Did you see the story about the Sudanese man who was caught having sex with a goat? The council of elders forced him to marry the goat as his punishment. Apparently, man and goat are living happily ever after, except for the goat, who is still getting cornholed by a crazy Sudanese guy, but now he has to wash dishes with his hooves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4740000/newsid_4748200/4748292.stm
In related news, Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband claims he had an affair with the goat too.
Having a goat wife might come in handy. You could carry a Dixie Cup with you, folded up in your pocket, and any time you got thirsty, you could just reach over and yank a nice warm cup of goat milk. That might not sound delicious to you, but in Sudan, warm goat milk is a delicacy, second only to humping the goat. Unless it's a boy goat, in which case it's considered a close third.
I wonder what the perp's defense was. I think I would have claimed I was performing an experiment in churning goat butter without using a churn. I would probably say something about Galileo being persecuted for his genius too. Or maybe I would try to make the council of elders laugh by saying, "The goat looked horny. Get it? He has horns!"
Anyway, this story raises many interesting issues about property rights. The owner obviously felt wronged when he saw his neighbor going all Lego on his goat. Why?
Evidently it wasn't a bestiality issue, since the council of elders forced the perpetrator to marry the goat. And it wasn't concern for the goat's wellbeing, since marrying a goat-humper isn't a step in the right direction. So what was the problem?
Was the owner planning to butcher the goat, and didn't want his goatburgers to have any special sauce?
Was the owner mad because he was saving the goat for himself?
There was no damage to the goat, unless you count some stretching. Having sex with your neighbor's goat is a lot like violating a copyright. It's totally victimless, right?
Go.
Someone stole your blog.
http://www.zug.com/gab/index.cgi?func=view_thread&thread_id=75151
Posted by: That one guy | July 31, 2007 at 07:16 AM
Victimless? Have you asked the GOAT if it felt victimized? I would guess that it did.
And force a goat to marry a human? Are there ANY laws against torturing animals?
I think I'd prefer to marry a goat before I married a man who did things like that to an animal.
Posted by: Sophia Thore | July 25, 2007 at 04:44 AM
Hi!!! Excellent resource you've got here!!! Will definately be back!!!
Posted by: Michelle | July 01, 2007 at 01:54 AM
The goat is dead
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6619983.stm
She was called Rose. She apparently suffocated on a plastic bag. It is not stated whether or not this was part of an erotic auto-suffocation ritual.
Posted by: Richard Gosling | May 04, 2007 at 01:46 AM
Well, I hope you are all happy.
The goat is dead now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6619983.stm
I hope you are all happy, driving the poor dear to suicide.
Shame on you all
Posted by: Paul | May 04, 2007 at 12:28 AM
"Having sex with your neighbor's goat is a lot like violating a copyright."
I think I get it. You're trying to piss people off so that they'll have no respect for your copyrights, so that they'll 'pirate' your stuff, thereby making you even more popular than you already are. Sheer diabolical genius.
Posted by: Wolfger | April 25, 2007 at 04:55 PM
Ok, way too many animal humping blog themes. Same comment as before - most sexually transmitted diseases can be traced back to lame guys who thought there would be no harm in nailing a poor animal. Maybe the council's idea of making the guy marry the goat was to ensure that he didn't eventually marry or have relations with a woman and spread goat-diseases to the population. While some women will help a guy cheat on a wife he claims doesn't under stand him, I'm guessing even desperate women will think twice about helping a guy cheat on his goat.
Posted by: Diana W | April 23, 2007 at 01:20 PM
[i]Going all Lego? I'm confused by the reference too. The closest I can get to "goat" from Lego is the root, Leg Godt, or "play well" in Dutch.[/i]
Dutch? I'm Dutch and "leg godt" isn't.
Maybe you mean Danish?
Posted by: RML | April 23, 2007 at 01:28 AM
I think I get it!
I mean, the 'going all LEGO...' thing. Here it is, Barney style: LEGO pieces stick together when pressed into contact with each other. So the guy and his goat were stuck together like LEGO blocks when he had um... relations with it. So, do I win anything?
Btw, I stumbled on your blog today and enjoyed it very much. Some people don't seem to get it though. The part about making silly comments and inviting people to get all serious about them. Sometimes it's fun to watch people freak. It seems like some participants are wound like springs, just waiting to release their tension. This is kinda like dragging a stick along a fence to activate the guard dog's barking mechanism.
As if posting, "Go" weren't enough to tip them off.
But I get it (I hope... otherwise I might be one of "them"!) and I appreciate the humor in it.
This is a place where Mr. Adams can be funny in ways that would be unacceptable in the cartoon strip, because it's not on everyone's kitchen table with the coffee and cereal.
Many of the replies are funny too. Not just the people who had their buttons pushed, but the people that have a sense of humor. I mean, it was written by a humorist, no?
Thanks for a very entertaining blog. Another reason not to get out more!
Anyway, I hope that someone will comment on my analysis of the LEGO analogy. I hope I'm right. And really, who doesn't need a little affirmation now and then.
Posted by: iGetTheJoke | April 22, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Nowhere do you mention that the violator was or was not wearing protection... and by protection I mean steel underpants, those ravaged goats have a murderous kick.
Posted by: TrevOverT | April 22, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Scott, you are a control freak, this is a serious problem. Let go of it, just a bit. You just can not control what people do with your work. You need to learn this. Otherwise you will end up living in a ditch shouting "THEY STOLE MY WORK!" at people passing by.
Posted by: Tony | April 22, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Lego on his goat?
Posted by: Sondra | April 21, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Did you mean "going all Lincoln Log" on the goat?
Otherwise, I'm curious about the reference.
And...Is it just men, or are there some Catherine the Greats out there? If you're going to give the bestiality report I'd like to see equal time.
(maybe it's just the women are less exhibitionist about it. I did have a friend that - in private - liked to let the dog lick her where dogs always try to lick.
Ick.)
....D. Mented
Posted by: D. Mented | April 21, 2007 at 04:18 PM
Okay, I have to say it.
It's "bestiality", not "beastiality" or whatever bizarre spellings people are inventing. Apologies if your first language isn't English, extra lashes if it is!
I've heard of putting lipstick on a pig, but I always assumed it wasn't literal...
Posted by: Leora | April 20, 2007 at 07:52 PM
But scooooott, the goat is a living thing. Sure, it will eat anything and shits wherever it wants, but it is a living thing. Plus, there were no carbon copies of that goat. Stealing that goat made the man have one less. Plus, now the screwer can sell the goat milk and the owner can't, being that you can't make carbon copies of goats. I mean. That goat was one of a kind, it was special, and screwing it was like screwing the owner.
Except...he probably wouldn't have to marry the owner.
Posted by: mcgurker | April 20, 2007 at 06:52 PM
The problem is that Sudan is a patriarchical society, especially so in the more rural regions. If you want to have sex with a woman, you have to ask her father first. And you need to make a marriage contract and have it properly witnessed before being allowed to "enjoy the (women's) private parts" (or, apparently, the goat's private parts).
If you can get away with humping your neighbor's goat without a proper contract, it's a slippery slope that quickly leads to getting away with enjoying your neighbor's daughter's private parts without a proper contract, and we can't have that, can we? So one short sharp shock later the goat-humper finds himself married to a hooved animal.
If he's lucky he's living in a region where the so-called "Triple Talaq" can be used (it is a somewhat controversial procedure, and some Islamic nations have outlawed it). If the goat becomes an inconvenience at any time, he just says "talaq, talaq, talaq" ("I divorce you", three times) and the goat is left to fend for its own again (although it retains the use of its dowry).
Apparently some modern muslims find this too cumbersome; if you're an Islamic wife and receive a text message on your phone with these words, you may just have been divorced.
The Triple Talaq is also legal in India, so if you outsource policymaking to India, Americans will likely soon enjoy quick divorces that don't involve a trip to Reno, Nevada.
Posted by: mendel | April 20, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Scott,
You wrote about how your original book was downloaded a million times. I admit I was one of them. Of the million, let's optimistically say 600,000 people actually read it. I for one did, but no offense, I never would have bought it. Hence, I didn't read your sequel. To me, the 1000 copies sold of the sequel means that 599,000 people shared my opinion. I believe the marketing strategy was genius. I just didn't think the book was. I think that could be said about most of the copyright violations you're complaining about. If I download a song for personal use (illegally of course), I never would of purchased that song to begin with. Most music today is so mediocre at best. I think that these artist mistakenly assume that every stolen copy of their art, would have been purchased. Where I agree with you is that when the stolen art is used to turn a profit. That is why I applaud you for allowing personal use of your comic strips.
Posted by: Charles Teasley | April 20, 2007 at 09:20 AM
Zsa Zsa Gabors Husband! Now I get it!
Posted by: LA Clay | April 20, 2007 at 06:55 AM
A goat can hardly be considered 'intellectual property'. Unless you can learn it not to shit on the carpet.
Posted by: E. van As | April 20, 2007 at 06:17 AM
First you talk about the dear in the ditch, now the sheep of the nehbor, give the humping animal stories a rest, we know you want to get giggy but don't tell us your fantisies, we are all skared for life.
Posted by: Joe | April 20, 2007 at 06:00 AM
Again, the new husband wasn't violating the owner's rights, just his goat.
Posted by: Don G | April 20, 2007 at 05:52 AM
Do you work at my job somewhere and we haven't met yet?
Posted by: Edward Garbowski | April 20, 2007 at 05:27 AM
Let me be the first to say:
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
EWWW,
EWWW,
EWWW,
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
Funny, but EWWWWWWWWW!!!
Posted by: Shawn | April 20, 2007 at 05:21 AM
Going all Lego? I'm confused by the reference too. The closest I can get to "goat" from Lego is the root, Leg Godt, or "play well" in Dutch. Nothing about Sudan, goats or sex.
Otherwise, keep up the good blogs... I look forward to 'em everyday.
Posted by: Lego_90 | April 20, 2007 at 05:18 AM
Well, having sex with a goat is bizarre behavior certainly, and probably indicative of a mental illness, but I don't see anyone getting hurt here. PETA nuts may have a different opinion, however.
Posted by: Amethyst | April 20, 2007 at 05:01 AM