Bestiality Still Legal in Florida – But Not for Long

Posted by Enrique on 03.19.2009

Burden of beasts



As you are no doubt aware, the big story on the domestic front this week is the seemingly undeserved bonuses for executives of corporate welfare queen American International Group, Inc. On Monday, President Barack Obama said $165 million in bonuses should be cancelled by his Treasury Department, and that AIG employees had no right to be rewarded for their "recklessness and greed." We can only assume President Obama thinks $165 million isn't nearly enough – after all, his administration gave AIG $30 billion earlier this month as a reward for its recklessness and greed.

That same day, the nearly-two-month-old Obama administration found itself embroiled in an escalating trade dispute with America's second-favorite neighbor. Mexico announced it intends to increase tariffs on 90 U.S. exports, in response to the Obama administration's termination of a program that allowed Mexican trucks to make deliveries within the United States. Sen. John McCain called his former opponent's action a "clear violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement." It's a dark time for the NAFTA alliance.

But let's forget about all that – did you know it's still legal to have sex with an animal in Florida? But you better act fast if you want to make love to a fellow mammal in the Sunshine State – Florida may soon become the 35th U.S. state to outlaw bestiality. Ooh-la-la!

The story so far...

Our story begins about three years ago, when a resident of Florida's panhandle smothered a goat during a round of vigorous carnal knowledge. This unfortunate situation piqued the interest of animal lover (in the platonic sense) and Florida state senator Nan Rich, who was appalled to discover that human-goat interaction of this kind was perfectly legal within her jurisdiction. Last year Sen. Rich introduced a bill that would make these politically incorrect relationships a third-degree felony. Thanks to the power of the internet, you can read Rich's bill, SB 448, in PDF format here. It's a breezy read at only two pages, and it's every bit as delightful as you would imagine. There's something uniquely amusing about carefully crafted statutory language on the subject of fucking an animal. Although I'm fairly critical of our elected representatives when they overreach, I think we can all agree that state legislators have a legitimate role in regulating permissible sexual contact with animals that are incapable of expressing consent. The only issues are defining the terms and assessing the appropriate penalty. To wit:

"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.

This paragraph raises a number of very silly serious questions. For one thing, is it relatively common in the state of Florida for animal lovers (in the non-platonic sense) to dress up their four-legged friends-with-benefits in costume before *ahem* petting them? For another thing, this "semen" language indicates that only men will face criminal penalties for hot animal sex acts, which is plainly sexist. Why should Florida law assume that men have a unique tendency toward this kind of deviant behavior? Sandra Herold, the Connecticut woman whose pet chimpanzee tore off a lady's face last month, apparently had a nuanced relationship with her ape. Also, I seem to remember a friend of a friend of a friend who swore to God that as a child he walked in on his babysitter smearing peanut butter on her naughty bits to be eaten by the family dog. Thought it was just an urban legend? Think again. Thank you, Smoking Gun.

Back to SB 448:

"Sexual contact" means 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.

It's all about penetration. Not to belabor the point, but I don't believe any of that language criminalizes the peanut-butter-on-vagina situation, which is a clear and present danger if that Smoking Gun link is any indication. If SB 448 becomes Florida law, women will still be permitted to derive sexual gratification from dogs licking condiments off their babymakers, while men who even slightly penetrate a pet will be charged with a felony. Yet again, the law treats women as precious and men as predators. What a world.

Thankfully, SB 448 contains a provision exempting "accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medical practices" from criminal penalty. I suppose this means that Floridians who are sexually attracted to animals will have to claim they are amateur veterinarians now, but this exception led to an amusing exchange in the legislature during the course of debating SB 448:

"People are taking these animals as their husbands? What's husbandry?" [Sen. Larcenia Bullard] asked. Some senators stifled their laughter as Chairman Charlie Dean explained that husbandry was the rearing and caring of animals.

Bullard didn't get it.

"So that maybe have been the reason the lady was so upset about that monkey?" Bullard asked, referring to a Connecticut case where a woman's suburban chimpanzee want mad and was shot.

"I'm not familiar with that particular incident or case," Dean said.

For her ignorance, Bullard was named "Worst Person in the World" by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann (which I believe is the first time the honor has been awarded to someone not employed by Fox News). Despite that "husbandry" hiccup, SB 448 was voted out of committee unanimously, and is expected to be adopted by the full legislature later this year. Sen. Rich said, "There's a tremendous correlation between sexually deviant behavior and crimes against children and crimes against animals. This is long overdue. These are heinous crimes. And people belong in jail."

While we all agree there's a substantial "ick factor" when it comes to the regulation of human-animal sex acts, do we know for certain that incarcerating an animal abuser will keep our children safe? If having sex with a goat is the only thing that keeps some disturbed individual from molesting a child, wouldn't we prefer that he/she take his/her psychosexual pathologies out on the goat? I'm not arguing that making love to a goat should be legal, but maybe society should treat it as a cry for help instead of a felony. It's a tricky thing to incarcerate a person for a crime he/she might commit at some point in the future, based on their unpopular lifestyle choices. If someone is caught having sex with an animal, I'm sure most would be willing to consider turning over a new leaf – so maybe sentence them to probation instead of prison.

To be perfectly honest, I've never had a soft spot in my heart for animals, so the idea of a person having sex with his/her pet simply doesn't offend me. Disgust me, yes – but really, I'd prefer not to know about it at all. In my view, bestiality doesn't seem like a gravely serious offense requiring harsh retribution. Just send the poor bastards to a shrink.

But if the state of Florida thinks mandatory jail time is necessary, fair enough, and I certainly hope it results in a decline in child abuse. Because if it doesn't, then what was the point?