« Freshers' Week | Ani-Moss-ity Â»

Thinking

This may sound random. That's because it very much is. Why is bestiality so closely associated with sheep in the popular perception, rather than with (say) dogs (which you would assume to be far more accessible to most people)? Is this a geographically-influenced perception? And is it justified?

Comments:
Fri, 23rd Sep 2005 (08:30)

On the topic of beatiality… is it only if you take it? Like homosexuality?

by Jamie O'Leary
Fri, 23rd Sep 2005 (09:35)

That typo is going to be the name of a band some day Jamie. "Beatiality". Brilliant.

by Rory
Fri, 23rd Sep 2005 (10:43)

Who do you think reads your weblog?!

The ethical/moral philosopher Peter Singer seems to think bestiality is not necessarily morally wrong, for what it's worth. Read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/09/arts/09TANK.html?ex=1127620800&en=7561094f90e23b57&ei=5070

by Stephen
Fri, 23rd Sep 2005 (10:53)

I suppose I should point out that I was actually at a computer wondering what to do when I heard someone mention "sheep-shagging" and wondered why sheep have to suffer the burden of most animal-love references.

by Rory
Sun, 25th Sep 2005 (14:02)

You realize that this might get you into a lot of trouble?

Take a look at this: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050923-5346.html

by Joe
Mon, 26th Sep 2005 (10:55)

You know Channel 4 did a documentary on just this topic last year, it was called Animal Passions (I happen to have a copy) and suprise suprise - you are right. Dogs (and for some reason horses) seem to be the beast of preference for fur-fondlers everywhere. Go figure.

by Ronan Lowe

About this post

This piece was posted on Thu, 22nd Sep 2005 at 16:16.

You can find other posts at the front page or, if you're feeling lucky, check out a random post.