Moo Means No

I was perusing the Indianapolis Star yesterday when I came across this article.

At first, I was disgusted. Then, I was intrigued.

I grew up in Indiana. I've heard rumors about what lonesome farm boys do out behind the haycock when they think no one's looking. I've actually heard whispers that someone knew someone who knew someone who did these acts. My cousin even witnessed a guy taking indecent liberties with a tractor tire once. However, there's a usual list of suspects that come up when talking about such agrarian indecencies. Usually, these are the ever-popular sheep, goats, horses (see Catherine the Great), cows, llamas, pigs, dogs...but never, ever have I ever EVER heard about chickens.

One wonders if this is a banner day for the Chick-Fil'a cows. Do you think they are holding signs that say "Molesst mor chikun"? You wonder if this particular hen had a nice set of legs and large breasts. I could always go for the classic "time to take out your cock and poulet" joke. Or pretty much any cock joke. But I think three is enough.

Now, I know northwestern Indiana has a lot of chicken farms. And when I say a lot, I mean, a lot. Around Rensselaer, where St. Joe is located (my undergrad), there were a couple, and then you saw several huge barns on the way north to Merrilville from St. Joe (we would always go to Merrilville because, well, Rensselaer isn't exactly the swingingest town on the face of God's green earth). But, you'd think with all the worries of avian flu that the more traditional targets of bestial lust would come to mind first, especially if it was a cold night. Wool is a better insulator than feathers (I'm pretty sure...).

But then, I began to wonder: Indiana doesn't have bestiality laws already? And, do we really need these laws? First, the lack of a bestiality law confuses me. There's laws prohibiting oral and anal sex in Indiana (sodomy laws), so I would naturally believe that there is a law somewhere on the books against sexing chickens. Or any animal. Let's not discriminate.

The second question is a bit more serious, as the end of the article points out. It's important to protect the animals, especially in cases where the family pet becomes the target for some asshat who doesn't like the way you cut your lawn. Or worse, when you threaten your child's pet because you're afraid that she's going to rat you out for beating her. So, in those cases, I completely understand.

I don't like to see government meddling in the everyday life of your common man. However, in this case, I'm hoping that it gets a unanimous pass. Let's get this one on the books and move to more important things. Honestly, this should have been a blip on the radar.

One other thing, though. I was struck by the end of the article, where they were talking about the abuse case and the threat against the puppy. They were quick to point out that, after the abuse was reported, the puppy was moved to another house for safekeeping. However, there were no assurances for the girl. I realize that sometimes you need to cut articles for space, but you'd think they could have left in or inserted a line to let us know that the girl was okay, too.