[Dylan16807]

And my point is that sexual abuse is a subcategory of abuse.

You didn't imply until now that I was wrong about animal abuse already being illegal. In that case, a bestiality law doesn't fix the actual problem, right? It's a band-aid partial fix.

[BoxFour]

I'm not sure what your point is, to be blunt. It seems like you wanted to make some weird argument about the semantics of the word "abuse", and are now implying one of:

1) Beastiality isn't sexual abuse

2) Beastiality laws are pointless because it was already illegal under existing abuse laws (it wasn't, as we've repeatedly discussed)

3) Sexual abuse requires physical harm

all of which are pretty gross (1,3) and/or pointless (2). I don't really feel the need to argue any of this any further, so I'll leave you to it.

[Dylan16807]

You got 2 wrong. It's: 2) If the existing abuse law doesn't include sexual abuse, we need to fix that law, not add a new one.

And that's not a pointless argument. If we're still allowing the whole category of non-physical abuse to animals, except for bestiality, that's a terrible job of lawmaking.

And just on a tangent here now that I'm reading the law they added, does it really make sense to have a blanket exemption for "accepted animal husbandry practices"? Some of those procedures are just as exploitative and unnecessary. It makes me think this law isn't putting animal welfare first.

[sabrehagen]

This thread is one for the archives...

[xyzzy123]

If you jerk off a horse just for the love of the game, you're a criminal and that's abuse. But if you're paid to do it (e.g. for insemination) that's fine. The act is the same, seems doubtful the horse is harmed. What society has a problem with is the fact that you enjoyed it.

For some reason with people it goes the other way around.