I think the mindset of the 60's was way different. Today nobody blinks twice when a horse needs to be manually gotten-off to ship off the semen to other parts of the word.
But being an agriculture practice, goal-oriented... most people leave it at weird and move on.
Here, there's more eccentricity. LSD, interspecies communication, alien languages, animal personhood.... It doesn't take many leaps to get to "drug fueled bestiality."
I'm more intrigued by the moral code that finds sexually stimulating an animal on its request morally wrong, but force-feeding them LSD a-okay.
That's perhaps a city thing. In farms people did similar things (to cows etc) all the time as part of routine job.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/reprod/semenev...
So yes, that is where the milk comes from.
That's a bold statement. I don't even know where to begin, there are so many levels here. Like, why would you even make such a claim? I mean I'm not against the claim per se, but it does not seem like you have any evidence, or that you even looked for it. Seems to come right out of some human moral position instead, one that is not rooted in nature, given how many "weird" sex stories and video documentation we can find easily these days about all kinds of animals. Like dogs humping pillows, chimpanzee "using" a frog, quite a few stories about dolphins, etc.
Back to the human/dolphin story here, there also is a pretty well-known (or at least well-published) "man had sex with female dolphin" story, example article: https://www.unilad.co.uk/animals/guy-who-had-sex-with-a-dolp...
If there was a case where a horse was infatuated with the person doing the deed and the person was doing it for the sole purpose of the horses enjoyment then that'd be just as weird.
Clearly the weirdness is rooted in human morality. I don't think it's unusual to judge the behaviours of humans differently to animals. Otherwise it'd be acceptable to fight to the death over "access" to females; sexual consent would be a very loose concept and defecation on street corners would be acceptable.
Whereas with the dolphin example, the point was for the dolphin to enjoy it. There was no "morally purer" point.
>I'm saying that intent informs morality. eg: Murder and Man Slaughter.
The shocking thing is the way that Lilly started with the assumption that dolphins were sentient and worth communicating with, and ended with "It's just a dumb animal, so why should we care how it feels?"
The turning point seems to have been the observation that it didn't start turning cartwheels - metaphorically or otherwise - when dosed up on acid.
Basically he dismissed it when it didn't turn into an acid freak - ignoring the fact that it was demonstrating curiosity, the ability to relate and form attachments, and many human-like elements of language.
All of which were far more convincing as evidence of real sentience, and more worthy of research, than the fact that it failed to trip balls on cue.
You mean from your (current) moral standpoint. "Moral" is not exactly something fixed, it is varies greatly depending on both space and time.