Which one of these American politicians considers this a high priority?

Germany’s upper house of Parliament, the Bundesrat, voted Friday to criminalize for the first time “using an animal for personal sexual activities” and to punish offenders with fines of as much as $34,000. It was the final legislative hurdle for a bill the lower house passed in December.

The vote follows months of debate that pitted zoophiles against animal rights and protection advocates. Sexual mores seemed not to play a paramount role.

The ban, which carries only a misdemeanor charge, is an amendment to the country’s animal protection law, multifaceted legislation that, among other things, regulates animal testing and the sale of animals and prohibits animal abuse, including “using an animal for personal sexual activities or making them available to third parties for sexual activities and thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species.”

Zoophiles argue that their relationships with their pets, or “partners” as they prefer, are entirely mutual. Michael Kiok, a director of the advocacy group Zoophilic Engagement for Tolerance and Enlightenment, who now finds himself the de facto face of zoophilia in Germany, says animals are perfectly capable of expressing whether or not they desire sex.

Animal-rights groups have criticized men like Mr. Kiok, saying they put defenseless creatures in harm’s way.

The assorted and sundry tweaks of human sexuality never cease to amaze. Of course, outside of Texas sheepherders, I can’t imagine the question coming up in American politics. It’s that sophistication thingie, again.

Thanks, Honeyman



  1. Glenn E. says:

    So it is (or once was) ok to treat human beings as little more than animals (as in Nazi death camps). But Germany, now, makes the distinction that sex with an “animal”, isn’t Ok. When it’s a non-human animal. My… how Germany has progressed, over the decades.

  2. Glenn E. says:

    Of course, you realize that all of this will just get tossed out, once they figure out DNA to the point of bio-engineering the perfect non-human sexual partner. Something that doesn’t get Aids, pregnant, or demand alimony. But must be classified as an animal, so that “human rights” doesn’t mess up a good thing. Naturally, only the very rich will be able to afford such “pets” at first. So this law won’t apply to them, at its earliest violation.