Sex And The Law


Perversions Of Sexual Policy

* * *


PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
DRACONIAN PUNISHMENTS
WHAT CONSTITUTES A SEX CRIME?
AGE DISCRIMINATION IN SEXUAL LAW
THE AGE OF CONSENT
WILL UNDERAGE GIRLS BE EXPLOITED BY ADULT MEN?
THE HISTORICAL NORM
ARRANGED MARRIAGES AND GIRL'S WISHES
PLEISTOCENE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF LOVE
THE INFLUENCE OF FEMALE SUFFRAGE
PEDOPHILIA, WHAT IT IS AND ISN'T
MOLESTATION MYTHS
ENTRAPMENT
PROSTITUTION
FATHERS' ABORTION RIGHTS
CONTRACEPTION
THE ETHICS OF ZOOPHILIA




PREFACE: This preface has been added in response to the appalling inability of many who read this page to understand what it actually says. It's most certainly not a defense of pedophilia which I clearly state is unnatural sexual behavior. What it is is an objective reason-based argument for complete sexual freedom, and the decriminalization of all types of sexual behavior so long as they are completely consensual and don't harm others. It's a detailed objective rational argument to get government entirely out of the bedroom where it has no place whatsoever. The intent is to reduce suffering in particular that which the state inflicts upon people who engage in what should be entirely legal consensual behavior.

It's a sad and shameful commentary on human nature that literally millions upon millions of men, women, and children continue to suffer every kind of horrible abuse at the hands of other humans, and this certainly includes sexual abuse, including the sexual abuse of children, in particular abuse that results in physical injury or psychological trauma. This is clearly criminal behavior which the state has a primary responsibility to address. However another extremely serious form of abuse is the state punishment of adult men and women who engage in completely consensual sexual contact with minors. It's a basic principle of objective justice that everyone should have control over their own bodies and minds. (The only exception being children under the care of their parents to the extent of that care, but that should be a family matter rather than the business of the legal system.)

Another very important consideration are the enormous law enforcement and legal resources currently devoted to investigating, apprehending, trying, 'treating', incarcerating, and post incarceration monitoring of persons who have engaged only in consensual sexual behaviors and related victimless acts. If all these vast resources were reallocated to cases of actual sexual violence and coercion that produce actual injury and trauma to real victims great progress could be made towards eliminating such crimes. And in addition the many unlucky persons unjustly convicted of victimless crimes would never have to undergo the significant degradation of their lives, finances, and reputations they currently do, and they could continue to contribute to society without being locked away for what is often many years. That in itself is a major crime perpetrated by the state.

Thus whatever other people choose to do with their bodies including who they choose to have sex with is entirely their business only. It's certainly not any of my or your business, and it most certainly should be none of the business of the legal system. So there should be complete freedom for everyone including minors to do what they wish with their own bodies as long as others aren't harmed. Thus if minors choose to consent to sex with anyone including adults that's entirely their right, and those adults should certainly not be punished. And the notion that minors are somehow unable to consent when they are actively consenting to have sex with each other by the millions is completely delusional.

We can only hope that all consent is practiced wisely at all ages but given human nature and the facts it clearly often isn't. Certainly I personally encourage as few partners as possible, and those as carefully and wisely chosen as possible but even though I would most certainly disapprove of the sex choices many people make, it is their choices and their bodies and entirely their right to make those choices. And this includes the consensual sex choices made by both minors and adults.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual mores and practices, especially those involving minors, are without doubt one of the most difficult topics to discuss rationally and objectively in the current highly emotionally charged atmosphere in which mere discussion of non 'politically correct' ideas can result in one being falsely branded a pervert or even a criminal. Nevertheless I will take a shot at thinking through some of these issues objectively and presenting my conclusions here. Though some progress has been made in getting government out of the bedroom, much remains to be done, and many lives are meanwhile still being unjustly destroyed. Read on if you dare, but keep in mind these are all ideas subject to improvement or correction by reason and fact and are certainly not the advocacy of any particular sexual behavior.

One of the primary responsibilities of a just government is the protection of its citizens (see the section on Government). This applies equally to all citizens no matter what their ages, and it requires protection not just from harm by other individuals and commercial entities but protection from the excesses of government as well. There is also the question of what constitutes 'harm' and who is to decide that. The basic rule is that the degree of harm is to be judged by objective measurable standards on a 'victim' rather than by ideological or moral considerations no matter how strongly or widely they may be held. Lastly punishment of harm should be primarily directed towards compensating the victim to the extent of actual harm done rather than enriching any governmental entity.

As to sex itself, sex is intrinsically 'good' in that it is pleasurable and satisfies an intrinsic human need and contributes to social satisfaction and stability. However the biological nature of sex can also lead to negative consequences such as unwanted pregnancies, transmission of disease, and psychological distress. In general such negative consequences can be greatly minimized by confining sex to stable monogamous relationships. Nevertheless given human nature sexual contact often goes outside such bounds. In spite of the possible risks people should be free to engage in any form of sexual contact so long as others are not harmed. It is the role of government to inform people how to minimize risks and to protect its citizens from actual harm in any such contact.

What follows should not be misunderstood as an endorsement of adult sex with minors. Rather it is an objective analysis of the legal issues if and when it does occur. A good analogy to make this point clear is that one can advocate decriminalization of drugs, as many medical experts do, without advocating taking drugs. It's an important distinction that needs to be clearly understood in the context of this discussion.

DRACONIAN PUNISHMENTS: The harshness with which many societies punish actions labeled sex crimes is often grossly disproportionate to any harmful effect on the victim, in fact many sex crimes are notable for there being no victim, as the criminalized behavior is often consensual. Ordinary crimes of violence or substantial theft are often much more serious in terms of their effect on the victim's subsequent life, yet they are often punished much less harshly. Also the requirement that persons labeled sex criminals be required to register for life when no other category of released criminal is required to do so, seems grossly unjust and makes it more difficult to achieve any true cure. That having been said, there are some good reasons for requiring most categories of convicted non-violent criminals to be quickly released back into society while being clearly marked as such during a closely monitored rehabilitation period. The particular severity with which society views sex crimes reflects the perverse hypocritical and dualistic attitude toward sexuality in society. One the one hand it is universally recognized as one of the best and the most essential of experiences, yet even slight deviations from the norm are demonized as the worst of behaviors. This attitude must be changed as real reform takes place and sexuality of all types in the absence of demonstrable harm to a victim be accepted and not a subject of governmental interference.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A SEX CRIME? The answer to this should be simple. As with all types of crime there must be a victim for there to be a crime, and the severity of the crime should be judged by the severity of its impact on the victim. Crimes should never be judged on their supposed immorality, nor, in most cases, should the state ever be considered as a victim whose imagined injury would constitute a crime. The goal must always be to maximize personal freedom in the absence of demonstrable harm to a victim as judged by the victim rather than by society or any other party imposing their norms on the supposed victim.

AGE DISCRIMINATION IN SEXUAL LAW: One of the most troubling aspects of current sexual law is that it is riddled with the most extreme examples of blatant age discrimination, something which itself should be a crime. In fact discrimination on the basis of age is the only form of discrimination which has not yet been outlawed, and shamefully is actually the basis of many laws, both sexual and otherwise. In many cases such laws are examples of how overzealous legislators make over-broad laws with perhaps good intent but which have unintended adverse consequences. What is perfectly legal activity for one age group is considered very serious criminality for another. And such age categories are often defined differently in different jurisdictions leading to the conclusion that they are largely arbitrary. While everyone would agree that children need protection under the law, it should be equally clear that everyone of whatever age should also be protected by that same system of justice, and that such protection should not be based on their age or any other basis of discrimination.

THE AGE OF CONSENT: Take the case of a sexually active underaged girl. She is able to have sexual relations legally with anyone she chooses with no legal penalties whatsoever. And a boy (or girl) in her same age bracket is also legally able to have sex with her with no penalties whatsoever. However if a male whose age is (typically) greater than three years her senior has sexual relations with her he is subject to extreme penalties, often sufficient to ruin his life. In other words the only legal criterion is the relative age of the male. What is going on here? It can't be that the sex itself is in some way bad for her since she is by choice sexually active. The only effect of the law is to discriminate against the adult on the basis of his age. As such it is blatant 'Ageism'. In fact Ageism is rampant in American law and culture and is the only type of discrimination that still permeates the legal code. In another section we will see that this is only one of many examples of the legal assault on men's rights designed to appropriate traditional male power to the government which in turn has had the effect of undermining the family, the traditional foundation of a stable society.

In fact the age of consent varies considerably across the world and the US. In many US states it is technically 16, but woe to any adult man who has intercourse with a girl under 18! In their righteous zeal prosecutors will often find another way to prosecute the unlucky man. However in New Mexico and in Denmark the age of consent was 13 when I last checked, and I know of no evidence that this had caused any widespread deleterious effects on minors there.

The argument that underaged teens can't consent to sex is really the worst of delusions. Underaged teens in modern American are actively consenting by the millions every day to sex with other underaged teens. If they were not giving consent then that sex would be rape and illegal, but of course it isn't. The clear truth is that the law allows underaged teens to freely and legally give informed consent to have sex with each other but not with adults. That is age discrimination pure and simple in its most egregious form due to the severe penalties imposed on adults who obtain such consent, which is not a whit different than the consent given to another underaged teen.

Either the sexual relations of underaged teens with each other is non-consensual and illegal deserving the same harsh penalties or the consent an underaged teen gives to an adult is also legal and informed and without penalty. There is no other rational and just conclusion.

There has rarely been such an obvious example of unjust law. How can any sane person make a case that a minor having sex with a minor is acceptable, but an adult having sex with the same minor is somehow immoral and in any sense a serious crime? Historically there has rarely been any such draconian age discrimination in sexual law. Throughout most of the history of civilization it was common and accepted for men to marry girls in their mid to late teens. This in fact was prevalent up through the 19th century even in the United States as can be readily verified by anyone who does any serious genealogical research. Even such an American icon as Pocahontas was only 12 or 13 when she came onto the stage of history, and neither her father or the Jamestown men apparently had any age-based problems with her romantic relationship with an adult European man. In any case the effect of such laws in society is to condemn otherwise law abiding men to prison and all the social problems that result to both them and their families (see the section on Crime and The Law).

BUT WON'T UNDERAGE GIRLS BE EXPLOITED BY ADULT MEN? Well this depends much on the definition of 'exploitation', but if it is taken to mean just having casual sex with no particular commitment or regard to negative consequences for the girl then the answer is sure, that happens all the time, but there is no reason to believe an older man is any more likely to do this than a teenaged boy (not after all a species generally recognized for its sense of responsibility!). In general, the older a man is, the more likely he will be to understand the financial consequences of for example an unwanted pregnancy and be more careful about not making an unwanted baby he might well have to support for the next 20 some years. In general, the older the man the more responsible he will be in such matters. So this cannot be used as an argument to criminalize adult-teen sex.

It should also be obvious that people of all ages and both sexes frequently behave in an exploitative manner. Adult males are certainly not unique in that respect, and very often it is the female of any age who actively exploits the male's sexual desire to achieve ends of her own.

We need to also analyze what this contention actually implies. The fact is that young girls are prone, often eager, to engage in consensual sexual activity with adult higher status men. True they may later become disappointed in the relationship but that is common among early relationships. It is well known that young peoples' initial relationships tend to be transient and that first breakups tend to be the hardest. This is true whether the first (few) lovers are older men or boys their own age. Relationships can be good/bad, long lasting or transient, satisfying or disappointing or not irrespective of age difference. The only difference in fact might be the social opprobrium brought to bear on a young girl involved in a relationship with an older man.

So one wonders to whom this is such a 'serious problem'? First, it is perceived as a serious problem by older women who tend to instinctually view younger girls as competition for males, and there is a natural inclination to take the younger girls out of competition (current 'age of consent' laws are an historically atypical modern phenomenon that appeared generally after women got the right to vote). Second, parents will always have concerns about their young daughters having sexual relations with any male. That is natural. But there is no innate reason to believe the effect on the girls will be any worse if the male is older. As always, it all boils down to whether the male and female are good for each other or not. This can be equally true irrespective of age difference. In fact, in general, older men are more reliable and responsible, and have higher status and more resources, and are less likely to slip up and cause a pregnancy they know they might have to support. It is after all obvious that men age late 20's early 40's make much superior husbands to teen boys.

THE HISTORICAL NORM: It should be noted that all throughout history teenage girls often married considerably older men as older established men were much more likely to have the means and stability necessary to head a successful family and to be able to support the bride. Though adolescents may have some natural inclination to feel more compatible with other adolescents and thus pick their preferred sexual partners from them, this is again is largely due to the modern phenomenon of age segregation imposed by compulsory public schooling in which the sexes of both ages are segregated by age and thus very obviously tend to find their friends largely within the same age group. Again this is a purely modern preference. It ignores the historical fact that throughout most of history up until modern times girls in their mid to late teens routinely married older established men, and thus obviously had sex and babies with them. The current preference is more likely a result of the age stratification brought about by the public school system, and the current popular cultural inhibitions. In previous cultures, teen age girls, like all young women would be naturally attracted to the most desirable males, those with status, resources and maximum virility. These would be men in their 20's to 40's. Marriage of mid to late teen girls to men in this age group was the norm throughout most of history in almost all cultures. Girls of this age would have little interest in teen age boys who would have very little in the way of resources to offer and thus would rarely be good marriage prospects.

This historical norm has been turned on its head in modern western societies. Young teen aged boys are so irresponsible that they are not trusted to drink, drive, own credit cards, sign contracts, vote or even hold regular jobs because only older men are deemed responsible enough to engage in these activities. But amazingly young teenage boys are trusted to have sex with young teenage girls and get them pregnant with no hope of supporting them or their children! However the older adult males who are the only males trusted to vote, drink, own credit cards, sign contracts, drive and hold regular jobs are the only males NOT trusted to have sex or enter into romantic relationships with the young girls who most require the greater degree of responsibility that older men can provide.

Go figure! Of course the tragic consequences of this policy don't matter, it's only the politically correct morality that seems to matter.

WEREN'T ARRANGED MARRIAGES ALWAYS AGAINST THE GIRL'S WISHES? The notion that it was never the girl's choice and was always against the girl's wishes which were to be married to a boy her own age is unfounded and a reflection of very modern prejudices. Basically this is a romantic myth perpetuated by young irresponsible troubadours to try to get into young girls pants! While it is true many marriages were parentally arranged, this doesn't mean that the girls in question were not generally agreeable or even delighted with the choice of an older husband of means. There is certainly a folkloric tradition in which young girls cheat on old husbands with younger men. But note that the husband in nearly all of these tales is typically quite elderly and often no longer seems virile, certainly not the typical virile young husband of late 20's to 40's with status and resources that young women of all ages from teen on up would find most attractive as a husband. Either that or the husbands in such folk tales are often depicted as cruel or having other undesirable psychological traits, again far from the reality of the actual somewhat older husband desired. So that the young women in such tales (not just teens by the way) are typically seeking to escape either very elderly or bad husbands, not nice virile husbands in the 20 to 40 age range that actually would have been the preferred choice.

There are many folk songs which demonstrate the point that such tales and songs nearly always refer either to impotent elderly men, and/or to men with character flaws (stupid, greedy, cruel, etc.), or to men who have just cheated themselves so that the young wife is likewise justified in doing so. These tales do not portray the husband as the virile, kind man in the prime of life (late 20's-40's) with accomplishments and resources that teen age girls (in common with other women) would most desire as a husband. There is plenty of additional support for the thesis that teen girls are sexually attracted to virile older men with status and accomplishments in their 20's to 40's. Even in our current highly age-stratified society where such sexual contact is criminalized, teen girls still routinely develop strong 'crushes' on their older male teachers, rock stars etc. In fact this form of sexual desire for a relatively high status older male is so prevalent that it is thought that most teen girls develop such crushes. In our age-stratified society, primarily the result of the public school system, male teachers are the only non-family adult males that teen girls will have contact with on a regular basis. But historically there has been much less segregation by age and teen girls would have had much broader social contact with a wider range of older males, if they had much contact with males at all. The successful and virile among these men would all have been prime candidates for husbands or lovers, much more so than teen boys who would have had little to offer in the way status or resources, or even skill at lovemaking.

PLEISTOCENE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS? Recently some, often female, researchers have attempted to convince us that teen adult sexual relationships are unnatural because 'Pleistocene girls age of first birthing was 18 years'. However there is little if any forensic archaeology to support this notion. It is an extremely difficult contention to substantiate and skeletal remains offer the only evidence. Even if one could possibly determine from hip and pelvic structure of skeletal remains whether a female had borne a child or not and correlate that with age at death, that would clearly give you a much older average even if the child bearing had begun much earlier. So it seems like this contention is pure speculation based on the assumption that sexually receptive females would not have been impregnated by the resident males purely out of consideration for their tender years even though they were sexually mature and receptive! It also assumes that these sexually receptive young adolescent girls would not have themselves followed the call of their hormones and gotten themselves pregnant, but instead would have practiced abstinence in obedience to some notion of Pleistocene political correctness! Sounds highly unlikely to me. On the face of it, it appears to be just another attempt to back project the current historically anomalous ideas of political correctness onto our past in an attempt to justify them. It just seems too pat that the age these researchers come up with is the current standard politically correct legal age of consent and marriage!

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF LOVE: Another example of legal nonsense when it comes to sexual matters is the criminalization of sex between teachers and students and supervisors and subordinates. I find the former personally offensive as my mother was a student of my father's when they met and fell in love and married and produced me, their first child. The effect of such a law is to label my conception immoral and even a criminal offense. Again the rationale behind the law is on the surface a good one, namely to protect persons in subordinate positions from undue pressure by their superiors. But the criminalization of a whole category of behavior to discourage or punish a few problems that might arise from it produces a far worse effect than it prevents. The basic principle of law here is that criminal statutes should always treat the actual offense rather than any category of behavior which might (and in most cases would not) enable that offense.

There is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with student teacher sexual relations. They are natural, and can be positive for both parties. Any restriction on this is essentially a restriction on personal freedom and love itself. The usual PC (politically correct) notion here is that since there might be exploitation of female students in exchange for grades in a small number of cases that the entire thing should be banned. The real ulterior motive is to reduce the power of males in the society.

There are simple ways to eliminate the possibility of preferential grading. Give tests such as TF and multiple choice and exact answer tests instead of essay tests which allow subjective grading. That should probably be done anyway as there is an epidemic of preferential grading in academia based on the grading prof's personal PC and political ideologies. Very frequently students are graded down just for not agreeing with the prof's biases. I've long suggested this as a way to ensure the fairness of tests and obviate the argument preventing the quite natural legitimate romantic contacts between students and teachers.

That would remove any temptation from female students of trying to flirt or attempt to seduce their teachers for grades and the assumption would then be that any such behavior was consensual.

There is zero wrong with this and much possibly good so long as it is consensual and not tied to coercion or grades which are separate issues. Such couples should just be let alone to live their lives like (hopefully) everyone else. That they are demonized and destroyed is just more evidence of American's sick obsession with judging other people's sex lives.

THE INFLUENCE OF FEMALE SUFFRAGE: It is important to note that most of the modern laws restricting adult male sexual access to younger girls correlate very strongly with the advent of female suffrage. From a evolutionary psychology perspective it makes perfect sense to strongly suspect that the unconscious dynamic had as its root the passing of laws under the influence of adult women with the vote to effectively take younger and often more physically attractive teen girls who did not have the vote out of competition for the most desirable men!

More on the effects of female suffrage elsewhere....

PEDOPHILIA, WHAT IT IS AND ISN'T: The correct and scientifically accepted definition of pedophilia is a primary sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. It is clear that sexual interest in prepubescent children is biologically unnatural because prepubescent children have not yet developed the secondary sexual characteristics and sexual responsiveness that are specifically designed to attract the sexual attention of the opposite sex. However the inescapable corollary of this is that sexual interest in members of the opposite sex beginning with puberty and in a degree corresponding with the development of secondary sexual characteristics and sexual responsiveness is entirely normal and expected. That is the sexual interest in persons of the opposite sex from puberty onward is biologically natural since beginning at puberty they rather quickly develop those sexual characteristics specifically designed by biology to attract the attention of the opposite sex. However it is obvious that just because there is some sexual attraction doesn't necessitate a sexual approach or consummation. After all normal men are sexually attracted to hundreds of women and girls of all ages every day without acting on it. So there is no escaping that a sexual interest in post pubescent teens is biologically entirely normal and should not in itself be criminalized or demonized. In spite of widespread misuse of the term, such biologically natural interest is not pedophilia which properly refers only to sexual interest in prepubescent children.

It should be noted that girls become sexually mature at puberty or soon thereafter and humans are unique in that they are the only species that attempts to prohibit sexual contact between sexually mature young females and adult males, and that only quite recently from an historical perspective. Nature has designed females of all mammals to begin having offspring at menarche or soon thereafter. That is nature's design. Obviously humans don't have to slavishly follow it in any particular case, but it just cannot be condemned as unnatural or abnormal.

MOLESTATION MYTHS: The laws today tend to lump a wide spectrum of behavior together under the umbrella of sexual crimes against children. There is no question that many of these constitute extremely serious crimes, however in the popular imagination there often seems to be little discrimination as to the seriousness of the crime in terms of its actual effect on the child. As an example, when I was 4 or 5 I was 'molested' by my babysitter, a girl in her late teens. She put me to bed, undressed me, fondled my penis and played with it in her mouth for a while. There was no coercion, force or injury involved. Now was this a serious crime which had severe effects upon my young psyche, and which deserved some harsh criminal punishment for this girl? I think not. To me at the time it was largely neutral, even rather affectionate, and the next day I was happily playing just the same as always having largely forgotten about it. Do such non-physically-injurious events automatically cause serious psychological injury or warrant severe criminal penalties? As with all so called crimes, common sense says it depends on the effect on the 'victim'. However society today would have us believe that all such events inevitably cause horrible traumatic suffering, even 'stealing the childhood' of the so called victim. From my personal experience I know that this is not at all true and most likely depends on any relevant belief system that has been instilled into the child at the time of such an occurrence. In any case the severity of penalties in such cases should always be based on any actual injurious effect on the child which is to be independently and objectively evaluated from the perspective of the child, rather than judged by any preconceived notions of society or the parents.

ENTRAPMENT: Law enforcement agents, and now even tabloid genre reporters, posing as sexually willing minors to entrap pedophiles is positively Kafkaesque. These poor men are being convicted of at the worst, wanting to do something that they weren't actually doing! A basic principle of law is that people should only be convicted for actually doing something illegal, not thinking about it or wanting to do it.

A basic principle of law enforcement should be that law enforcement officers shouldn't be allowed to engage in any type of illegal activities in the investigation of illegal activity. By doing otherwise they only become criminals themselves, and develop an ethic of acceptance of criminality, and a feeling that they are above the law, that it doesn't apply to them. In the current context this applies to both posing as willing minors to entrap men who have what is a very natural attraction to teen girls, as well as to actively soliciting or selling drugs, contraband, illegal weapons, child pornography or illegal material of any sort.

PROSTITUTION A basic principle of justice should be that everyone should have control over their own body at least to the extent they are not financially dependent on their parents in which case the parents should have some say.

Thus prostitution should be entirely legal. If someone wants to sell their body for sex that should be entirely their right to do so and it's certainly none or my or your business or the government's to restrict that right. By criminalizing prostitution the government is telling us it's they that control our bodies rather than ourselves.

That being said prostitution is certainly something I would discourage in almost all cases as it clearly tends to be an unhealthy lifestyle.

From a societal point of view it's likely that prostitution could even strengthen families by providing a no consequences outlet for the innate male instinct to mate with as many available females as possible. So long as the man takes the necessary precautions to avoid infection this could be preferable to other outlets. Again that being said it's much preferable for the wife to provide all of her husband's sexual needs if at all possible.

SHOULD FATHERS HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS TO INSIST ON ABORTIONS? As long as a father is legally required to support an unwanted child justice requires he also have veto power over it being born if he so chooses. That is only fair and just. It should not just be the mother's decision. That is fundamentally unjust. If the state takes away the father's veto power over whether to carry the child to term or not then it should be the state that assumes the responsibility to support the child, and the father should have zero responsibility to do so unless he so chooses.

Basically the only fair approach to accidental pregnancy is that either father and mother have the right to force an abortion. And to have the child requires the consent of both.

The fact that the child is within the mother's body is irrelevant to this so long as the father is legally required to support a child he may not have wanted. After all the child is only within the mother's body 9 months but the father is required to support the child for 18 to 21 years.

Having to work all his life to support an unwanted child can have an enormous psychological not to mention financial impact on a man as well. Obviously the best solution is to not even conceive a child unless both mother and father are completely committed to raising the child. But as we know accidents often happen. Thus in real life the situation must be faced and it should be equitable to both parents. The equitable and just course is either parent can veto the birth and both must agree to carry the child to term.

This is simple fairness and equality under the law.

CONTRACEPTION: Corollary to the preceding discussion it is amazing to me that discussions of contraception, especially 'official' ones, hardly ever mention and never seem to endorse simple male withdrawal and ejaculation outside the vagina. (Even more amazing due to the near universal prevalence of 'cum shots' in modern pornography.) Haven't any men besides me ever heard of withdrawal? It works 100% of the time with no downside risks either medical or of 'sperm theft' in which the woman surreptitiously impregnates herself with semen from a condom. Incredible it usually isn't even mentioned, perhaps because there is nothing to buy and no profits to be made? Even more incredible I find many men don't even properly understand the concept when I discuss it or claim it is impossible for them or that it doesn't work!

Withdrawal of the penis from the vagina just before orgasm is 100% safe contrary to some opinion. I've used it all my life with nary a mistake. I find it unlikely that it's only I who have the necessary awareness of impending orgasm and the will power to withdraw among all other men. Does no other man have any self control when it comes to sex?

THE ETHICS OF ZOOPHILIA: Though I have no personal interest in having sex with animals I've been asked about the topic of bestiality or zoophilia so I've decided to respond. There is quite a bit of literature on the ethics of zoophilia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia for a summary.

The view of many ethicists (e.g. Peter Singer) who have considered the issue, and a view to which I largely subscribe, is that sex with animals is ethical if no harm is done to the animal, that is it is not physically harmful and it is not particularly coercive or stressful, no more so than humane pet ownership would allow. I will note in passing however that much of what is often considered normal pet or food animal ownership is itself certainly often gravely harmful both physically and psychologically to the animals in question.

No doubt in many cases such as the most common variety, that of male dogs with women, it can be pleasurable to the animal as well as the human. Statistics are difficult to come by but there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that quite a few women take male dogs as lovers, and sometimes female as well for oral sex. One can find an enormous volume of videos and photos on this subject on USENET (a check of the bestiality group on 2/15/10 showed 6.9 million! current posts most apparently images and videos of women with dogs) and it is apparent that the fantasy of reduction of human females to pure animal sexuality has considerable appeal to both men and women. There are probably quite a few advantages to that from both the dog's and the woman's perspective, compared to taking a human male lover with all the messy complications that can entail!

As to the risk of disease I'm sure there must be some, but then again the risk of disease transmission from human to human sexual contact is considerable and might be even more worrisome.

There is certainly the danger of abuse and injury depending on species and circumstance however. Chickens or ducks are occasionally mentioned as sex objects in traditional songs and tales. They, as all animals certainly experience pain and stress and certainly can be traumatized by abuse. I would suspect that cloacal sex with a chicken or duck would likely cause stress, pain or injury. The cloacal dilation in egg laying very likely requires a natural relaxation process which would absent in forced sex by a man.

Likewise I would suspect that a man having vaginal sex with more or less any animal especially one smaller than himself is likely to cause harm or injury due to the non receptive sexual status of the female animal which unlike human females only comes into heat in season. If the female is in heat and receptive to such advances then possibly but I think that fairly unlikely.

There was a 12/3/08 story in the Daily Telegraph of a UK man getting three years for having sex with a horse. I broke into laughter as the horse was pictured with a black bar over its eyes presumably to protect its identity! Here are my comments to the discussion group the article was posted on: Did the horse file a complaint? Was the horse under the age of consent? Will the horse testify in court? Why does the horse have a black censorship bar over its eyes to protect its identity?

The article claimed that the act terrified the horse. Somehow I rather doubt that. If it had the horse would simply have kicked the guy's balls off. Anyway the horse was obviously asking for it since it wasn't wearing knickers. :-) All kidding aside, I suspect the horse was large enough no damage was done, certainly none physically and unlikely any psychologically. I'd say the man ran the much greater risk in this case.

In summary I'd recommend that the legal approach to zoophilia should be based on harm to the animal if there is any. That criminality should always be judged by its effect or lack thereof on the 'victim' is a general principle of justice I develop on the section on Justice and there is no reason that it should not apply to animals as well as humans with few exceptions.