There's a reason that the world's first humane society was the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Children. Both animals and children are frequent victims of horrendous cruelty by adults, and neither animals nor children are capable of giving truly informed and competent consent to sex acts with adults. Men who have sex with non-human animals are twisted criminals, period.

The author points out that the idea of entertaining sympathetic feelings for zoophiles arouses anger that doing the same for concentration camp guards or pedophiles does not.

I'm going to suggest a reason. We cannot come up with an airtight argument against zoophiles, as we can against the other two, and this frustrates the hell out of us. No liberal—and please include me in this—can approve of bestiality. But arguments based on consent are pretty flimsy. If you've ever seen animals have sex, you know that consent is a human concept that isn't easily applied to the animal kingdom. Even Limbaugh can knock holes in this one.

We hate bestiality because it just isn't right, and we hate it even more because we cannot explain why.

Raymond Carver's story is unequivical in its codemnation of the men who leave that young woman in the water. The wife of one of the men becomes obsessed with her husband's betrayal of this young girl, her life, this total failure of compassion in the face of an interrupted life. She feels the need to make ammends even as she begins to disassociate from the husband who has behaved with pathological callousness. He and the others leave her naked, exposed, dead, alone. It is an ultimate act of disrespect for and failure to protect someone who cannot protect themselves; it is part of the continuum that ends with the brutal act of her killer and is emblematic of the misogyny that Carver portrayed in many of his stories.

As a fan of Carver I do not want to see the movie because I know that it cannot come close to the dark melancoly feelings that the story evokes in me. I can only say that anyone who has not read the works of this amazing luminary of American literature should head to the library, grab one of his books and sit out in the warm air, pour a glass of wine and just read until night falls. Film still cannot touch the power of the written word - and I love film.

The topic of bestiality makes me uncomfortable and I do not approve of what these men where doing. Animals will perform sexually, due to strong instinct, when set up with the right stimulus. I feel that its an absolutely inapropriate way to use animals. It also creates a danger to the animals and to other humans in contact with the animals later in life. If an animal is conditioned to perform this way, it could be triggered inadvertantly, resulting in harm to a human, and certain euthanasia for the animal.Those men need to go see a shrink, take medication, whatever, just leave innocents (the animals) out of their sex lives.

Men who have sex with non-human animals are twisted criminals, period.

Why? The animals aren't being hurt. They're not in pain. They don't FEEL exploited.

I agree it's way creepy, but tell me why.

Don Imus was canned and now you are providing copy for the morning shock jocks.

Circle of life and all.

What the hell are you people thinking?

On second thought, one does not wish to know.

Well, we also got Tough Titties for a headline, Sex Offenders, Pro-Baldwin, and hmm...violence stuff.

Singling out bestiality for some spotlight seems pretty...Salon, these days. Sex has been selling ads here for a long time.

Salon isn't ODE. If its finger is on the culture's pulse it's not doing much to steady it.

So, it's OK to torture, slaughter and eat animals, but no schtupping?

The issue of abuse is quite simple in this case. No matter how well cared for the animals were, they were taught behaviors that would make them extremely dangerous around people. I understand the horse in question was subsequently gelded, but that is not likely to be enough to extinguish a long-term, learned behavior in which the horse was rewarded for inappropriate activity. Anyone who is not aware of the horse's background or is not extremely knowlegable about handling stallions would be in grave danger from this horse. And dangerous horses don't have long and happy lives.

Why even write about this film? Just reading about it made my skin crawl. It's times like these when feel hoplessly moderate and realize that the left wing is just as bizzare as the right.

I haven't seen the movie, but as a lifelong horse rider and companion I can't figure out what the men did to get the stallion turned on in the first place. Stallions become aroused by the smell and behaviors of a mare, especially one in heat. You don't just offer them a hole to stick their johnsons into. There has to be an inviting female on the place somewhere. I keep imagining somebody jerking the horse off periodically. He'd need to be taught the correct response to an essentially visual cue. Else what did they do, give him a carrot?

The letter-writer who stated that the horse has been taught a dangerous behavior, and that this in turn endangers the horse, is absolutely correct. We are not entitled to shape creatures in ways that ultimately doom them. This holds true whether they're "properly cared for" or not, and has enormous implications in science as well. We make goats with spider genes and ultimately change the animal's identity, we make horses who serve as our sexual parners. We have to at least let them be who they are.

I was amused by the zoophiles' defense: there's no law against it.

Sound Familiar?

Wasn't it just the other day that the current resident of the White House defended the Attorney General by saying: "No laws were broken"?

Aberrant behavior comes with its own indicator, irrespective of laws: it makes you want to puke.