Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
great moral opprobrium and physical revulsion. Bestiality, even when there's
no apparent harm to an animal, is one such interaction. Along with physical
(and, where applicable, emotional) cruelty to animals, it's something of a
taboo. Not only do most of us feel very uneasy about it: we'd prefer not to
have to talk about it, unless forced to do so by circumstances. The fact that
Washington lacked an anti-bestiality law prior to 2006 indicates just how
effective this combination of emotional discomfort and willing silence has
that zoophiles like Pinyan and Tait were (and are) not only small in number
but also largely invisible. They kept (and still keep) their unusual sexual
behaviour a secret because of the force of convention, not the threat of
prosecution. Their intercourse with animals had to occur in remote and
enclosed spaces, and at times when 'normal' people could not witness their
bestial behaviour. In this light, the passing of RCW 16.52.205 can be seen
as reflecting a moral panic: Pam Roach and her bill's supporters felt that
it was important to set an example, lest political inaction be interpreted
as a tacit endorsement of sex with animals. The act formalised and sought
to justify moral convention, applying new penalties to convention breakers
like Pinyan and Tait.
Study Task:
In your view why do so many people recoil when they hear
about bestiality? Is it 'natural' to be disgusted at the thought of human-
animal sex? Why would most people find it hard to accept that 'zoophilia'
is a legitimate practice, perhaps even the basis for identity and community
among zoophiles?
The reasons why bestiality is morally outlawed are many and varied, as
you may have discovered by answering the study question above. Though
many do not stand up to close scrutiny on logical grounds, all rely on ideas
of ontological borders that ought not to be crossed. This became clear in
the way that legislators reacted to the Pinyan-Tait case, as I'll now detail
(drawing upon the research of Brown and Rasmussen, 2010).
Respectable identities and proper behaviour:
dividing sex in two
In the political debates leading to RCW 16.52.205, a number of arguments
against animals having sex with humans were voiced repeatedly. These argu-
ments united political conservatives like Pam Roach with animal rights
groups in Washington State and the wider United States. One argument
focussed on the concept of consent. On different occasions, Roach was
quoted as making the following claims when advocating RCW 16.52.205:
Animals are innocent. They cannot consent. It's wrong
...
