An Australian man was recently jailed after he broke into a set of stables and sexually assaulted a horse. The horse’s trainer described the creature as “traumatised” after its experiences and the man was charged and found guilty of animal cruelty.
“She is only a little two-year-old and we had to put her out in the paddock,” the trainer said.
“The filly went from being quiet to just being highly strung, she changed in 24 hours. We had to put her in the paddock to try and get her head right.
“You don’t want to see this sort of thing happening, it’s really sick stuff.”
The man was arrested after the trainer noticed an alarm had been triggered in the stables, and he saw someone opening the doors to the paddocks late at night. He called the police but investigated on his own anyway and found a man crouching in a dark corner, completely nude.
The trainer called the police and after a short fight with the man they managed to subdue and arrest him. He later admitted that he had performed two sex acts on the horse, allowing it to fellate him and digitally penetrating the animal, and has been subsequently found guilty and sentenced to jail.
However, the man argued that he wasn’t guilty of animal cruelty at all. According to his statement the horse sniffed his crotch and winked at him, and he believes this qualified as consent and should therefor exempt him from any cruelty charges.
It’s not easy for me to put myself into the mind of a man who fingered a horse, so I can’t possibly explain why he thought this was a good excuse for his behaviour. But clearly he believes it wasn’t cruelty because the horse gave the encounter its seal of approval. I don’t think it works like that, but I have to wonder if he genuinely believes this madness or if it’s just a last-ditch effort to try and do some damage control.
Either way, I’m not sure it matters. The man has been jailed for ten months, without parole for the first four, and fined $700. In her ruling the magistrate stated that the acts he performed clearly amounted to cruelty given that they were not done in the interest of the animal’s welfare.