Now, for something completely different, a man in Wisconsin has been sentenced to probation for having sex with a dead deer [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]. Said the judge in the case, “The type of behavior is disturbing. It’s disturbing to the public. It’s disturbing to the court.” (HT to seoulmilk)
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
26 Comments
He earlier got six years of probation for “driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent.” I assume the “vehicle” in question was the horse.
You would have to be a super-serious sexual libertarian to want to let a dead deer-porker go unpunished.
Only in America.
This guy’s a recidivist; according to the article he earlier was sentenced to 18 months for killing and raping a horse. I guess that unlike Catherine the Great he couldn’t round up enough help to hold the horse down.
It’s only a matter of time before he moves on to humans, don’t you think?
He just did not want to beat a dead horse, or, I have heard of being on the lamb…but this is ridiculous. Roll over Dear……
He needs to learn to pass the buck!
Ladyboys and deer humpers….., I mean deer hunters…news is slow lately….
Well, you have to admit that it is more interesting than the 648th round of negotiations with the North Koreans.
good thing “maybe” is stated next to “related” posts. otherwise, one may assume “Jeeze, Inter-Korean divorce can be complicated” is same with “Dead Deer Sex.”
Holy Bambi necrophilia, Batman!
Understatement of the year: “The type of behavior is disturbing,” Judge Michael Lucci said. “It’s disturbing to the public. It’s disturbing to the court.”
Now that you’re a major news source on this topic, maybe you should change the name of this site to “The Deer’s Hole.”
But what did he do that was wrong?
Wasn’t it here that I read about the man who was caught having sex with a dead dog (long dead and rotting)by the side of the road? He got off because there is no law against fucking roadkill.
Sounds reasonable enough.
Deer hole in front, Corn hole in the back.
It’s ok by me. Especially if the deer looks like this:
http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/15711
You have no idea how hard I cried when Bambi’s mother died.
For the law cannot be written that the one who kills and rapes DEER shall be punished bla bla, then where does the punishemnt come from? I meean the act and the provision.
Wow!
America is truly a fascinating country where the most strangest things can take place.
A country that can fuck entire nations without censure, but one guy gets intimate with a dead deer (most probably under the understanding that it was a private and consensual act) and its labeled “disturbing behavior”?
Cool!
Hey dlatn,
please take care not to write comments which are critical of the US (even if it’s meant to be ironic) under a German flag, since doing so may bring up unwarranted connotations - I myself indeed am German but I happen to post my criticism (of whatever kind) under a US flag. This seems more neutral to me…
Count me as one of those libertarians — a dead deer is just meat. It’s not an animal anymore. If some creepy kid wanted to masturbate with a rump roast or a grocery-store roaster chicken it would be weird as hell but should not be a crime. (After all, it’s been proved the same behavior with an apple pie is hi-larious.)
His previous offense, killing a horse in order to be able to have sex with its carcass, was properly punished — as mistreatment of an animal. If it could be proved the kid killed the deer, that would be one thing, but it appears he just got lucky and stumbled across an already-dead deer.
Would I deny the same laissez-faire attitude toward human corpses? Yes, because a critical difference between humans and animals is the existence of a soul — which, admittedly, should have left the human body after death. And because we don’t eat people.
It’s good to see that vital discussions about the morality of sex with dead animals can go on without the entire post and all of its comments being deleted (can’t say the same about other posts, however).
[DELETED. Reason: Off Topic.]
At least from my libertarian perspective, we should be separating the morality of copulation with a dead animal from the legality of such act. I don’t like it — wouldn’t do it, wouldn’t want to hang around with anyone who does it — but can’t see the government interest in stopping others from doing it. I don’t smoke, or eat shellfish. Should my preferences dictate what others may or may not do? If so, why? If not, why not? What makes my perspective any less valid or valuable than anyone else’s?
What is the harm to me from that guy humping the dead deer over there in Wisconsin? Except if he’s doing it in the street or something, what is the harm to the citizens of Wisconsin?
Hmm…and it all started with a hamster…
“most probably under the understanding that it was a private and consensual act”.
Can it be consensual if one party is dead?
#20:
I guess the same question could be raised for any non-consensual act of moral turpitude.
#20
I think it’s a public health issue. I mean, do we, as the residents of Wisconsin and elsewhere, really want that kinda person — who’s engaged in cross-species copulation/necrophilia — to be in circulation?
A person like that is not only endangering himself but also presents a clear and present danger to the public at large. The sooner we have him locked up, the better for everyone, including you.
Consent is not, and cannot, be an issue when the matter concerns activity with a carcass. Dead animals cannot give consent for any activity, let alone sex with humans. Neither, for that matter, can living animals. But why should they have to? We humans don’t ask their opinions on anything else we do with animals — including marching them off to the slaughterhouse to be made into food, delicious foooood and fashion products, daubing makeup in their eyes, and making little dogs wear ridiculous sweaters.
So let’s let it alone that the act of sex with the carcass of an animal is “non-consensual”. And I will agree that it’s completely morally wrong, which is why I won’t be inviting that guy over for supper. But I just don’t see why it should be a crime, and why the Deer Humper™ goes on a list of sex offenders.
I agree that consent cannot be an issue with regards to carrion. However, with regards to living animals, I don’t think the issue is or was “consent” per se. In his case, it was inhumane treatment of an animal, as he did have a prior conciction for “felony mistreatment of an animal” for a horse he killed for the purpose of copulation.
Let’s put it this way: While seemingly harmless, having sex with a dead deer or other carrion could become “gateways” for further and increasingly reprobate acts.
Afterall, he’s only getting probation and “evaluation as a sex offender” at a psychiatric facility, so it seems he’s NOT being listed as a “sex offender” and appears to gotten off easily, no pun attended.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a.....deer1.html
So he found a dead deer in a ditch. And decided to have sex with it.
2 Trackbacks
[...] can’t figure out what’s more disturbing—a man humping a dead deer [Marmot’s Hole] or his lawyer quoting “The Princess Bride” in his motion to [...]
[...] is just sick… although I’m debating whether it’s as sick as the dude who had sex with a dead deer. (Oh, the news you learn from [...]