Saturday, May 03, 2014

crimes against nature

i saw an article (an article-let? a clickbait?) about states in which  consensual oral sex is illegal but necrophilia is, apparently, just fine.

in most states that do not define necrophilia as being strictly illegal, they have some kind of statute about "crimes against nature" which they somehow think is a clear legal concept and universally understood.

so i think what we OUGHT to do is prosecute people for "crimes against nature", like fouling a water supply, or mismanagement of herd population, or deforestation of sensitive land.

you know, ACTUAL crimes against nature.

if you pay attention to animal behavior at all, you learn more and more that homosexual sex, rape, torture, and necrophilia are not particularly unnatural or even uncommon out in nature, so it's going to be harder to use the term "crimes against nature" to define daintily sexual acts between people that your legislature does not like unless your legislature wants to get in thee and actually use words that mean something.

otherwise, i am going to suggest very strongly that we hold those words to their meanings, i.e., crimes against nature. which as far as i'm concerned, is stuff that careless or mailicious people do against the natural world.

at any rate, it ought to make for interesting hearings.

1 comment:

Zhoen said...

Love it, literalism is a harsh mistress.


Related Posts with Thumbnails