Context and Commentary
Original Fluffybooru post link not available from archive.ph. Further commentary from the creator or community would be welcome.
Legal History of Fluffies: Chapter 7: Laws governing human interaction with fluffies
Excerpt
While the debate over the legal status of fluffies raged on, lawmakers did not initially address the issue of sex between fluffy and human. This changed abruptly when several high profile cases rocked the country. In the first major case, the defense successfully defeated a bestiality charge by arguing that, since fluffies were biotoys, having sex with one was legally masturbation.
Lawmakers acted quickly to close this loophole by specifically banning sex with fluffies. As usual with laws regulating fluffies, animal rights groups claimed that Hasbio and other fluffy manufacturers engaged in extensive bribery to preserve the ‘biotoy’ designation.
This was a mere tempest in a teakettle compared to the next controversy. The first defendant to challenge the new laws did so on the basis that since fluffies could talk, they could consent. The ‘Dashie case’, as it has now known, so outraged the public that several jurisdictions outlawed fluffies entirely. While Hasbio was able to avoid federal or statewide bans (except in California), practically every locality passed draconian laws prohibiting any sexual activity between humans and fluffies, with convictions leading to senentences of up to ten years in some cases. Some lawmakers even proposed that ‘Dashie cases’ should carry death sentences for both parties, citing Biblical law and precedents from colonial America*, but these did not pass.
*Thomas Granger, the first person executed in Plymouth colony and the first juvenile executed in the English colonies was convicted of buggery with numerous farm animals. Before he was hanged, the animals were killed in front of him and thrown into a pit so that no use could be made of them.
I wholly expect to see this as a title card image on Netflix someday.