European Disintegration: Animal Prostitution
If you ever wondered what lies at the bottom of the slippery slope, go to Germany. There, you will find Europe’s modern moral and cultural bankruptcy on open display. There, you can visit one of many “erotic zoos” and partake in sex with animals for a price.
In a German “erotic zoo,” customers pay to have sex with farm animals. A barnyard pimp collects money from the customers. These businesses are proliferating throughout Germany and Denmark, and are completely legal.
The Telegraph gives us some background to the law’s “enlightened” legalization of bestiality:
Bestiality was legalised in Germany in 1969, the same year that gay sex was also removed from the criminal code. After that, sex with animals was only punishable if the animal was severely injured.
The current proposal would outlaw animal prostitution by banning the pimps at the erotic zoo. That’s right, pimps. The gatekeepers, literally, would be criminalized. If you collect cash from freaks looking for a lamb, it would be a crime for the first time since 1969.
Has Europe really fallen so far so fast?
Except in Muslim communities across most of western Europe, birthrates have crashed. Mohammed is the most popular boy’s name in England. European law is in full retreat. In the Netherlands, you can order a mobile euthanasia van to your house like we order a pizza. In England, the Royal College of Obstetricians support infant euthanasia, a.k.a., murder. The glorious cathedrals of the west are empty on Sundays, except in still-devoutly Catholic countries like Poland and Ireland.
Might the rise of secular, hip Europe have any relation to the rise of erotic zoos?
The spectacle of German heavy-petting zoos has some lessons for us here in the United States. PJ Media’s Zombie routinely covers the California version of the moral collapse found in the German sheep and bull bordellos. These beastly bordellos pose a vexing question for libertarians here.
Customers at the German erotic zoos consider this a simple lifestyle choice. Alas, the 1969 repeal of German laws got the government out of the bedroom, or perhaps more appropriately, out of the barnyard. And under a libertarian model, cows and pigs are properly considered chattel, mere property like a chair or tractor. If one wants to do things to a chair or tractor they own, then they certainly aren’t hurting anyone else.
This just made me thank God that my husband and I share Christian values. How worried do the spouses and signifigant others in Germany have to be about getting STDs from animals?. There is not enough “ewwwww” in the world to express how disturbing that is.
Thank you Lord for making this off limits to your people.
I will forever wonder now about all Germans I may meet. Not just that they may have partaken of this practice, but that they would allow it openly in their nation.
We had a German exchange student several years back. I always thought that strange smell was from not bathing or lack of deodorant use.
I’m not a religious sort and I know that such behavior is wrong.
How do you know it’s wrong?
Because of the overwhelming influence of Christianity in people’s morals and values. It will take another few generations for atheists to purge our cultures of the Christian influence that gave birth to them. It will happen and maybe infidels will no longer get peripheral values from the inherent Christian values of our societies. Then what? When the remnants of a moral compass have been purged its “I’m ok, you’re ok and if it feels good do it”
I am just a mom, but here’s a clue for you. That which promotes, preserves and protects life is “good”. I commonly refer to things that do not do this as “bad” or “wrong”. Engaging in sex with animals not only endangers yourself(and the livestock), but it creates in the individual who so indulges, a disease vector into the rest of the human community that did not otherwise exist. Therefore, it is “wrong” and “bad”.
You will kindly notice the lack of references in this to any religion whatsoever. If you, however, don’t think that my definition of “good” is correct, then we cannot communicate because our differences are too vast a gulf to be bridged by any amount of goodwill on my part.
Think about it: Muslims practise this. This is for the Muslims.
Do you actually believe what you say here? Do you not understand that this is just a jurisdiction technicality?
So ignorant……
dude, your goat’s calling
This is where I step in and quibble with the use of the term libertarian. I think it’s time we made some distinctions here, so let me offer these general views.
Libertarianism is based on a concept of freedom of action. What it requires is that one is responsible for the outcomes of one’s actions. That is, libertarianism is not all in the doing. It’s also in the cleaning up.
This is different from something that it is often confused for – libertinism. Libertinism also says that it is based on a concept of freedom of action. But it is actually not about freedom, but about power. Libertinism says that one is free to act, and acting includes forcing or suckering others into paying the price.
Thus, a libertarian may rightly object to abortion (“choicing”) because it offloads the costs of a behavior (loose sexual conduct, as an example) on a third party, the unborn. A libertine simply sees the argument as “what I can get away with.”
This needs to be made clear for a number of reasons. Partly because it helps us understand where our issues are running foul (or mutton in this case), and partly because it gives those of us not in love with Left-Progressivism a way to focus our arguments.
When someone says that “the right” (an imprecise and anyway incorrect amalgam as there are no monarchists outside of the Bush household and no theocrats in the US) is socially tyrannical in the way the left is legally and economically tyrannical, it may be pointed out that we are actually trying to find ways to maximize freedom, while limiting the ways that costs are dumped on innocent parties. The disease problem of certain sexual behaviors becomes a public problem. We may not wish to outlaw such behavior, but we owe it to ourselves to say that we should be cautious of them.
The libertine element pretends that there are no noticeable distinctions.
At the end of the day, the libertarian philosophy is better for every honest and decent person. Gays could benefit from a heightened ethic of personal responsibility and caution (libertarian) as opposed to bathhouse ethics (libertine). It is, after all, they who will bear the brunt of a loss of cures for gonorrhea, to name one example. Left-Progressive America may convince them that their libertine impulses can be satiated by making everyone pay for their healthcare, but in the end, everyone isn’t going to suffer the physical malady.
Taking your ven diagram, libertines are a circle within libertarianism. The erotic zoos fall inside both. Libertarian theory, unless dealing with the rights of animals, views them as property. Property can be disposed of as the owners see fit, as long as it does not harm others.
How’s it ultimately relevant? There are lots of things that are both legal and taboo. It’s perfectly legal in America to belong to the KKK, but you’re not going to have a lot of friends or be welcome in polite society if you do. If it’s socially acceptable for men to make love to sheep, the problem isn’t that banging sheep should be banned, the problem is your society is completely decadent and has idiotic taboos (every society has them).
There’s definitely a sticky problem here. The libertarian argument is that the animal cannot reasonably consent. The libertine argument is that it doesn’t matter.
That said, the libertarian argument would then cause us to face off against meat-eating, as except for the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, no cattle consents to being slaughtered.
For that, I have no solution for you.
Does the public not have a say about what goes on with the food supply? These animals are likely to wind up as someone’s hamburger, but you will never know. Living in a place like that I’d be a vegetarian for sure.
I applaud most of your post, but claiming that the “right” involves only Monarchy is ridiculous. As Americans, it makes no sense.
No, it’s called history. The term “right wing” and “left wing” came out of the French National Assembly running up to and during the French Revolution.
The right wing consisted of monarchists and theocrats. Both of those things are right-Progressive. They are collectivist structures designed that compel individuals to act as they deem appropriate. The argument of the Church – that we are all better off if we live by their rule – is similar to the Divine Right of Kings (God puts them here not for them, but for us) and is essentially the same as the bureaucratic/statist Left-Progressivism we are faced with today.
The reason you think it makes no sense is because you’re not placing these concepts in history, or looking at a larger view of the world. There exists today actual right-wing governments in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. We no longer have these kinds of people in America because the Enlightenment values of Individualism eroded them. Adam Smith wasn’t arguing against leftists because leftists by and large didn’t exist yet.
Yes, for example, the earliest colonies were communitarians – Progressives – but they arrived there from their Puritan faith. Not by Marx’s Statism. It’s correct, in a sense, to call them communists, but that muddies the issue. Better to call them religious collectivists or Right-Progressives. To the extent that we have Right-Progressives, which is very small, we run into problems. George W. Bush was a Right-Progressive, driven to “do good” by his alcoholism and paternalism (the former being an outgrowth of his religious conversion; the latter being an outgrowth of monarchism, or rule by DNA).
Left-Progressivism comes after the Enlightenment, indeed had to, because Left-Progressivism requires the prosperity created by Enlightenment ideas to even function.
By and large, we do not have a right-wing in America. We have a petite version that doesn’t amount to much but screwing things up, but nothing on the order of the left-wing. The reason, again, is that the right was diminished by the Enlightenment, while the left thought it hit on something new. That’s why there’s very little small government left-wing in America. It never understood its actual place and has not yet been repudiated.
Thank you, Amos! You have done an excellent job of making the distinction that had to be made crystal clear. I was also surprised and mightily impressed by your description of a libertarian “pro-life” argument.
“…there are no monarchists outside of the Bush household” Really? Does the name “Kennedy” strike any bells with you? I am sure, if you are honest you can come up with pretentions of royal lines in both parties.
The proposed law covers non-pay bestiality with one’s own animal, not just animal prostitution. How it interfaces with things like modern animal husbandry practices… presumably it’ll remain legal to inseminate or collect semen, as long as the animal’s handler doesn’t enjoy it.
I’d also note that 13 states do not prohibit bestiality itself — and not California, but otherwise-moral places like Texas. Needless to say, legal is not the same as openly practicing, and I can say that as someone who spent 2005 as a bisexual in Texas.
As for STDs, sexually-transmitted-only zoonoses are rather rare. If you’re worried about catching brucellosis canis, you don’t merely need to avoid sexual contact with bestialitists, but casual contact with everyone that has a dog. Or just get vaccinated.
Bestiality’s disgusting, and not just for the obvious matters but also for how screwed up of a mindset many practitioners have about general sexual relationships. At the same time, we’ve also got a society where we simultaneously have 1% of the adult population in prisons, yet simultaneously can’t manage to reliably keep keep violent and unrepenting convicted prisoners in jail for the full length of their sentence, among hundreds of other problems. I’m pretty sure I can think of much, much better uses of tax dollars.
Sometimes I think the muzzies are right – the west is too decadent to survive.
If you had ever seen what “muzzies” do with infidel women ( think Laura Logan in Egypt ) you would rethink that statement.
Don’t you get it? These zoos ARE for the Muzzies!! They have Fatwas that say it’s OK- and it’s something they have done for millenia, as well as little boys!!
This is not libel- look it up!!
There will be no generations down the line for one side of this battle for the secularists prefer animals to the begetting of children. Yet they count upon the offspring of the church attendees to pay crushing social taxes to fund their retirements. They have made a bet the church goers will not treat them the same way they treat these sheep. They may be in for a surprise. Decadence often generates a swing towards the other extreme down the road.
Recall that George III and Queen Charlotte produced 15 children, 12 of whom reached adulthood. Conventional morality was eschewed by his children whose mores dominated British society during the Regency period. In November 1817, 26 months before his own death, there was a constitutional crisis when George III’s sole legitimate grandchild died. Parliament pretty much bribed his three unwed sons to quickly ditch their mistresses and bastard offspring, marry more suitable women and get to work producing a successor. The future Queen Victoria was born May 24, 1819. Perhaps because she may have had as many as 56 bastard first cousins on her father’s side she led her own life in a manner so that her name is now synonymous with moral rectitude concerning sex.
When ever I hear “Morals have no place in the law,” I remember that a moral case leads to some of the most important changes in law.
After all, if no one made a moral case, would slavery have been abolished?
The statements “you can’t legislate morality” and “morals have no place in the law” are patently false. EVERY law that has sanctions for the breaking thereof is a moral statement.
Reminds me of the old song “I only have eyes for ewe”
Sorry it had to be said.
Now, we know where ‘sheeple’ come from. Same about centaurs and minotaurs. O jerum, jerum, jerum! O quae mutatio rerum!
Kiok is right. Morals have no place in law, or sane law at any rate. Ethics do. There’s a difference.
My thesaurii consider morals and ethics to be synonymous. So enlighten me, what is the difference ?
As I understand it, ethics only concerns living people, while morality considers future generations, those whose very existence our behavior puts at risk. E.g. masturbating alone instead of searching for a marriage partner would be immoral but not unethical.
That’s unfortunate, since the distinction has been recognized as far back as Aristotle. Eric Raymond has one of the better explanations:
“Ethics is pragmatic; morality is not. Ethical analysis asks “What are the effects of action? Do they lead to sustainable outcomes?” Morality, on the other hand, proceeds from premises about what is “right” and “wrong”, assigns much greater importance to mental states and intentions, and treats consequential analysis as irrelevant or at best a secondary and weak form of argument.
To see that this distinction is live in common language and not just philosophical jargon, compare the following claims: “Pornography is unethical” with “Pornography is immoral.””
The difference between ethics and morals? A line by David McCollum in an NCIS episode comes quickly to mind: An ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife. A moral man would not cheat.”
I finally understand Baader Meinhof.
We’re gonna run out of things we can swear at people with…..ô_o………
– ObamaCare: Soma! Soma!! Soma!!!
The problem here isn’t libertarianism. The problem is that the Europeans have descended into animal-f**kers. That is to say the problem is cultural, not legal. Among civilized people, I’m sure there are plenty of communities with no laws on the books against a Tryst with a Terrier. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T OCCUR TO THEM THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU’D DO! And anyone who did it would receive far worse punishment from scorn, mockery and ridicule than any law on the books could enforce.
Exactly. Libertarianism only works by freeloading off of Judeo-Christian morality. Germany is a perfect example of a nation that’s so far off that path libertarianism will only encourage bestiality to be even more out in the open. Your culture trumps law (or politics) argument actually discredits libertarianism.
“Mere morals have no place in law,” he said.
This line was beat into us by both the left and a hefty chunk of libertarians all throughout the Bush W. years. When somebody says this line, it just shows me that they have never really thought about law and morality. All law is moral in origin and nature, but not all morals should be codified into law.
Are laws that protect private property and personal choice somehow amoral? Of course not. Common law and the Constitution are founded on a certain moral understanding; a product of Western society.
The rot that produces the celebration of the growth of bestiality cannot be cured by making it illegal, it must come through cultural and personal change. True change in the way people think.
Exactly. What do we codify if not morals? Arbitrary things like “don’t wear white after labor day”?
Quite.
It is vital to realize that EVERY act of government is, in some way, forcible. If taxpayer money is spent, it was collected by force. If a thing is criminalized, those who do it will be forcibly confined. Even if they are punished with a mere $1.00 fine, there remains the threat that if they do not pay the fine, it will be increased; if they do not pay the increase, they will be brought before a judge; if they fail to appear they will be jailed, and if they try to flee the jail, they may be shot.
Therefore, every act of government, even every debate about any legislation, involves at its outset the moral judgment that The Use Of Force Is Morally Justified When Dealing With This Topic.
“Can’t legislate morality,” my prodigious posterior.
The plain fact is that no government has ever done anything at all WITHOUT acting in the moral sphere, for good or for ill.
“’Mere morals have no place in law,’ he said.”
Yes, because we don’t want to legislate morality, do we?
Of course, all laws do, in one way or another, legislate morality. In saying “It’s illegal to murder your neighbor,” the state is saying that it’s bad, or immoral, to do so. Laws simply aren’t laws without the concept of morality.
Is that too hard to understand? For some people, I think it is.
I’m fairly libertarian, but my thought is that the animal cannot consent, therefore this is a crime. The same is true for human children.
What the heck does “mere morals have no place in law” mean? What do we write laws for then? I mean, why is it illegal to kidnap or enslave someone? Isn’t that law driven by our morals regarding freedom?
You think it’s okay if a child consents? Boy, I can see the pedophiles with their brown bag full of candy.
A child, much like an animal, is legally unable to form consent. This entire post is kind of a straw man because it fundamentally misrepresents the libertarian position in that regard. And, it’s also kind of hilarious, because since in the apparently completely moral and just world, we raise animals specifically to be killed, skinned and eaten, if I were a pig, I’d think sex with humans would be fairly far down on my list of concerns. Heck, maybe if I did a good job I wouldn’t end up as bacon.
Funny, I never thought of libertarians as types that put out policy statements on their positions. Just so I can avoid future hilarious “strawman” arguments, can you tell us what the official libertarian position is on the following?
1) bestiality without evidence of animal consent
2) pedophilia without evidence of child consent
3) animal cruelty
4) eating meat
I eagerly await your response.
That’s exactly his point: a child cannot meaningfully consent to this revolting practice.
And I must say: after reading this article I am seriously considering going vegetarian — and definitely next time I’m going to Germany. FEH!
On the other hand: if animal “husband”-ry did not exist, why would the Torah (a.k.a. “the 1st five books of the Old Testament”) find it necessary to condemn the practice in no less than four places (the most of any paraphilia and possibly the most of ANY transgression at all except idolatry)? (Once in Exodus “Whosoever lies with any kind of beast shall surely be put to death”, twice in Leviticus “A man shall not lie with any beast: it is an abomination. Neither shall any woman stand before a beast to be known by it…” and “…shall surely be put to death: their blood be upon their heads…”, and once in Deuteronomy (“Cursed be he who lies with any kind of beast. And the people shall say ‘Amen’)
Children can’t give consent either.
You should consider reading my comment before replying next time. Thanks.
Is it better to just kill the animal and eat it and/or turn it into a leather jacket? They don’t exactly “consent” to that either, do they?
Lets face, it people do a LOT worse things to animals then just “make love” to them.
And who knows. . .maybe some of the animals actually enjoy the. . .um. . .”attention” and would “consent”. . .if they were actually capable.
I agree that it’s an interesting question. A more extreme example for your argument would be animal testing for cosmetics, drugs, etc.
I eat meat and wear leather, so I’m obviously not behaving consistently with my “consent” rule. I would argue though, that food is a human necessity, and if an animal can be killed humanely, we are justified in doing so as long as we’re using it for food.
It seems to me that bestiality is just a form of unnecessary animal torture to give some pervert human a temporary thrill.
Another complication to my argument: I have heard of shows performed in Amsterdam involving a donkey where the animal was quite obviously giving his “consent” and perhaps getting a bigger “thrill” than his human partner. Sigh.
Rats! I can’t think of a cleaver segue between this article and PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain).
I can…….;>………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gLN3QoN-q8
I wont be able to keep a straight face next time I
hear an owner command a dog to “come” or “roll over”.
“we’ve reached the bottom of the slippery slope”,
I disagree, that is not the bottom,
legalized pedophilia is the bottom, and it is not too far away, it is an accepted Muslim practice and will soon be pushed as “normal” in parts of Europe.
This was put in place to satisfy Muslims!! Their recent Fatwas say it’s OK to have sex with animals. And they have ALWAYS had sex with animals.
Get rid of your Muslims, Germany!!
Well, as long as the Germans reinstate the sacred right of adults to mutilate baby penisses, they will be forgiven for banning animal sex…
When I studied moral-ethical theory, the usual dividing line — which, in all candor, was never without plenty of fuzz — put morals on the side of entirely private behavior, where only oneself would be affected, while ethics pertained to behavior that would have a direct and substantial effect on others.
A statement such as “You can’t legislate morality” is both true, false, and irrelevant to the nature of the moral law. Consider this bit of brilliance from Herbert Spencer:
The moral law stands above all legislation and cannot be altered by it. It flows from the Laws of Nature, which are self-enforcing. Legislated law can only prescribe how politically controlled force shall be used. It can never create an actual loophole in the moral law, nor can it add a single clause to it that isn’t already there — all the pretensions of legislators notwithstanding.
Besides, there are some important unanswered questions here:
1. Does the German government have to pay for the animals’ contraception?
2. If contraception fails, does the human customer have any say in whether the baby should be aborted? And what about child support?
(Just in case you didn’t think this could get any sillier, folks.)
The plain truth, uncomfortable as it may be for secular leftists to digest, is that a falling away from God (the *real* God, not “allah”) is the *cause* of the decline of society — not an effect of it.
Repent.
Thanks to InstaPundit, I read 2-3 articles about urban legends involving gerbils today. All of them had the same attitude, exemplified by:
So the very thought that anyone might engage in such activities is ridiculous, and if you believe that some people do so, it is because you are a homophobe. No kidding.
So after decades of demanding we accept one behavior after another that was once considered aberrant if not perverted, suddenly the Masters of Tolerance appeal to community standards and are indignant that we are impugning their virtue. I suppose it’s just too early. It’ll take at least another two years before they cast the lack of acceptance of “gerbilling” as the civil rights issue of our time, and demand that “LaQeesha’s Dad Has a Gerbil” be required reading in kindergartens.
If anyone would like to see degraded morals look no further than the ‘christian’ moralist behind this article and some of the comments displaying magnificient judgement usually reserved for God.
The truly disturbing thing about this article is that is lumps consenting gay adults with a horrible activity that should be better handled by the SPCA or PETA. Consenting HUMANS is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT of free will. While beastiality is just another example of BAD stewardship of this EARTH by ‘christians’ whose degenerated morals have left this World scarred with sadness. Look at Germany ~ the wonderful modern European nation of LUTHER that had no problem gassing 6 million innocent jew, gay , roma, socialist etc etc…….just do your history and research the Weimar Republic that was the justice given out by other “christian’ nations leading to the depravity of MURDER!
And to all the BLIND One Eyed slaves….your MUSLIM brothers believe the same thing all real and good christian do that at the end of days it is JESUS ( yes! fools ISLAM REALLY BELIEVES IN JESUS as sacred PROPHET ) that will return to defeat the ONE EYED DAJJAL/ANTI-Christ….so both islam & christianity have JESUS defeating the EVIL ONE! HA!…..why do you look at the LOG in your brothers EYE……..and seriously who are YOU but the slaves of the Anti-christ to use any excuse to attack innocent people, children and women whether they are muslim or gay…….ONE EYED yup! look behind your greenback folks and YOU WILL KNOW WHO YOU REALLY SERVE!
It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Ilsa koch ~ the beast of buchenwald …is that who ur referring to….?
Though my original intention on reading through these comments was to join the fracas regarding the article being discussed, there just a few related errors I couldn’t help noticing, and feel compelled to correct first, simply in the interest of dispelling further misunderstanding.
“New Class Traitor” has shown that bestiality has been a capital offense since Biblical times – and I commend this person on an admirable use of references, as well.
However, while this quite clearly speaks to the standing of the Judeo-Christian faithful on this issue, it appears that it has failed to enlighten a few responders who seem slightly under-informed on the subject of Islam.
As I would assuredly waste my breath appealing to these individuals to educate themselves so as to gain a greater understanding of their fellow man, I might advise them instead (tongue-in-cheek) to “know their enemy”.
At the very least, it might save the rest of us the embarrassment of having to read such things as have been posted here.
The following points, I will admit, can be conceded as valid:
1) practice of both zoo- and pedophilia by individuals of Middle Eastern ethnicity has been witnessed in Middle Eastern countries by non-Middle Eastern persons (the social acceptability of this practice is debatable, depending on the country, region, social circle, and just whom you happen to ask)
2) for some of these aforementioned countries, the national religion is Islam
3) an unknown, but doubtless existent percentage of those who practice these offenses are Muslim, or at least call themselves Muslim
4) a number of those belonging to the subcategory mentioned in item #3 may even attempt to use Islam – or a twisted version of it – to defend their unsavory practices
What I will dispute is the generalizations made here concerning Muslims, and their alleged canonical, faith-based acceptance – even promotion – of bestiality as an approved practice. Bestiality is NOT a faith-sanctioned practice of God-fearing Muslims.
As support for my claims: the three books of the Torah given as example by NC Traitor – Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy – and specifically the verses quoted which prohibit the practice of bestiality for God-fearing Jews and Christians, also just happen to be found in the Qur’an.
Yes, you read that correctly: the sacred scripture of Islam, the holy book that is central to the Muslim religion, contains the exact verses that proscribe this practice for Christians and Jews.
In light of this, posts claiming thing like “Muslims practise this. This is for the Muslims,” and “These zoos ARE for the Muzzies!!” are exposed as ignorant and incorrect, as well as speech unbecoming a person of moral rectitude.
Saying “Muslims practice bestiality” because some people who practice bestiality happen to be/call themselves Muslim is the same as saying “Catholics allow abortions” or “American Southerners are racists” because some people who have abortions, or are racist, happen to be/call themselves Catholic, or live in the United States on the Equator side of the Mason-Dixon Line.
The logic of this argument is severely flawed, and the example only serves as further proof that such unsubstantiated vitriol is better swallowed than spewed.
In the event that the person(s) in question cannot control the urge to spew, I beg in the name of common decency that they spew where no one else has to suffer witnessing it.
He who lies on the ground must expect to be trodden on. – German Proverb