Stephanie Mikles is a trailblazer.
Sure, in past eras far less enlightened and tolerant as this current gilded age, Mikles might be considered a menace to society—a creep even. But we know better now. We know people just can’t control their urges, and to demand otherwise is a Neanderthal concept right out of the stone (tablet) age.
Surely Mikles was born with something that compels her to act out in ways some segments of our society still clinging to their guns and religion condemn. But what Mikles doesn’t need is judgment. Mikles needs tolerance.
Mikles, a former behavioral specialist for the Hartford County Schools, has been indicted for “unnatural or perverted sexual practice.”
What did Mikles do that is unnatural and perverted?
The indictment says Mikles had “sexual intercourse with a dog.”
But I say Mikles isn’t a criminal. She’s just ahead of her time. For a year the grand jury investigated Mikles. What a waste of money. Whose business is it what she does in the privacy of her own bedroom? Didn’t we learn from Clinton-Lewinsky that spending the taxpayers’ money on investigating someone’s private sexual behavior is a waste?
Besides, by whose standard can a society determine what is “unnatural or perverted sexual practice” in the first place? That sounds like a Christo-fascist statement to me. That sounds like an authoritarian statement to me. That sounds to me like someone trying to impose their standards on everyone else. And don’t bring religion into this, either, because my god wouldn’t punish someone who simply wants to love lesser evolved beings as they would any other fellow homosapien.
It doesn’t matter if you find Mikles having sex with a dog “icky” or “gross.” That’s just your interpretation. You were probably one of those troglodytes against inter-racial dating back in the day, too!
If you claim Mikles is a criminal because the dog is a victim here since it can’t consent to sexual activity then you’re a bigot. According to PETA, rights are to be conferred not on the basis of whether or not a being can reason or talk, but on the basis of whether or not an animal “can suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do.” Since dogs can suffer in the same way as humans do, we have no right to deny them their right to sexual intimacy with another consenting creature.