commits the offense of deviate sexual conduct.
Pennsylvania
From § 3101 and 3129
“Sexual intercourse,” in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes intercourse per os or per anus, with some penetration however slight; emission is not required.
A person who engages in any form of sexual intercourse with an animal commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.
South Carolina
From § 16-15-120
Whoever shall commit the abominable crime of buggery, whether with mankind or with beast, shall, on conviction, be guilty of felony and shall be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for five years or shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.
So again, looking at archaic language that, to my reading, is not entirely defined. We can absolutely take some guesses, but a word like “buggery” could have a lot of nuanced and varied definitions depending on who you asked and in what century the word was intended to have the context of. Maybe just anal, maybe oral, maybe gay stuff, maybe anything with an animal, maybe just anal with an animal, etc, etc. Some of these about carnal knowledge would seem to prohibit animal husbandry to my modern reading of it, but it would take a lot of digging to find what the details of the original intent were, if such information exists in recorded history to begin with. We can take our common sense guesses, but legalistic systems as complex as this are extremely proficient in subverting common sense, as described earlier. So in these states, we actually have cases of, is bestiality illegal?, yes, is animal husbandry illegal?, I doubt it but it’s hard to say for positive. Legal or not, not a single one of these states makes any mention of the animal’s input, just to point out.
For the next few states I pulled in some additional resources beyond just the legal code, because again, the legal code looked ambiguous and I wanted to seek more clarity on just what is and isn’t allowed. For these states I’ve also pulled in example jury instructions, which for these states seem to be in some way endorsed or used by the state’s criminal justice system, essentially giving a template for what instructions a jury should be given when going to decide on their verdict in a criminal trial. Not every state has these that I could find, but these ones did. Let’s look at Idaho, North Carolina, and Michigan:
Idaho
From § 18-6605 and Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions 920
Every person who is guilty of the infamous crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than five years.
In order for the defendant to be guilty of the Infamous Crime Against Nature, the state must prove each of the following: 1. On or about [date] 2. in the state of Idaho 3. the defendant [name] engaged in conduct consisting of the penetration, however, slight, of [the defendant’s penis into the [anal opening] [oral opening] of [name of person]. [or] the defendant’s [anal opening] [oral opening] by the penis of [name of person]. [or] [the defendant’s penis into the [anal opening] [oral opening] [genital opening] of [description of animal]. [or] the defendant’s [anal opening] [oral opening] [genital opening] by the penis of [description of animal]. If any of the above has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty. If each of the above has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.
North Carolina
From § 14-177 and North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions 226.10
If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.
The defendant has been charged with the crime against nature, which is an unnatural sex act. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a sex act with an animal.
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date, the defendant committed a sex act with an animal, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
Michigan
From § 750.158 and Michigan Courts’ Model Criminal Jury Instructions 20.32
Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life.
The defendant is charged with the crime of sodomy. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant voluntarily engaged in anal intercourse with another person. Anal intercourse is defined as a man penetrating the anus of another person with his penis. Any entry into the anus, no matter how slight, is enough. It does not matter whether the sexual act was completed or whether semen was ejaculated. Use Note: If the defendant is charged with a sexual act with an animal, an instruction addressing that situation should be prepared.
So in Idaho it appears that the example instructions again play the game of specifying body parts, and these instructions don’t say anything about hands or instruments, which may mean that animal husbandry is on the table, depending on how closely these pattern instructions have to be followed. North Carolina’s instructions aren’t much help for us, we just pivot from “the crime against nature” to “a sex act” which, again here we have to go by the spirit of the law, which is not great whenever we want to know specifically what is allowed. Michigan’s example instructions helpfully tell us that if the crime is regarding an animal then we should prepare instructions for that situation. Thanks Michigan!
I wouldn’t put too much weight into these instructions because one, they are not the law in and of themselves, and two, it would seem likely to me that a judge can write any instructions they want and completely ignore these if they would like to. Seemed like a place were we could maaaybe eke out more insight into these more vaguely defined laws, but by and large it’s more of the same.
These last two I thought were a bit interesting for a reason that was touched on earlier: Kansas, Nebraska.
Kansas
From § 21-5501 and 21-5504
“Sexual intercourse” means any penetration of the female sex organ by a finger, the male sex organ or any object. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse. “Sexual intercourse” does not include penetration of the female sex organ by a finger or object in the course of the performance of generally recognized health care practices or a body cavity search.
“Sodomy” means: oral contact or oral penetration of the female genitalia or oral contact of the male genitalia; anal penetration, however slight, of a male or female by any body part or object; or oral or anal copulation or sexual intercourse between a person and an animal. “Sodomy” does not include penetration of the anal opening by a finger or object in the course of the performance of generally recognized health care practices or a body cavity search.
Criminal sodomy is sodomy between a person and an animal.
Nebraska
From § 28-318 and 28-1010
“Sexual penetration” means sexual intercourse in its ordinary meaning, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the actor’s or victim’s body or any object manipulated by the actor into the genital or anal openings of the victim’s body which can be reasonably construed as being for nonmedical, nonhealth, or nonlaw enforcement purposes. Sexual penetration shall not require emission of semen.
A person commits indecency with an animal when such person subjects an animal to sexual penetration.
In these two states, we see that they 1 define their terms, 2 that these terms would appear to prohibit animal husbandry, 3 that there is no clause stating that it’s only a crime if done for pleasure, and 4 that there is no clause stating that animal husbandry is exempt. Are these two finally the states that, if a far cry from perfect to zoosexual eyes, are at least more consistent about prohibiting sexual contact between humans and animals?
Also let’s go only off of what’s written and pretend that the exception for animal husbandry isn’t inherently implied merely by the fact that a DA’s office would never bother trying to prosecute someone for practising animal husbandry in the first place uwu.
From my reading, what’s interesting here is the exceptions for medical care/health care. Whether the ethics of any specific case of it are agreeable, artificial insemination practices conducted on livestock probably do constitute a medical procedure. Like, artificial insemination is a medical procedure when it’s done with humans, surely. In reality here, what it looks like is that both of these exemptions were just initially written to define the terms for human/human sodomy laws, with the bestiality things tacked on as more of an afterthought, but it was at least done here in a way that was a little thought provoking on the beast front.
Phew.
The legal system sure is breezy and not exhausting, innit?
No matter what your perspective is on all of this, I hope you at least found somewhere where you thought “hey that law can suck an egg!” or “hey it seems kinda fucked up that we are expected to understand and live by such an impossibly cumbersome avalanche of archaic and unclear rules or else we go to prison!” But the bottom line is that zoosexuality has a lot of common ground here with other animal rights interests, because although we might disagree about certain giving-a-dog-a-handjob aspects of what these laws should be, at least we’re all thinking animal first, which is the exact inverse of how these laws are written at present.
In closing, these sodomy laws do not protect animals: they only protect animals’ objectification. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can improve the lives of the enormous population of animals subjected to factory farming every year, we should appreciate that victory enormously, even if it means waiting our zooey human turns for a little while longer.
(And don’t tell the anti’s, but it’s not like a perspective shift towards thinking animal first wouldn’t be a step in our zooey direction anyways ;3c)
Article written by an anonymous author (August 2022)
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Find the discussion page over at ZooCommunity!
