how to sexual

bestiality is a topic so taboo, the word aloneis enough to elicit reactions ranging from discomfort and disgust to moral outrage andethical condemnation. despite its relevancy within a wide rangeof fields, bestiality is largely absent from public discourse. but what if these much-reviled acts aren’tsome rare perversion of human sexuality relegated

how to sexual, to the darkest corners of the internet, butactually common everyday practices supported and enjoyed by the vast majority of society. hi it's emily from bite size vegan and welcometo another vegan nugget. the definition of the term “bestiality”(or bestiality, for any non-americans wishing

to pronounce it as it’s actually spelled)has evolved overtime, from its origins signifying depraved conduct befitting an animal, to themodern denotation of “sexual relations between humans and animals.” i wanted to note that for the sake of clarityand expediency, i will mostly be using the term “animal” in place of the more accurate“non-human animal,” a decidedly awkward afterthought attempting to rectify a falsedivision addressed in this very video! and rest assured, i won’t be showing anyimages or depictions of bestiality today…which probably cost me a couple viewers… additionally, you can find detailed citationsto everything i state, as well as a bibliography

and loads of additional resources and thingsi didn’t have time to fit in this video on the blog post linked in the descriptionbelow. with that out of the way, time to take onthis timeless taboo! bestiality may seem like a pretty black andwhite matter: sex with animals is wrong, end of story. but such a quick dismissal, hastened no doubtby the discomfort of the subject, neglects to account for the cultural permeation ofbestiality throughout history and our everyday lives. ancient mythology is rife with gods takingthe form of animals in order to copulate with

humans, among many other bestial themes wereadily teach children in middle school. but were a teacher to hand out a story involvingsex between humans and animals written in the modern-day, suddenly a cultured appreciationof the classics would become a potentially criminal distribution of pornography. and while many states in america have strictly-enforcedlaws against as much as photographing a child posed with an animal in even a remotely suggestivemanner, kids in america’s farmland can participate in wholesome afterschool programs with lessonsin boar semen management, and how to sexually stimulate a pig. if we attempt to evaluate these examples objectively,which the subject matter admittedly makes

challenging if not impossible, the divisionbetween the educational and the immoral or criminal becomes largely a matter of culturalcontext. which begs the question: what, exactly, isso bad about bestiality? criminologist piers beirne points to the mosaiccommandments (exodus 22:19, leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16, and deuteronomy 27:21) as “theearliest and most influential justification for censures of bestiality,” with “theprescribed penalty [of[ death.” remnants of this moral origin are evidencedin the language of some of today’s secular legislation, with several states in america,for example, retaining terminology such as, "crime against nature," "unnatural," "perverted,""abominable," "detestable" and, my favorite,

"buggery." astoundingly enough, bestiality remained punishableby death throughout the early modern period, with sweden executing up to 700 people between1635 and 1778, along with the non-human animals involved, and the last known hanging for bestialityin the united states carried out by order of the connecticut superior court in januaryof 1800. given it’s even pre-biblical censure, itmay be surprising to hear that many countries still lack any laws addressing sexual contactbetween humans and animals. in 2015, denmark was the last northern europeancountry to ban bestiality, leaving finland, romania and hungary as the only holdouts inthe european union.

in the united states, bestiality remains legalin at least eight states, and washington d.c., with about seventeen of the remaining 42 havingonly enacted legislation since 1999—though technically ohio’s brand new legislationsigned just last month still won’t take effect until march of this year…and onlyincluded a ban on bestiality as a way to pass an unpopular bill. (will ideally list the states and date enactedonscreen) yay, moral integrity… of the states with laws already enacted, penaltiesand sentencing range from a misdemeanor with no set minimum (nebraska) to a felony withimprisonment of no less than 7 and up to 20

years (rhode island). the modern resurgence of legislation has revealeda shift in the conceptualization and legal classification of bestiality from “a crimeagainst public morals,” to an act of animal cruelty, with california and oregon even goingso far as to call it “sexual assault of an animal.” attorney rebecca f. wisch of the animal legal& historical center proposes that this terminology “may reflect these states' assessment thatanimals are incapable of consenting,” essentially granting non-human animals “victim” status. with the extreme variation from state to state(much less country to country!) of not only

the criminal classification of and penaltyfor bestiality, but also the very definition of what the act entails, we’re once againleft with the question of what precisely makes bestiality so objectionable. all bestiality legislation includes exceptionsfor accepted animal industry practices. so by eliminating any permissible actions,we can hopefully hone in on the root wrong of bestiality. why don’t we start with the rather inadequateparameters of what was traditionally considered the legal benchmark for sexual violation:penetration. this may appear to offer a clear-cut linein the sand, until we consider the long list

of farming practices, not to mention animalexperimentation and fur “harvesting” methods involving penetration. so if penetration itself isn’t the issue,what about harmful penetration? that can’t be the issue either, as animalexperimentation and fur harvesting and common farming practices involving penetration canand do cause harm. animals in the fur industry are routinelykilled via genital and anal electrocution. and we don’t even have time to list allof the bizarre manners in which animal experimentation in various fields of research involves aninfinite array of harmful and painful penetration. even in the food industry, for example, thevast majority of farmed animals today are

bred via artificial insemination. cows in the dairy industry are repeatedlyimpregnated through ai in order to maintain the flow of milk for human consumption. like us, they only produce milk for theirbabies, who are taken from their mothers immediately after birth. females are kept as future milk producersand males are either sent to a veal farm or shot. aside from the psychological and emotionalimpact of having their babies taken time and again, the insemination process itself canbe physically damaging, especially when considering

that most inseminations are performed by non-veterinarians. since ai training involves practicing on livecows, some courses are held at slaughterhouses, though one uk vet advised that “novice inseminatorsshould not practice on cows unless they are to be slaughtered on the training day.” perhaps the objectionable element separatingroutine farming practices from bestiality is the deliberate use of force during penetration? for this i turn to author jim mason’s accountof his time working in a turkey breeding facility as he describes standard industry practice: “they put me to work first in the pit, grabbingand "breaking" hens…

breaking hens was hard, fast, dirty work. i had to reach into the chute, grab a henby the legs, and hold her, ankles crossed, in one hand. then, as i held her on the edge of the pit,i wiped my other hand over her rear, which pushed up her tail feathers and exposed hervent opening. the birds weighed 20 to 30 lbs., were terrified,and beat their wings and struggled in panic… with the hen thus "broken," the inseminatorstuck his thumb right under her vent and pushed, which opened the vent… into this, he inserted the semen tube...

then both men let go and the hen flopped awayonto the house floor. two breakers did 10 hens a minute, or eachbreaker broke 5 hens a minute — one hen every 12 seconds.” in the pig meat industry, piglets are theproduct, so mother pigs, much like dairy cows, are subjected to a constant cycle of pregnancies. even in the eu, where tethering stalls inwhich pigs were chained in place were outlawed, artificial insemination is one of a numberof built-in exceptions wherein pigs may legally be chained in place. so, if forceful penetration of an animal’svagina, anus, or cloaca resulting in physical

and/or psychological harm and eliciting clearsigns of distress is not what’s objectionable, maybe it’s when the action performed uponan animal is itself overtly sexual, not just the body part(s) involved. take the following account: “each boar had his own little perversionthe man had to do to get the boar turned on… he might have to hold the boar’s penis inexactly the right way that the boar liked, and he had to masturbate some of them in exactlythe right way. there was one boar, he told me, who wantedto have his butt hole played with. “i have to stick my finger in his butt,he just really loves that,” he told me….he’s

one of the best in the business.” without context where would you place thison the line between the pornographic and permissible? would your answer change if i told you thepassage was written by an internationally renowned and well-respected specialist inlivestock handling and animal welfare? if so, what changed about the account itself? that excerpt comes from dr. temple grandin’sbook, “animals in translation,” wherein she’s described in the “about” sectionas “a role model for hundreds of thousands of families and people.” grandin continues her tour of porcine breedingpractices, describing how unlike cows, female

pigs have to be sexually excited in orderto conceive—so workers must manually arouse them prior to insemination. okay…if the highly individualized, manualmasturbation of male pigs to completion and sexual stimulation of females prior to theinsertion of boar semen are acts openly recounted by a respected professor and role model tofamilies, i fear our common sense assessment may be an exercise in futility. especially when we take into account semencollection methods for bulls, namely the use of an artificial vagina, electroejaculation,or transrectal massage. the first method often uses a “teaser”bull, “usually a specimen of low breeding

value,” who is retrained—sometimes painfullyvia a ring through his nose—and functions as the “mount” for the “donor” bull,since the force can injure females. the most troubling technique, electroejaculation,involves inserting a probe into the bull’s anus and delivering electric shocks to stimulateejaculation. it’s widely known to be painful and hasbeen banned in some eu countries. yet you can watch footage of electroejaculationon the irish farm journal’s youtube channel, as well as—across the platform–hundredsof semen procurement and insemination videos, including how to sexual excite a female pig,a topic covered in-depth in the youth education resources of the pork checkoff program.

in my video “do animals want to be eaten,”i provide examples of the sexualized portrayal of animals in advertising, often seducingthe would-be consumers of their carcass. even mainstream television shows feature footagethat, were the context even slightly altered, could result in the network losing its licenseand inviting a wave of lawsuits. as a quick personal aside, i find the factthat youtube’s wide array borderline bestiality videos remain unrestricted and even monetized,yet the video of one of my speeches remains age-restricted, despite it’s censure violatingyoutube’s own polices, just the slightest bit frustrating… moving on…

i have to say, i think our comparative evaluationhas hit a dead end. the only element we’ve yet to assess, isthe intention and experience of the human committing the act. this is the determining factor in severalstate bestiality laws, like delaware’s, which specifies the contact be “for purposesof sexual gratification.” but if that’s really the root of our objectionto bestiality, then we’ve essentially gone full-circle to the original moral basis forits censure, despite the modern shift towards animal cruelty classification, and establishmentof animals as victims. how exactly does the intention of the personinvolved, or whether the act is part of their

job description, or carried out in a medicalcontext, help the individual being violated? i would imagine that someone’s job titlewould be of little comfort to the cow restrained and forcefully penetrated for her next roundof heartbreak. and the enjoyment or lack thereof derivedby the worker operating the anal probe wouldn’t do much to dull the painful electric currentshocking a bull’s pelvic nerves. such absurdities are the result of our arbitraryshifting of animals from property to family to victim to profit margin, depending on ourneeds. and as their roles shift, so too do the kindsof harms we may inflict upon them. in her response to philosopher peter singer’scontroversial book review essay heavy petting,

dr. karen davis of united poultry concernsaddresses this progressive commodification: “historically, animal agriculture has facilitatedbestiality, not simply because of the proximity of farmed animals, but because controllingother creatures' bodies invites this extension of a license that has already been taken.” in one of the unfortunately numerous casesof extreme sexual abuse of animals within the food industry that fall so far outsideof the prescribed norms they lead to criminal charges, undercover footage and detailed notesfrom the investigators showed routine abuse at a pig breeding facility in iowa, wherethousands of mother pigs are kept in cramped gestation crates.

workers beat pregnant pigs with blunt metalobjects, kicked them in the stomach and head, forced rods into their vaginas and anuses,and attacked lame and injured pigs with an electric prod, among other offenses. the video also captured workers cutting offthe tails and tearing out the testicles of piglets, “including some with…scrotalhernias, whose intestines would fully protrude when snipped”—all without any anesthetic. and, in one of the most-cited offenses bythe media, workers were shown slamming sick or deformed piglets against the ground, leavingthem, according investigators, to die slowly, their “skull[s]-crushed, paddling theirlegs and twitching, gasping for air, as others

were piled on top of them in giant bins.” an article on nbc news includes comments fromnone other than temple grandin, described as “a leading animal-welfare expert,”who “said that while those are standard industry practices, the treatment of the sowson the video was far from it,” calling it “atrocious animal abuse.” just to clarify, in case it wasn’t obvious,beating and violating the mother pigs was the “atrocious animal abuse.” the “standard industry practices” grandinrefers to are the unanaesthetized mutilation of newborn piglets and brutal slamming of“defective” babies against concrete.

not only are these practices legal, they aregovernment-sanctioned methods within, but not limited to, the united states, canada,and european union. see, that's the great thing about standardpractices—i don't know about you, but if i was shown that video and asked what wasabuse and what was routine, i’d have gotten it totally wrong! when it comes to our relationships with non-humananimals, we posses a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance complete with ample blind spots. one need only observe how we designate individualsas “friend or food,” by such arbitrary factors as geographical location or possessionof a human-given name.

in one country, a dog is viewed as a “pet”—evena family member. yet born in a different part of the world,the very same dog would be viewed as “dinner.” nothing about the dog herself has changed—onlyher geographical location and, more importantly, the perception of her role and value by thehumans deciding her fate. such subjective shifting of assigned worthis the very basis of anthropocentrism, a belief system that “regards humans as separatefrom and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while otherentities (including animals, plants, …and so on) are resources that may justifiablybe exploited for the benefit of humankind.” our anthropocentric worldview explains manybizarre displays of human doublethink.

an example i covered in my speech “the bestwe have to offer,” which concerns legislative issues pertaining to animal cruelty, was whenthe european union signed the treaty of lisbon, recognizing non-human animals legally sentient,deserving freedom from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, disease, fear, distress andmental suffering—and then use this very recognition of their capacity to feel thesame emotions and sensations as we do to design the exact manner in which humans may legallyviolate, imprison, cut, burn, alter, and murder them. a preliminary report for the new legislationcompared the financial cost of gassing verses grinding alive the estimated 335 million unwantedday-old male chicks born into the eu egg industry

every year. finding live grinding, or maceration, to befar more cost-effective, it was codified as the method of choice in the resulting groundbreakinganimal protection legislation. in her article “pets or meat,” professorof law marry anne case highlights the complications arising from the condemnation of bestialityon the grounds of incapacity to consent. citing how even the training of one’s petsis a form of persuasion difficult to “differentiate…with reference to consent,” case concludes that: “if we think there should be more strictor rigorous legal controls on having one's pets trained to do what would violate thebestiality laws than on other stupid pet tricks,

we should acknowledge straightforwardly thatit is our attitude toward sex, more than our concern for animal freedom of choice or animalwelfare, that motivates us.” far from having the animals’ interests atheart, it appears that, as dr. davis wrote, “the primary mainstream objection to bestiality…isthat sex between humans and nonhumans, regardless of the circumstances in which it occurs includingrape, is ‘an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.’” that’s the power of human perception. that our violation of their bodies is an affrontto our “dignity.” davis describes how, in regards to bestiality,some animal advocates advanced the argument

that “nonhuman animals are not in a positionto give informed consent…by virtue of [their] presumed inherent intellectual inferiorityto humans.” even in their supposed defense, we insultthem. this is why, in “rethinking bestiality,”one of the few essays focusing on the issue of bestiality from an animal rights standpoint,criminologist piers beirne calls for “a concept of interspecies sexual assault,”independent of moral outrage, empty allusions to victim status, and lack of consent throughidiocy. referencing carol j adams, beirne lays thefoundation for a truly victim-centered approach to the sexual assault of animals:

“...in seeking to replace anthropocentrismwith an acknowledgement of the sentience of animals, we must start with the fact thatin almost every situation humans and animals exist in a relation of potential or actualcoercion… for genuine consent to sexual relations tobe present…both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires… bestiality involves sexual coercion becauseanimals are incapable of saying yes or no to humans in forms that humans can readilyunderstand… if we cannot know whether animals consentto our sexual overtures, then we are as much at fault when we tolerate interspecies sexualrelations as when we fail to condemn adults

who have sexual relations with infants orwith children or with…[others]—who, for whatever reason, are unable to refuse participation.”ihope this rather intensive analysis of bestiality gave you some food for thought. please share it around. i would like to thank my $50 and above patronsand my whole nugget army patreon family for making it possible for me to conduct thisresearch, deliver speeches all over the world and create hundreds of free educational videos. if you’d like to help support bite sizevegan’s educational efforts, please see

the support links below or the link in thesidebar.

subscribe to the channel and click the bellto enable notifications for more vegan content. now go live vegan, question your perception,and i’ll see you soon. i wonder how long this will stay on youtube...