[DHK-eh]

-Firstly, I'm open minded, and I think any sexual disire may be beyond the persons control, and do not think it is wrong to WANT to have sex with an animal; I wouldn't, but someone may.

-Many people are pointing out as long as it isn't harmful it can be ok; while I agree that it certainly couldn't be right if it is harmful, there is a differnce between directly, physicly damageing, and un-willing. (I know the mind of a person and a dog are not the same, its does not completely invalidate this comparison) If you tie up a girl and have sex with her without directly hurting her, it's still rape if she isn't willing.

-This is actually my main point, how do we define "willing". Obviously an animal can not simply say "yes" or "no" as a human can. It is here that I would invoke the 'better safe then sorry' principle. Basicly, unless the animal directly and without provocation, initiates the act, I don't think it can be considered willing. I'd like to reiterate the WITH OUT PROVOCATION part. This includes using things such as peanut butter to entice the animal, or some kind of drug given to the animal. (I'd like to mention that coating the penis in honey has been used by pedophiles many times before.)

-Now I can see how this definition of "willing" may not be liked very much by those wishing to preform this act, because it basicly means a guy can't penetrate the animal and a girl can't get anything short of the dog jumping her. But I feel these are necessary restraints because it isn't worth rapeing an unwilling creature, human or otherwise, and in the absence of a verbal communication link; play it safe... because it isn't just you involved.