Uh-oh. People have often sent me strange photos like this; apparently, cephalopod porn can get you arrested in the UK.
The charge involving the sea creature states the image was of someone "performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely an octopus/squid, which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".
Yeah, it is kind of disgusting to see poor cephalopods tormented with the weird, creepy anatomy of vertebrates. It's also offensive to see that the Swansea police can't tell the difference between squid and octopus.
But why should we have laws that regulate on the basis of feelings of disgust? As long as no one is harmed, this is the kind of act that ought to be regarded as inappropriate anywhere but in the privacy of one's home. They have some ridiculous charge that the pictures showed situations which could lead to "serious injury to a person's breasts" or genitals, except that it also says the cephalopods were dead. It sounds like a silly law to enforce some people's squeamishness, not to protect the public.
I'd also recommend looking up the work of Hokusai, Teraoka, or Saeki (but not if you live in England! That could land you in jail). Erotic art with cephalopods has a long history.
The story also says, though, that the guy had "indecent photos of children", which is something that can cause harm, if true. It's fair to go after that, but it's another situation where one man's indecency is another man's family photos of kids playing in the bathtub. I'd have to know more details about the photos before condemning anyone.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Too late! I have a multi-foot fetish.
It's hard to tell the difference between eight and ten tentacles when you count "one, two, three, many".
Indeed, if true, this dude needs to be stopped. But, if true, why isn't this the lead? Why is the story mostly about an image depicting sex with a dead squid? Is child pornography so run-of-the-mill now that it's just an afterthought?
I am curious what the image that the Swansea police found so offensive looks like. Not to mention what necessitated the police finding such an image in addition to the others described in the article?
A friend of mine is a photographer who takes erotic NSFW images with cephalopods.
If you do a search on Elisa Lazo de Valdez or her studio name Visioluxus, you will find many many more of her images. She uses both real tentacled critters in addition to projections from zoology books onto the models.
I guess she and her models ought to avoid travel to the UK even if they aren't performing sex acts with the cephalopods. However, there are images of bare naked bodies draped with tentacles which must be verboten.
The crazily authoritarian, mainly leftist, government we have in the UK have made the posession any 'extreme' pornography illegal. This is mainly to restrict access to BDSM type pornography where actual physical pain is being shown. That's where the "serious injury to a person's breasts" charge comes in.
It was ridiculed everyone who wasn't an auhtoritarian nutjob, but it was still made law.
Why would the state care one iota about an image of someone having sex with a dead octopus or squid?
I don't get it.
Are crustaceans Ok? Mollusks? Eels?
Just need to get my facts straight before i apply for my visa.
Blessed Atheist Bible Study -- Kicking the Bibles ass so you don't have to! http://blessedatheist.com
CalGeorge @ 6:
I don't get it either. It wouldn't be my cuppa tea, but I don't see that it's anyone else's business. If this guy actually had child porn, yeah, that needs to be dealt with - but that seemed to be pretty low on the list in the article.
Well there go my weekend plans.
Hm, I wonder if sex with dead cherries in a pie is going to be illegal as well.
Not a personal concern of mine, actually. Really. Truly. (all kidding aside, not).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Why does anyone pass a law with the phrase "or otherwise of an obscene character"? If I find pants to be of obscene character, does that mean that everyone else needs to start wearing kilts?
PZ says, "I'd also recommend looking up the work of Hokusai, Teraoka, or Saeki (but not if you live in England! That could land you in jail). Erotic art with cephalopods has a long history."
And then there's Galaxy Quest--the Tech Sergeant and "Jane Doe".
However, I keep thinking about the scene in Clerks II where Randall hires a Donkey Act to see off his buddy Dante. The guy keeps objecting to the term "beastiality," and saying "Interspecies erotica, bucko!"
Another great line also comes to mind: "I'm horrified and disgusted...and I can't look away!"
Was it an endangered species of octopus or squid?
At least then it would make a leeetle beeet of sense.
And I suppose you don't need to count tentacles. If the sucker can rend your flesh with hooks, claws, or teeth, then it's a squid.
The only squid I'll be 'stuffing' will be as follows, thank you very much:
Baked Stuffed Squid
6 large squid
1 tsp. poultry seasoning
2 tsp. melted butter
2 cups bread crumbs
1/2 tsp. salt
1 onion, chopped
Clean squid by removing tentacles and skin. Wash thoroughly and sprinkle with salt. Make a dressing by combining poultry seasoning, butter, crumbs and onions. Stuff the squid, adding strips of fat pork to each squid. Skewer the end closed. Wrap in aluminum foil and bake for 3/4 hour in a 350F oven.
I wish I could make a joke about this, but I can't. The very existence of laws that can lock a person up for "obscene" pictures (excepting actual child porn) is itself obscene. It's not funny at all; it's terrifying.
Josh, OSG @ 15:
I'm with you there. It is terrifying. A good portion of my artwork is nudes; I really don't need someone deciding they are "obscene". Same goes for my photography. The problem with obscenity is how subjective the definitions are and those definitions vary from person to person.
I'm sure they could find something involving hentai with cephalopods over on 4chan too. Just saying...
hmmm..does it depend whether you're on top or not? In what sense does one have to "be with" the cephalopod for it to be illegal?
I object to that too! So here's a spelling mnemonic for you:
"bestiality is best"
@Caine:
Yep, but it's worse than that. The real problem is the very notion that it should be legal, ethical, civilized, or appropriate that anyone should be allowed to pronounce legal judgment on the moral character of our fantasies or drawings. There is no room in a secular, liberal society for the state, or "community standards" to have anything at all to say in the legal system about works of art, or works of "fap." The only exception being situations in which people are exploited.
Period. Full stop. No negotiation.
Ooh, I like that Visioluxussite -- very nice images.
Are you legally allowed to perform sex acts on live "horses and dogs" in the US?
Admittedly the dead animal is different, but there is nothing to suggest that the horses and the dogs were dead, and the children certainly weren't.
And if you can use a dead animal, why not a dead human with no known friends or relatives?
damianphipps @ #22:
Depends on the state. In those states where it is illegal, some class it as a misdemeanor others class it a felony.
So, if a person has a photo of bestiality, they should be prosecuted for having a photo? What if the photo is from somewhere the act is legal? Then what? That's a pretty damn slippery slope you're on, with the dead cephalopod to dead human.
In Canada they can prosecute you for having written material or drawings involving children in sexual situations. Bear in mind that these are complete works of fantasy not involving the abuse of any minors. They are merely depictions.
I find the use of actual children in pornography horrifying but this smacks of thought-crime.
I've been a HUGE fan of her photography fro a while. I have several prints marked on Etsy to buy when I finally find an apartment.
All in all pretty ridiculous to charge someone with such a thing when the animal is dead. Abusing a life animal should be illegal of course. I agree with PZ the charges of child porn are really the serious and disturbing part here.
So
It's illegal to possess certain images.
How about this:
Each person should be permitted anything that does not harm others.
Now, we can argue about definitions of "harm" and "others" but first can we stipulate that principle?
OK, but so who is harmed--by any definition of either--by 'images' of 'sex' 'intercourse'(!) with dead 'octopus/squid'?
this is a fucked-up world, Exhibit bajillion
Surely there should at least be an investigation in some capacity, to establish whether the squid in question was caught and killed specifically for the acts in the photos. If it was, and the consumption of this pornography creates demand for cruelty to animals, then surely it's entirely analogous to possession of child pornography? If the squid was dead already, however - just an opportunistic find on a beach perhaps - then I see little reason to initiate a full criminal prosecution for anything.
Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder whether a fetish for sexually interfering with dead cephalopods is an entirely healthy thing to have - for hygeine reasons alone. I'm morbidly intrigued by the kind of acculturation process that might lead to an individual developing this fetish however.
Seems cuttlespouse is way ahead of the curve on ths one.
*sigh*
That Visioluxus site does indeed have some nice art.
In answer to your question, Damian Phipps, yes indeed, there are states within the US where bestiality is not unlawful. Most are in the deep south. Florida comes to mind. I've spent time working (not DONE time, although sometimes I wonder about that, given what I've seen) in Florida.
Berny G- I live in Caifornia. A couple of years ago, a woman who was killed in a car accident was discovered at the scene being copulated upon by some guy. The police were at first trying to arrest him for rape, but he claimed she said it was OK. Given that they arrived after she was dead, there was no proof that she had not consented prior to said death. So, he was doing her after she was dead, or as she was dying. Now, that's sick.
Now put that story in a plot line for a gritty detective novel you're writing, instead of the local newspaper, and suddenly you're in jail? Dayamn.
Just great, the only time my beloved city will ever be mentioned without reference to tranvestite cagefighters and what does it get attention for....
cephalopod porn. damn it.
So the question is (for some) is it art? I'd have to respond in kind with, Can a man have sex with a squid be art?
I'd also add that it maybe an indicator that this man is on a slippery slope to greater sexual disfunction but with discovery of suspected kiddie porn it would seem he's slip all the way to the bottom already.
Which is entirely orthogonal to whether or not it is or should be legal.
How so? Neither the DSM-IV nor the ICD-10 includes an "aroused by different thoughts than the speaker" disorder.
I am shocked that the Swansea Police cannot tell the difference between the octopus and squid. Swansea has a pretty good marine biology program at the University.
I think that the Welsh may raise arms though, if they discover that Swansea has been moved to England. ;0)
Daks @ 31:
No, that's not the question. Way to miss the point, dude. Having a photograph should not be a criminal offense. (The exception being, as Josh OSG pointed out, where people are being exploited.)
"As long as no one is harmed, this is the kind of act that ought to be regarded as inappropriate anywhere but in the privacy of one's home."
It sounds like the cephalopods were definitely harmed...
Why exactly is killing an animal for the purpose of fucking it once it's dead worse than killing it for the purpose of eating it once it's dead? Both are biological drives, and both can be satisfied in any number of other ways.
Having sex with dead cephalopods? Think of the smell.
Also,
You mean like this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Dream_of_the_fisherm…
But...this is only the UK, right? I'm...uh...just curious...for a friend...
Caine, so we shouldn't have pictures of anyone getting exploited. Does that include pictures of sweatshops, or farm workers? How about hardcore BDSM pictures, where the maso-bottom loves the punishment? Lets see, movies about slavery, or slave ships, Amistad; or prostitution, like "Pretty Baby"? I would rather say: don't have pictures of exploitation where you have directly or indirectly assisted the exploiter, such as by purchasing the "art". Owning a picture of exploitation doesn't necessarily mean that you have done any exploitation yourself.
chuckgoecke, yes, you're right. I was talking in the context of "obscenity" and what is and isn't considered porn. You did bring up BDSM though, and according to the article, possessing photos of BDSM is a criminal offense.
What I meant by exploitation would be explicit child porn, frinst.
PZ Meyers: "I'd have to know more details about the photos before condemning anyone."
Is that anything like Potter Stewart's famous quote?
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
If that is the case, then I too can't define lesbian pornography, but I know it when I see it. Therefore, if any of you have any pictures or videos, and you can't decide whether or not they are lesbian porn, send them to me and I will tell you.
In the altruistic spirit of elzoog, I'll too would be happy to be arbiter of any art, photography or videos of BBW, Mature or Hairsute women(and their partners) as to whether they are pornographic or not. Just send them on by.
So, it's been said that the octopus has a comparable intelligence level to a housecat. How many of you saying this is "ok" would also be ok with someone killing cat and photographing himself having his way with the carcass? I'm not cool with this, and I do think there should be legal consequences for killing an animal to screw it. This is not by any means normal behavior, and it's not a stretch to say that if someone is willing to kill an animal for this that they wouldn't do other abnormal things to say... kids.
@43
You can legally and easily buy a dead squid. People eat it.
Its not saying anything about him personally killing it for this purpose. BUT people kill squid for food when not necessary, you really are just arguing from the point of view that you find it objectionable. He does not. There is no reason to suspect they would do it to a child or a human adult for that matter. A squid is entirely different from a person and pretty specific. You instantly jump to everyone's worst nightmare to support your view of what is morally right.
I would say that killing an animal to eat it is better than killing that same animal to use in a sexual way, but thats just because I have no interest in the second. If the means of death and the state of the animal while alive in captivity do not differ, there is really little difference. What is done to the animal after it is dead makes no difference to the state of the animal. It does not suffer. No one NEEDS to eat animals. Those of us who do, choose to. We have our own reasons and justifications.
Could there be further implications down the line for a society where people openly without shame made sweet love to dead squid? Where you can stop by and get squid at your local adult book store? I honestly don't imagine it would ever become that popular. So, who cares. Some dudes get off on it. You get one life, why not enjoy the little things.
Well, given that (Westerners, anyway) are generally against killing and eating cats, this is at least somewhat consistent.
Although:
How does the latter follow from the former? (Especially given the lack of physical similarity between human children and squid. Errm, you are aware of said dissimilarity, right?)
What if one masturbates with a smoked ham?
Should there be legal consequences?
It certainly is a slippery slope. I mean, I do love me some "smoked ham lovin". Honestly, I did struggle a bit with what I wrote on #43. I'm aware of my leaning toward western "don't eat the cats" hypocrisy.
That being said, I think it all comes down to why the animal was killed.
Assuming the guy's not going to eat the cephalopod afterwards, it's pretty wasteful. Yes yes, I guess we could use the "sloppy seconds" as bait. But if everyone started realizing how sexy squid/octopus carcasses were, and it became the norm to kill 'em, hump 'em and grind them up in the garbage disposal, wouldn't that seem pretty barbaric and objectionable? I have the same objection for an animal losing it's life and being "wasted" in some other way... i.e. not used for food. I wouldn't be okay with people doing this to ham hocks either, if the animal was killed for that only purpose. I guess it's different if someone goes out to the grocery store, buys some chicken breast and goes to town on it.
In general, I would propose that sexual acts be between consenting partners, oneself, or inanimate objects - as long as the third option is not facilitated by the killing of a being/animal for that purpose. If I were in charge, I'd put it up for vote. If this were the population, I wouldn't get my wish, I presume!
What's intrinsically different about the biological drive of eating manifested in the desire to eat meat, vs. the biological drive of mating manifested in the desire to mate with dead invertebrates, that makes the former more respectable or less "wasteful" than the latter? (Do you really use EVERY part of the animal, for instance?)
I agree that the obscenity police and their jackbooted, integer-challenged thugs are a serious matter... but two hilarious posts, within mere seconds of each other:
... I couldn't keep from LMFAO. Yer killin' me!
Quote -
"Having sex with dead Cephalopods ? - Think of the smell".
Yes, it is a pretty smelly activity..... er......I'd imagine.
Raise arms and do what? Dance and scream ogga bugga buuga, that feeeeels ssooooooooooooooooo gooooooooood?
@Numad... depends what you smoked the ham with ;-)
Azkyroth, #45
How about some cat casserole?
Sorry about #54. This is the link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article7…
The crazily authoritarian, mainly leftist, government we have in the UK @5
"Crazily authoritarian" - yes. "Mainly leftist" - you're clearly crazier than they are. The legal position in the UK[no pun intended] is summarised here. Apparently it's illegal to possess photographs of "intercourse or oral sex" between humans and non-humans (whether the latter is alive or dead), so presumably none of the photos show that. I hadn't realised that an insane committee of the Scottish Parliament proposed making all pornography illegal in Scotland in 2004. The idea never got any further.
Why does anyone pass a law with the phrase "or otherwise of an obscene character"? If I find pants to be of obscene character, does that mean that everyone else needs to start wearing kilts? - tacroy
You run foul of a trans-Atlantic linguistic difference here. In Scotland, as in the rest of the UK, "pants" means the undergarment worn beneath trousers ("pants" to you!) or skirt - and traditionally: "There's nothing worn under the kilt". ("It's orrl in purrrfect working orrder.")
The thinking goes like this: X is a problem. Therefore, make X illegal. Problem solved!
The Scottish Parliament is not at all unusual here. That approach to solving what may or may not really be a problem seems quite common. To me it seems particularly pronounced in the USA, albeit if correct, I don't know why.
Whilst there are some practices that most people would deem unacceptable (the torture and abuse of living animals, the torture and abuse of minors, the torture and unconsented abuse of adults) there are moral grey areas.
To paraphrase one Mr Neil Gaiman (if I may? ... thank you), if you want your particular tastes (in art, literture) to be protected by the state then you have to be prepared to protect others' tastes which you may find 'icky'.
If the animal was already dead then IMO it's just icky but hey ho, if the animal was abused then that's a whole nother story.
On both sides of The Atlantic, aren't pants the traditional headgear at parties?
If tentacle sex can get you arrested ... Second Life players from Britain are gonna be in deep trouble!
[QUOTE=]What's intrinsically different about the biological drive of eating manifested in the desire to eat meat, vs. the biological drive of mating manifested in the desire to mate with dead invertebrates, that makes the former more respectable or less "wasteful" than the latter? (Do you really use EVERY part of the animal, for instance?)[/QUOTE]
First, it's quite different because not everyone has enough food/money to waste it by having sex with it and throwing it away. You can jack off if you need to satisfy that homeostatic drive. You can even jack off while looking at a live cephalopod. You can't eat your hand. (well I guess you can). It's selfish and ridiculous to waste a resource like that just because you're in a socio-economic bracket that allows you to do it. We don't use the whole animal, but it would certainly help to use what you can.
Second, if you follow the path of why the animal has been killed, it's to avoid abusing it while it's alive. What kind of ridiculous logic is it to say "well, I rightly can't have sex with this live animal because it'd be cruel... so I'll just end it's life first".
I understand the thought that if we're so concerned about the animals, then we shouldn't kill them to eat them. Many people do live as vegetarians, but it's much harder to eat a healthy diet as a vegetarian. We've evolved to eat meat to live optimally. So, it's not too obtuse to say that you need to eat animals, but you don't NEED to masturbate with dead animals.
Not to mention, we're talking about actual physical waste. Your body uses the energy contained in the flesh of the animal. If you masturbate with it and throw it away, you're wasting energy. It's a resource. Same reason it's morally objectionable to leave your lights on when you don't need to. Or use excess water. It wastes resources.
And we should use more of the animal than we do in our culture.
OK!
Aside from the child pornography part of the story this amuses me for a number of reasons, not least because it brings to mind this advert that ran on UK TV pre-watershed for a number of months
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdxC3hGBVfM
Hmmm...
Well, in my perfect world, every being that is killed would be fully used and respected. For example, when a cow is killed we would use every part: meat, bones, intestines, skin, etc. etc. I don't care if they make a leather coat out of it so long as every part of the animal is used for something functional (including art, just not for that purpose alone). So, the idea of using a cephalopod for sex doesn't really bother me, I only wish the animal could be used more efficently. However, this isn't my perfect world so I suppose that I will have to get over it until I dictate everything. In the meantime, I still eat meat so who am I to be a hypocrite?
I guess I also just find it to be very disrespectful and disgusting at the cost of the life. I stand by all my above reasons, but I full admit that I dug deeper to pull those reasons out, while my immediate gut reaction was just disgust. I don't think our sexual desires warrant the death of an animal. I understand that not everyone has these same reservations, but I think everyone here can relate to the sentiment that it's probably a good thing that all of us don't have these fantasies and go around killing animals for sex. It's sick. Not because the sexuality of it is necessarily sick, but the brutality of ending a life for sexuality. It's homicidal rape, or something. Am I alone on this?!
@67 All is relative. On the whole, I'd prefer that is was an animal that expired rather than a human in pursuit of sexual gratification. In any case, I'm glad I don't have to watch.
Next thing you know they'll be showing videos of squirting squids.
mmj #67: Last time I was at the supermarket, I noticed that pretty much all of the cow was for sale. You could buy the stomach, the kidneys, the thymus glands, liver, heart, intestines, tendons, feet, tail, and I presume the hide is used too. At the garden center, one can by dried blood meal and bone meal as a good organic fertilizers. The same can be said of pigs and chickens. Pretty much all of them gets used. In my town, the city has a composting facility where all organic waste from the schools, and restaurants, and meat packers gets added to yard waste to assist the composting process, and returns nutrients to the soil of our gardens. The city makes a profit from their composting.
How to defend yourself against a charging octopus. I guess that's in case you forget your safeword.
Whatever you do, people in the UK, do NOT do a Google Image Search of the word tentacles with the image filter off.
Now it all comes together...
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2008/dunkelziffer-tentacles-creepin…
Is this what y'all're talking about?
http://genki-genki.com/?easiestml_lang=en
(WARNING: NSFW! CANNOT BE UNSEEN!!)
And if "y'all're" ain't a word, it should be.
Really, don't click that last link.
From what I remember of living there in the late 90's, the Swansea police couldn't tell the difference between a number of things, including the group of Uni students I was walking down Kingsway with and the random gangs of hooligans in track suits that hung out on corners. Having people from Cardiff with me was far from helpful.
I dunno about that... perhaps if England were to take Port Talbot and Neath along with it?
I gotta say I completely disagree, Randall.
How much bondage gear is made of leather? Do we arrest babies and children for throwing food?
Food gets wasted. We can't prosecute someone for wasting one octopus, no matter what use they made of it. If you catch/buy a live octopus to eat, then accidentally leave it on the counter too long and it goes bad, do you think anyone should have any right to hassle you for your profligate 'waste'?
If you go out hunting a deer, and after shooting one, you clean out all the innards before hauling the carcass home, should people be able to prosecute you for 'waste'? Quite a few people can and do eat those parts that many consider inedible. Just because you might eat that part, it doesn't mean you can force everyone else to do so.
Do you have any idea how many animals are killed and completely wasted by commercial fishing techniques? Shouldn't we be pushing for prosecution of trawlers and shrimp boats long before we go after someone who's killed one cephalopod, especially when they've found a use for it, unlike the fishermen?
No, I think animal products are used for sex & sexplay all the time, and meat of various sorts is wasted all the time. While I'll be among the first to stand up for your right to complain about the waste, I completely disagree with your conclusions. Homicidal rape? You've got to be kidding me. Exaggerate much?
We were just directed to erotic photos that included dead octopus. The photographer isn't even having sex with them, much less eating them. That's total waste! Why aren't you even more up in arms about that then you are about the photographer in the OP?
No, sorry, I have to disagree with you. If a live animal is being abused for any reason, I'll jump right up and decry the abuse - but if the animal has been killed first, I can't see anything wrong with it, no matter what use it has been put to. I'd much prefer to go after those who waste thousands or even millions of animals before I go after the lone individual who has 'wasted' one. (And as it appears that the individual involved got both sexual gratification and photographs for the future out of it, I can't see it as a complete waste.)
The corpse is almost sure to find it's way back into the environment, seafood decomposes very quickly unless carefully preserved. Hell, maybe he fed it to his cat(s) when he was done with it. I don't know, and I'm sure as hell not going to try and judge him for it.
Hello from sunny Swansea, home of squid sex. Being female and veggie it's an unlikely hobby for me, but if I'm ever tempted I'll be sure to look out for the local plod.
@SerenAur 1 week of sun and suddenly its sunny swansea lol. btw dont worry about the plods, they'll be too busy watching the football in bonymaen police station to do anything about any "crimes" so squid fuck away.
@jomega @75
Crap man, why not just wave a flag in front of my face?
To anyone else with a version of my "big red do not push button" problem... listen to jomega. Especially if you have a vulva.
The child porn is a serious issue but before the Swansea Police starts prosecuting people for odd sexual behaviour perhaps they should get their own
house in order.
Swansea,as has been pointed out, is in Wales NOT in England. It even has its own indigenous and very different language which is put on bilingual signage everywhere.
This blog gives an example from the Swansea Police of which they should be ashamed. It is hilariously wrong.
http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/07/17/swansea-introduces-public-co…
" . . . and what will you give me? said the sad bells of Rhymney."
Or even closer:
"Even God is uneasy
Say the moist bells of Swansea"
Strange, it's normally sheep that we in the UK expect the Welsh to have a romantic attachment to.
That's so BCE (Before Chernobyl Exploded). Two-headed sheep marks the new age, CE (Cephalopod Exploitation).
Thought that was the Kiwis!
Like in the little exchange between an Aussie and a Kiwi:
"Heard you shagged the daughter while the mother was watching."
"Yeah."
"Well. what did the mother say?"
"Baa-aah"
But of course the ones Kiwis screw are mostly Aussies, aka two-legged sheep.
@Ermine #77
You make a lot of good points. There's a lot of hypocrisy involved in the business of killing animals. When I first posted on this, I was appalled. I still am, but I've been able to wrap my head around the knee jerk reaction and apply some reason.
Personally, it would leave me emotionally scarred to masturbate using a dead animal. Leather doesn't turn me on. I gotta say, as a rule, animals don't turn me on, unless they're humans.
Yes, homicidal rape is an exaggeration, but to make the point that humans have to apply laws about our sexuality, because of obvious things like rape, child abuse, sexual slavery, etc. These things are among some of the most emotionally destructive acts in our past, and present. So, to throw those morals and laws out the window just because the animal is not a human doesn't follow a logical pattern to me. We tend to put different animals' rights on a hierarchy according to their intelligence. Not legally so much as personally. For instance, more people would have a big problem with killing a chimp for sex than a cephalopod. Octopus's have been said to have a similar intelligence level to housecats. We don't have to go into the problem of eating cats vs. eating cows, chickens, etc. I'm aware of this hypocrisy. I've thought about going vegetarian, but there's a lot of evidence supporting the claim that eating a diet with meat is healthier than eating a vegetarian diet. But to me, rationalizing my right to eat animals because I belong to a species that is better off eating meat is different than rationalizing my right to kill an animal for sex. It's unnecessary. You CAN argue that eating meat is necessary.
By the time I started really thinking about this, it had less and less to do with the original story of a guy owning a picture of another guy having sex with a cephalopod, and more to do with the issue in general of having sex with dead animals.
The issue of animal rights is full of all kinds of loopholes and problems that collectively we haven't been able to come to an agreement on. I think this falls in that category.
The more I think about it, coming up with a law that prohibits this kind of behavior is going to be hypocritical in many circumstances.
@shonny #86
we get the sheep shagger title in the uk. Hence the joke "what do you call a sheep tied to a lamp post in Wales? A leisure centre"
We're still the best country in the world lol ;-)
Not too long ago (as part of my wife's birthday celebrations) a group of us went to a gallery display about sex in art throughout history. Not only did they have at least one old Japanese art piece depicting a fisherman's wife having sex with an octopus, they also had a large number of pictures which were owned by the queen - including a number of action portraits of Leda (i.e. a naked lady mating with a swan). If the Swansea police force roll up at Buckingham palace in the next week or two, I'll know they put dau and dau together (and got pimp).
"I'd also recommend looking up the work of Hokusai, Teraoka, or Saeki (but not if you live in England! That could land you in jail)."
May I respectfully point out that Wales is a separate country to England.
Also I think the point was that this chap had kiddie porn in his possession but the octopus angle makes a "more interesting" story.