Spanking Nicholas Wade »« Life goes on

The gay marriage probably forced him to do it

File this one under Baptist Ministers Reinforcing Stereotypes. Or maybe Bad Religious Jokes.

The president and CEO of a Missouri Baptist conference center is out of a job after a sheriff’s Cyber Crimes Task Force arrested him for allegedly arranging to have sex with a dog after posting an ad on Craigslist .

Jerald “Jerry” Hill, 56, of Camden County was arrested on Aug. 5th after setting up a meeting with an undercover officer for the purpose of having sex with a dog, according to the Columbia Daily Tribune.

They predicted gay marriage would lead to man-dog sex, but did he really have to personally work to fulfill prophecy?

Comments

  1. redwood says

    Oh, yes, Camden Country is right next to where I grew up in Laclede County. When my high school classmates made comments about “porking pigs” I was never quite sure if they were really joking. All in all, it’s a great place to be from.

  2. Ichthyic says

    wait… so there are people on craigslist that advertise they have a dog available for sex?

    there are… dog pimps?

    *fucking BIG shudder*

  3. Ichthyic says

    …the idea that there are animal pimps out there brings whole new meaning to the phrase, “petting zoo”.

  4. mykroft says

    As president and CEO of a Baptist conference center, he is not necessarily a Baptist minister himself.

    As far as trying to solicit sex with a dog on Craigslist, that guy is one sick puppy.

  5. lindsay says

    He solicited sex with a dog on Craigslist. He solicited sex with a dog on Craigslist. There is no possible way that could have ever turned out the way he wanted it to.

  6. lorn says

    Any clue as to whether Jerald “Jerry” Hill, 56, of Camden County was going to be pitching or catching?

  7. lorn says

    I’m interests because figuring out, categorizing, and documenting the lists of what goes on in right-wing, feverishly homophobic minds is something of a hobby. I’m thinking what is needed is for someone to come out with trading cards. You know, the nice heavy-stock laminated ones with a nice picture and title on one side, and all the gory details on the other. To do it right you need details. There is a lot of difference in the mindset of men who are top, bottom, or both, and yes, the sex of the animal counts toward the level of perversity, humiliation, and cruelty involved.

    This video mix of Roy Zimmerman is fun and informative. The list after 3:20 on the first clip is a good start for that trading card collection, and I think Jerald “Jerry” Hill, 56, of Camden County has earned his own bit of laminated immortality in that deck:

  8. says

    You know.. Aside from the whole, “If the dog doesn’t like it, it can rip your throat out, so.. I don’t quite get the ‘they can’t consent’ argument.”, issues I have always had with the illegality of it (the gross factor is purely a human conceit, in some respects, I think, since dogs have been known to hump other animals (and the other animals haven’t exactly protested), and been caught on film doing so..), the one thing I want to know is:

    How the heck did this guy figure he was less likely to get caught at it by soliciting a dog-pimp for it, than just finding one at the pound, or something, and figuring out how to do it himself?

  9. says

    @blf #7: You’re assuming the gender of the dog, right?

    I recall hearing a second-hand story of a radio interview (I want to say by Jon Ronson, but I’ve got nothing to confirm), talking with a guy who was in a sexual relationship with his horse. Throughout the interview the guy was hammering how natural and beautiful the relationship was. Right at the end, as it was wrapping up, it occurred to the interviewer to ask: “Oh, is it a girl horse or a boy horse?”

    Just before they threw to commercial, the guy rose up in righteous fury and shouted back “I am NOT a HOMOSEXUAL!

  10. sugarfrosted says

    @15 The consent argument against bestiality always seemed to be special pleading to me. A cow can’t really make informed consent for being butchered and eaten, so why does consent suddenly apply here?

    (Note, I’m endorsing bestiality nor disendorsing, if that’s the word, eating meat.)

  11. Rick Pikul says

    @17: Yes, the consent line of argument against bestiality does require that one argue for two claims:

    That animals can’t consent to having sex.
    That the issue of consent is even relevant.

    IME, you’re lucky if you find someone who is actually going to go beyond assuming the first is true. I almost never encounter people who even acknowledge that the second is even part of the issue.

  12. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    The consent argument against bestiality always seemed to be special pleading to me. A cow can’t really make informed consent for being butchered and eaten, so why does consent suddenly apply here?

    It is special pleading. The need for informed consent with humans is founded on a general human right to bodily autonomy (which all humans, including children, are ethically considered to have, with very narrow exceptions where the intersection of their decision-making capabilities and their survival or well-being are concerned), which animals are asserted to have in no other situation (,no, not even the PETAphiles with their “no-kill” shelters) except the one specific situation that people happen to think is ICKY ICKY ICKY.

    The most coherent argument I’ve heard in this respect is that there are enough people who need to be convinced that you shouldn’t try to fuck a human who can’t give informed consent, that presenting a monolithically united front on “SEX NEEDS INFORMED CONSENT” is more important than achieving logical consistency on whether animals have a right of bodily autonomy.

  13. azhael says

    The way i see it there is a significant difference between raping an animal and butchering it for meat. The first one causes suffering and potentially, bodily harm to a conscious animal, whereas the second, if performed adequately causes no pain or suffering. To me that’s significant.
    Also, an animal can consent to a certain degree. Obviously it can’t say it with words but just like interspecific sex happens in nature where two individuals engage in sexual behaviours as they would with others of their species (and this can include courtship, presentation, etc), that can happen between a human and some other species. That seems to me to be consensual…I’m not necessarily defending it and personally have zero interest in it…but i can see how an animal can consent to having sex with an individual of another species to the same degree that it can consent to having sex with one of its own. Provided its a species in which sex isn’t forced, obviously…

  14. azhael says

    @14 lorn

    There is a lot of difference in the mindset of men who are top, bottom, or both, and yes, the sex of the animal counts toward the level of perversity, humiliation, and cruelty involved.

    Care to elaborate or clarify? Because as stated, there is a fucktone wrong with that sentence.

  15. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    Lorn @ #14

    There is a lot of difference in the mindset of men who are top, bottom, or both, and yes, the sex of the animal counts toward the level of perversity, humiliation, and cruelty involved.

    ‘The Fuck? You’re assuming that someone who wants to engage in beastiality is necessarily a gay man? Or you’re reducing the sex that gay men have right down to penis in ass (which is by far the minority of the sex that gay men have) in the exact same way that homophobes do. And you’re suggesting that there’s substantial differences in the mindset of men based on how they have sex sometimes? Nuance is a fucking thing and I can’t believe I’m even writing this, but a man who is a bottom won’t always fit into some simple category like ‘submissive partner’. Fucking fuckitty fuck. FUCK! UGH!

    Don’t elaborate or clarify as azhael has asked. DON’T! ‘Fucking homophobe. You think about that. But don’t fucking tell us here where thinking about that gets you, apologise instead!

    FUCK!

  16. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    Daz, can we not engage in that line of questioning? While I know I can’t enforce my outrage with lorn on everyone else, I really, really don’t want to give opportunities for an homophobe to expand on their ideas of perversion as though bestiality can in any way be an homosexual act, rather than you know, bestiality.

  17. smrnda says

    On consent, I do think that it’s more a unified front on consent and sex. We do not typically consider animals capable of giving consent on very much, but the ‘no sex with animals’ may be tied to notions of what is going too far in terms of mistreatment or use of an animal. Even dedicated carnivores would probably prefer an animal be killed quickly and painlessly, rather than made to suffer, and though we do consider animals to be property legally, a person cannot do anything they want to an animal they own without consequences owing to animal cruelty laws.

  18. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    Thanks. I couldn’t leave it ambiguous. I had assumed it was rhetorical sarcasm, but it wasn’t for my benefit that I brought it up.

    (And ‘Thomathy’ is enough, the rest is just for fun. I’ll assume you don’t mind just ‘Daz’, ’cause I’d screw that up without copy and paste and, honestly, I’m that lazy.)

  19. lorn says

    Bestiality is a fact of the human behavior through time. I say that without any outrage or judgment. Looking over the landscape of human sexuality there is a seemingly infinite range of diversity in expression.

    There is very definitely a difference in MINDSET of people who willingly engage in various acts and relative perversity is definitely a value judgment within that person’s mind. Some specifically chose acts specifically because they wish to explore the depths of their own perversity (an internal judgment), and/or to shock others.

    If you don’t believe external acts indicate an internal difference in mindset? Tell you what … write a detailed explanation, something along the lies of two hundred words should do it, explaining how there is absolutely no difference in mindset between a man who chooses one act over another or a male animal over a female. And, by the way, I used the term man simply because the person referenced, Jerald Hill (remember when this was all about a homophobic church man who got his kink on) is, apparently, but subject to revision by self-definition, male.

    As for the accusation that:

    “You’re assuming that someone who wants to engage in beastiality is necessarily a gay man? Or you’re reducing the sex that gay men have right down to penis in ass (which is by far the minority of the sex that gay men have)” …

    You are making highly offensive assumptions and accusations about what I think and assume. I didn’t say that and I didn’t imply that.

    I said: “There is a lot of difference in the mindset of men who are top, bottom, or both, and yes, the sex of the animal counts toward the level of perversity, humiliation, and cruelty involved. ”

    I didn’t judge. Nor did I say, or even imply, anything about gay or straight. Funny how you assume anal sex on a male is automatically judged as a homosexual act, when violence, expression of dominance, or an attempt to cause or express outrage (all outside any homosexual orientation) are also possible interpretations. All of those categories are judgments best made by the person about themselves and their own behavior.

    The one bringing homophobia into this is you. Jerk.

  20. says

    lorn:

    “There is a lot of difference in the mindset of men who are top, bottom, or both, and yes, the sex of the animal counts toward the level of perversity, humiliation, and cruelty involved. ”

    By discussing this in terms of men who are tops, bottoms, or both, you are framing this as the actions of a homosexual. Which is the same thing right wingers to when talking about bestiality.
    None of your terms apply to heterosexual men.

    Funny how you assume anal sex on a male is automatically judged as a homosexual act, when violence, expression of dominance, or an attempt to cause or express outrage (all outside any homosexual orientation) are also possible interpretations. All of those categories are judgments best made by the person about themselves and their own behavior.

    Top, bottom, or both are terms used to describe homosexual men. I’ve never heard those terms used to describe heterosexual men. It would take a great effort to not draw certain conclusions that speak ill of you. However, I think (or perhaps, hope) that this was unintentional on your part.

    Whether you intended it or not, this treats bestiality as synonymous with homosexuality. This is a problem in a society that already treats homosexuality as synonymous with bestiality. Now you’ve had a gay man tell you how offensive it was to do that, and you’ve chided him. You have another gay man (me) telling you* that it is indeed homophobic-whether you intended it or not-because it trades on the very homophobic memes of the right wingers you were talking about in the first place. Please don’t double down or dig any further. Acknowledge that you unintentionally furthered a homophobic meme and apologize. Remember, intent is not magic.

    The one bringing homophobia into this is you. Jerk

    Nothing Thomathy said introduced homophobia. You did that on your own.

    *and I’m sorry to say it took until reading Thomathy’s comment to see the homophobic nature of your comment

  21. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Okay, I just got here, and I’m with a lot of people I suspect in reacting with outrage to lorn’s

    the sex of the animal counts toward the level of perversity, humiliation, and cruelty

    Fuck that noise. I just can’t see a reasonable interpretation of that statement that is other than heterosexist as hell.

    But Tony!, your

    By discussing this in terms of men who are tops, bottoms, or both, you are framing this as the actions of a homosexual. Which is the same thing right wingers to when talking about bestiality.
    None of your terms apply to heterosexual men.

    is just wrong. While the right wing may try to make these terms unique to queers and specially applicable to queer men, I know straight guy tops, straight guy bottoms, straight guy switches.

    lorn deserves hell for certain statements. Don’t give him the out of making it seem like your criticism is depending on straight people being naively unaware of power exchange in sex.

  22. says

    The way i see it there is a significant difference between raping an animal and butchering it for meat. The first one causes suffering and potentially, bodily harm to a conscious animal, whereas the second, if performed adequately causes no pain or suffering. To me that’s significant.

    This “difference” depends a great deal on a) the size of the animal, and b) the nature of the act. I have seen some hard to get videos of dog with woman sex, which is the most common, since its generally easier to get, apparently, in which its pretty hard to argue that there wasn’t consent, or that the animal wasn’t the one initiating it. I have also seen others, in the same category, which are a bit iffier, due to a combination of the woman not wanting to get “knotted” (this is due to dogs developing a bulge in the penis, which keeps it from coming out easily, until things deflate a bit, and someone helping guide the process, and keep the penis from going all the way in.

    The ones with horses.. are just stupid imho. There is no practical way to actually do it properly, at least for women, and the only way to avoid accidents, as far as I can tell (and thus possible injuries, or death, for the human), is to tie up the horse so it can’t move much, if at all, while its happening. It only gets stupider, imho, if its a guy trying to get it on with an annoyed female horse…

    Generally though, it seems women have an easier time indulging in this, or maybe are just more willing to be the ones photographed or filmed doing it, than men, for some reason, based on things I have come across now and then. Or, could be there just isn’t as much of a market (black or otherwise) for the latter, or something?

  23. says

    Crip Dyke:

    While the right wing may try to make these terms unique to queers and specially applicable to queer men, I know straight guy tops, straight guy bottoms, straight guy switches.

    Sorry. I spoke out of ignorance.
    Would it be more accurate to say those terms are most often applied to gay men?

  24. Rick Pikul says

    @32: The porn videos are mostly male animal on human female for reasons of the market. The filmmakers are aiming largely for men who want to see women who are willing to ‘degrade themselves’ to the point of doing it with a beast.

    For non-porn activities I can’t be sure as to what the gender splits are: Many of the people who engage in it keep it largely secret for understandable reasons, even if they are in jurisdictions where it is probably legal. Personally, I’ve mostly come across guys with a mix of animal gender preferences but that is heavily biased due to where it was, (early-mid 1990s Usenet).

  25. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Also, an animal can consent to a certain degree. Obviously it can’t say it with words but just like interspecific sex happens in nature where two individuals engage in sexual behaviours as they would with others of their species (and this can include courtship, presentation, etc), that can happen between a human and some other species. That seems to me to be consensual…I’m not necessarily defending it and personally have zero interest in it…but i can see how an animal can consent to having sex with an individual of another species to the same degree that it can consent to having sex with one of its own.

    The argument (often implicit) is that due to the cognitive differences between humans and animals, this does not represent satisfactorily informed consent, usually by analogy to, say, a 12 year old who claims to be amenable to having sex with an adult (but is incapable of informed consent due to not having the relevant level emotional and cognitive development).

    I’m not really sure I want to juxtapose an extended in-principle critique of this analogy and elucidation of the underlying assumptions in the two cases, with the very real issues of homophobia being confronted in this thread and the trigger potential of abstract discussions of child abuse, though…. :/

  26. says

    The argument (often implicit) is that due to the cognitive differences between humans and animals, this does not represent satisfactorily informed consent, usually by analogy to, say, a 12 year old who claims to be amenable to having sex with an adult (but is incapable of informed consent due to not having the relevant level emotional and cognitive development).

    Which, by logical extension, should mean that they can’t consent with each other either. Talk about anthropomorphizing something… The consideration of consent should be based on the level of cognition of the animal, not which one of those animals is smarter than the other. Pretty much, by definition, if a dog is insufficiently capable of making human level choices about risks, then the only criteria they can make consent under, regardless of what it is they engage with, is their own level. To imply otherwise is purely a means to do an end run around whether or not the “human” was the one engaging (and, yeah, with dogs are least, it can be “purely” a matter of convenience, not fact).

    But, yeah. Its hardly a surprise that people who can’t grasp consent issues between adult males would “leap” to the conclusion that it would lead to sex with animals. These are people that, in earlier decades, would claiming that listening to the wrong combination of drums and guitar playing, of the level of stuff that made old world opera’s sound like heavy metal music, would be the downfall of civilization. Not, in other words, rational people.

Leave a Reply