Talk:Buggery

Untitled comments

I just redirect this to 'anal sex', its only common meaning. It has occasionally been used otherwise, though. The way, the truth, and the light 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When I followed a link to this redirect and thus to "Anal Sex," I was quite surprised. The section on Sodomy#Buggery is much more fitting, except that redirects can't point to anchors. I'm going to turn this into a stub copied from Sodomy#Buggery - I'm sure there's more to say about the law, and even if there isn't, the stub will be much less confusing than the other two forms. --Brilliand 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sound good, include links to both 'Sodomy' and 'Anal sex'. The way, the truth, and the light 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked my mind upon further research - there is already an article about the Buggery Act. I've made this a disambiguation page. --Brilliand 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike that, man I change my mind fast. I think the stub is better (mainly due to the large volume of internal links), but I don't see my way to including anal sex. It seems the term only fits as a form of sodomy. --Brilliand 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what country you are from, but in the UK this term almost always means anal sex. In the US it's hardly used at all. So I think not including anal sex is not accurate (that's why I changed the redirect in the first place). The way, the truth, and the light 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is used occasionally in the USA, but always in a jocular sense. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what improvement this stub is over the section Sodomy#Buggery. How do you envisage it growing into a larger article? Also, redirecting to subsections does now work; see m:Help:Section linking and redirects, itself an example. jnestorius^(talk) 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under English law, buggery was two different offences - anal sex and sex with animals. The former has now been (largely) repealed, but sex with animals is still the offence of buggery. I will include an edit in the main article to this effect. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anal sex is not considered a crime under English law, since homosexuality was legalised. Shouldn't this article make it clear that buggery is a crime when consent is not given by the other individual or the other individual is a child or animal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.69.189 (talk) 00:41, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

In England the position was modified by statute (Criminal Justice Act 1994); this article is about the common law offence. Under the common law, consent was always irrelevant. In the UK anal sex without consent would today be prosecuted as rape, not buggery, so I don't think a change along those lines would be helpful. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm being enormously pedantic, but I was just reading the relevant acts up to 2000, and it seems that "buggery other than in private", which includes acts involving more than two people or in a public lavatory, is still a criminal offense. Also, surely anal sex with an animal must be included? Rafaelgr (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence which adds a step in the process of which buggery was decriminalized in Britain in 1967. The sentence is about Sir John Wolfenden and the report he made which states that the government can no longer interfere with personal relationships which happen in private. -Krista Frost — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristaFrost (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Anal sex with animals

According to the definition of buggery in the article a human having anal intercourse with an animal is not buggery.

The article currently states

Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either:

1. anal intercourse by a man with a man or woman, or
2. vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

according to these definitions

if a man puts his penis in the anus of an animal - this is not buggery as described above

if a woman has the penis of an animal in her anus, - this is not buggery as described above

Is the article correct, is anal sex with animals buggery? I would have presumed anal sex sex with animals would have been buggery, is it or not?

Carlwev (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and sodomy

How can 'bugger' not be used in a sexual sense until 1555 if the buggery act was created in 1533? Something's wrong there. Also, I had always thought that buggery was anal rape and that sodomy was consentual (despite the fact that rape presumably did occur in sodom). Can someone explain the difference, if there is one as the first sentence implies? Will Bradshaw (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

decriminalized in 1996 in the UK

The article mentions this but presumably it was also completely legalized when the more recent Sex Acts were introduced. It is no longer 'decriminalized' but 'legalized' (obviously not the same thing just as decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing marijuana are not the same thing).--Xania ^talk 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Here are the relevant sections of the Offences against the Person Act 1861:

• Unnatural offences
  • 61 [Sodomy and Bestiality.] Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable Crime of Buggery, committed either with Mankind or with any Animal, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Ten Years.
  • 62. [Attempt to commit an infamous Crime.] Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable Crime, or shall be guilty of any Assault with Intent to commit the same, or of any indecent Assault upon any Male Person, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Ten Years and not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.
  • 63. [Carnal Knowledge defined.] Whenever, upon the Trial for any Offence punishable under this Act, it may be necessary to prove carnal Knowledge, it shall not be necessary to prove the actual Emission of Seed in order to constitute a carnal Knowledge, but the carnal Knowledge shall be deemed complete upon Proof of Penetration only.

I think the statement "Neither Act defined what constituted buggery." is misleading wrt the 1861 act. While it is, strictly, true that "Buggery" is not defined, it's not comparable to "indecent Assault" in sec.62 (or the later "gross indecency") where the lack of definition is to give the widest possible scope for prosecution. The lack of explicit definition of "buggery" would seem to be because its definition was not in question, and Victorian decorum would keep descriptions of such abominable acts to the minimum in published works. IMO the gloss "Sodomy and Bestiality" of sec.61 and the definition of "Carnal Knowledge" in sec.63 are tantamount to a definition. jnestorius^(talk)

With respect, I am not sure how dubious it is. That original sentence was paraphrased from Smith & Hogan. The offence is clearly not defined in the 1861 Act or the 1967 Act, and if one looks at (for example) Halsbury's (2000 reissue of the 4th edition, ie. prior to the 2003 Act) it says: "Buggery is not defined by statute and its elements are governed by the common law." (Para 505, Vol 11(1)) I don't see a whole lot of gray area here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I don't edit law articles much, but my two cents:

• I think the article needs references to precisely those secondary sources you've just quoted. Direct references to the cases they in turn cite is not sufficient. R v Jacobs (I think we can link to the case, or at least wikilink Russ & Ry) established that fellatio is not sodomy, not that no "unnatural intercourse" was.
• It seems to me that "buggery" has meant "sodomy or bestiality", and the catalogue of precedents relating to the one will simply be subsections of those for the other two. (This article seems also to be overlap with Buggery Act 1533, which carries the story on to 1967 and beyond.) Putting it all in one place seems better than listing it twice, or splitting it based on the particular word used in a given jurisdiction. That said, the Sodomy law article is a big mess at present.

jnestorius^(talk) 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New convictions for buggery in Australia (2016)

Today's newspaper reports that a man was just convicted of buggery in Australia. [1] I have seen this charge reported before, in recent years, in cases involving an adult man and an underage boy. I am not sure how to find the relevant legislation, so I am noting it here on the talk page in the hope that someone can clarify this in the article, which currently implies that buggery laws have been superseded. 14.201.246.185 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There state is Vic, so look at their laws. Can be downloaded in PDF. Sexual acts between consenting adults/men is not a crime anywhere in Aus. Any forced sexual contact certainly is illegal.203.87.118.239 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Buggery Meana BRUJERIA

Con el paso del tiempo La palabra se deforma fonética y gramaticalmente hasta convertirse en Buggerya - Bugeria - Brugeria - BRUJERIA Sam Argaña (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

¡Qué tonterías!

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)