Farmington, W. Va. (The Weekly Vice) – Christopher Bagwell, 26, is accused of a bizarre deviant offense: raping a neighbor’s dog that he had long coveted. The case shows a continuing failure of many states to have adequate laws punishing such animal cruelty.
Sierra Hayhurst allegedly encountered Bagwell when she was dropping off some borrowed items. He stopped the rape of the Australian shepherd border collie mix when she called him a “sick bastard” and allegedly moved toward her in a threatening manner. She drove away and called police.
What is interesting is that Bagwell with misdemeanor animal cruelty and burglary. The fact that a rape of an animal is still a misdemeanor in West Virginia should be a cause for reform. This case shows that the state considers the damage to the home to be more serious that than raping of an animal.
For the full story, click here.
21 thoughts on “West Virginia Man Charged With Dog Rape”
Animal cruelty is bad. Interspecific sexual interaction is not cruel in and of itself however, and should not be labeled as animal cruelty or abuse. The absence of human language ability does not imply that a non-human animal also lacks the ability to communicate. Cats purr, dogs lick, ‘animals’ bite, scream, squirm, growl, grimace, push, kick and so on. Animals do not have to speak human languages in order to communicate with humans. Pleasure or displeasure can be easily conveyed without words; it would insult our intelligence to doubt that fact. Intelligence is perhaps our most prized attribute which separates us from other animals.
Consent always seems to be the question when sexual acts are concerned….obviously if an ‘animal’ is showing displeasure, then it is abuse and cruelty. Interestingly enough I have had sex with different species and it is amazing and wonderfully exotic to share pleasures using the most basic of communication: No words, only pure affection is exchanged through contact, both physical and emotional. A dog, for instance, can read you like a book and there is no hiding your feelings from them—their whole language is largely body language. If you are feeling lust as you are petting and interacting with a dog, chances are good that you will also soon be feeling them grapple for a better grip on you and timing their thrusts with your own while licking your face and mouth ravenously then finally huffing in your ear as you both reach the wild abandonment of orgasm. That is not abuse!
It is no more disgusting than doing the same thing with a human–tab A fits into slot B. If no harm is done, and it does not interfere with other peoples’ right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then so what. Nobody has the right to dictate what other people do on their own time behind closed doors, or in the barn for that matter. There is always that ‘bad apple’ that ruins the batch attitude with our elected officials who work for us. It is not surprising at all to see them exploit this case as an excuse to create yet another law that we all must comply with. If this kid tied up the dog and was discovered ruthlessly raping her as she cried out, doing her best to escape, then he deserves to get the worst that the law can muster. This kid might be the type that gets off on control and dominance, fueled by feelings of rage, inadequacy, inferiority etc. If that was what went on, then he should be punished indeed, because his intent was ill and the dog was innocent and easily being taken advantage of. In my opinion, intention is more important than the act. It defines how the person relates with other beings, whether his own kind or another. I once discovered the horrid aftermath from a very disturbed kid I knew long ago. He coerced a neighbor’s dog into the woods and tied him/her up and did whatever he wanted and eventually left the dog hanging by its neck. The dog innocently followed him and trusted him wholeheartedly only to end up dead after a brutal torture from a person who had somehow lost, or was never born with compassion.
Those kind of people who somehow lack the morale and compassion for other beings that seems to be inherent in most of us are the ones that also abuse innocent children. People who love animals, and may even go so far as to share intimacy with another animal are not to be lumped into that disgusting category!
During the years of exploring my own desires that seem to lie outside what society wants to define as the norm, I have found many puzzling riddles which seem to only pose further questions rather than answers. I could write volumes about this subject, so it is suffice to leave it with the old adage that ‘the more you know, the more you don’t know’. One thing though, legally speaking, that I found intriguing is that most people don’t seem so concerned about the act, but rather the “crime against nature” that is implied–which threatens the very meaning of humanity itself. It is as if humans are so intent on separating themselves from other animals that having sex with one literally disembowels the pink, vulnerable belly of the social norm in such a way as to force one to embrace the fact that we are indeed animals! Most people cannot view themselves as animals. We are mammals and thereby share many similar traits with other mammals, especially with primates.
It is so revolting to think of humans as having sexual relations with different animals, that the act itself is not defined in common law for fear of deviling the very definition itself of what it is to be a ‘human’. It seems that we must not threaten the separation between what is ‘human’ and what is nature–animals exist within the realm of nature. Thus it is a ‘crime against nature’ to have sexual relations with a different animal. It is ‘below’ a human to even think of having sex with an animal; any human caught in the act is thereby less than human by definition. The rift we created between humans and nature makes it legally clear and convenient as to the slot where our pets fit into; they are mere possessions, not unlike a lawn mower or a motorcycle. However, the refusal to record the details of the events within the cases I have read also lends to the grounds for a good defense for those convicted for the ambiguous “Crime against nature”. Humans have certain inalienable God given rights that cannot be infringed upon by other humans. Animals are thought to have no such rights, but their human lovers can exercise their rights to protect their companions. There seems to be the elements of eventually setting the stage for some exciting fireworks ahead.
Personally I don’t feel threatened by the idea that I am an animal. I am certainly not a walking vegetable! There would be no need for humans to define themselves as above and beyond the animal kingdom if we were not so vain and uncomfortable with what we really are. We hide our animal traits, our need to fart and defecate. Our bodies stink with bacteria and from the filth we eat. We do our best to keep regular hygiene, masking those animal traits that won’t go away using cologne and deodorant. We clothe ourselves to hide our bodies and put on a façade of superiority over our domain. Why can’t we be civilized and carry on with our lives as we know it, while simultaneously embracing who we really are?
Wow, this got a lot longer than I wanted…
Comments are closed.