"The B.C. SPCA is asking veterinarians to come forward if they suspect owners are engaging in sexual acts with their pets."

Now THERE is where I have a major issue, first of all there is doctor/patient confidentiality privileges, any vet who does this is wide open for a major libel lawsuit that could put them out of business.
Second, this sets up private practitioners as unpaid govt shills and spies, little Eichmans.
Third, this will encourage abandonment, death and non-treatment of any animals the owner even THINKS might have a vaginal infection their vet could possibly assume is from bestiality and report.
What animal owner would even take the risk their vet might ASSume a normally occurring discharge or infection was bestiality, reporting same, and having them arrested??

By the time they go to court to clear the owner as innocent, the DAMAGE is done- their name, address, mug shot and "arrested, and accused of bestiality" plastered all over the media and convicted by readers to the extent that even when found not guilty they are black pariahs and always suspect.
No zoo should even think about supporting this BC SPCA in any way shape or form, or any of these shelters at all, it's them against us, why give the enemy a dime!

Academic and professional books

Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Bestiality and Zoophilia (2005), ISBN 978-1-55753-412-5

Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals (2002), ISBN 978-3-8322-0020-6

Dr Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Bestiality – Zoophilia: An exploratory study, Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. – San Francisco, CA, October 1999

Dr Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Bestiality/zoophilia – An exploratory study, 2000, Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3(4), 149-150.

Dr Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, 2002, Journal of sex research

Zoophilia is typically harmless depending on the person’s motives.

The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself, it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles.

Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones, and that zoosexual partners are usually dogs and/or horses (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)

Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia.

Medical research suggests that some zoophiles only become aroused by a specific species (such as horses), some zoophiles become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some zoophiles are not attracted to humans at all.

One can easily argue that “consent” is irrelevant because human practices (such as hunting, laboratory testing, and slaughtering animals for meat) do not involve the consent of the animal and has never been sought by anyone.

Dr Hani Miletski believes that “Animals are capable of sexual consent – even initiation – in their own way.” Its not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with (“hump”) the legs of people of both genders

Non-consensual sex between humans is wrong because it a) traumatizes the victim and b) offends the victim's human dignity. Dogs have no human dignity, so we need only worry about b).

Now I see no reason to expect dogs to find sex with humans *inherently* traumatic. Dogs have no culture and thus no reason to find such partnerships taboo. Anyone who has ever had their leg humped can confirm this.

Dogs might find particular sex acts painful for other reasons. The human partner, for instance, might frighten or hit the dogs. But such things are considered animal cruelty and are therefore illegal anyway, and there's no reason to separately forbid bestiality.

Maybe you think that bestiality offends the dignity of the *human*, but it seems a little strange to lock people up for degrading themselves.

So much for the "consent" camp. I don't really have enough patience with the "it's yucky" camp to bother with them, except to note that many of the things they likely enjoy doing in private would have created similar scandal 100 years ago.

c

For those defending bestiality, apart from the fact that the animals are quite possibly harmed by this unnatural act, it is simply sick and twisted and degrading. Yep. Sick and twisted and degrading to human dignity. Just because we live in a society in which we can act like an animal does not mean we should.

This is so disturbing. I just don't understand how someone can grow to prefer sex with an animal to sex with a human. Inter-species sex is just wrong.

...Unless it's a hot alien or one of those blue monkeys from Avatar. Then I guess it's okay.

We use and abuse animals every day...putrid feed lots, veal calves, chickens in tiny cages for food and eggs, bomb sniffing dogs, trap lines where you club snared animals, breeding broodmares for milk to use as surrogate mares to raise race horse foals--not much is mentioned about what happens to those other foals…What about puppy mills? The clubbing of fur seals, breeding foxes for pelts, and so on--and we get a bee in our bonnets over sex being cruel and become all sensitive over the animal's consent!? Are we joking?

That's like farting in the wind just right, so it pesters a group of people elsewhere...you may feel proud that it actually got there, and you get to giggle and watch them with their fart faces on trying to blame each other for it! The issues of consent and cruelty is real, but it is as trivial as the fart; it serves to direct as much festering attention away from the real issue: The fact that you don't have a right to have sex; you lease the privilege from the rest of society. Do as you will with the poor animals so long as you don't derive any sexual pleasure out of it, and everyone will turn a blind eye. What you do for sexual pleasure, even if it is not harming anyone, is not your decision to make...that is for some strangers to decide... That is the LAW!

I can't wait till this guy gets to jail... Just sayin'...

How exactly does one defend the act of raping a dog?

There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know how to comprehend how any person could do this. If you really loved and cared for your dog you wouldn't out the animal through this, not only is it depraved but I am sure it it seriously injuring the animals internal organs as well. If he gets off I sure hope someone takes him in a dark alley and lets him know what its like to be taken complete advantage of.

Red rocket, red rocket...

How can you justify this? The only legal sex is one that is done between two consenting adults. I am pretty sure that no dog would consent to something so horrific.... You have to be sick to justify raping your dog and arguing that it should be legal..

There is great similarity between bestiality and homosexual intercourse. Both are unnatural