The Hancock County Sheriff’s office said today that a LuVerne, Iowa man was charged with bestiality after an investigation into an incident at a rural Britt residence.
Steven Michael Schindler, 49, of LuVerne, was charged with bestiality, an aggravated misdemeanor. If convicted, the offense is punishable by up to 2 years in prison and $6,250 in fines as a as completion of a mental health evaluation and treatment.
According to the press release, the criminal complaint alleges that Schindler went to a rural customer’s residence under the ruse of delivering propane. Outside of the home, Schindler engaged in sex acts with the customer’s dog.
Schindler made his initial appearance before a magistrate shortly after the filing of the complaint and was released on his own recognizance. A hearing is set for March 15, 2012.
Did he do it doggie style?
wonder if the dog like it??
Sick and tired of the disgusting people and their actions with animals in the State of Iowa that does NOTHING to protect to them!! There is a whole lot more of this going on in the state than people realize. Misdemeanors do nothing to stop this cruelty and neglect of animals. Then we have to make sure they are mentally ill to completely drop it all. Then these idiots continue to do the same over and over again because we continue to enable it. We need to DEMAND THE STATE OF IOWA make the change with proper laws to shut down the Puppy Mills, stop the Dog Fighting and make all offences against our Domestic Animals a FELONY with jail time, fines, and never to have a domestic animal again.
why did god leave us?
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if within 5 years this is not only acceptable behavior but anyone against it is considered a hateful bigot.
Hi this is uninterested
http://www.rtfgrhr84kd.com/
rtfgrhr84kd
You are one sick individual. You need help. Screwing your dog, really? Your husband must be a sicko also. WTF is this world coming to? Really?
My partner has started using braggsACV with all natural honey and at present she is having significant kidney problems is
this ordinary with braggs or she will need to quit she talked about it hurts?
You’ll also notice carnivore- that Wayne Pacelle is now the PRESIDENT of HSUS, the quote was from when he was a vice president.
This his agenda of “one generation and OUT, we have no problem witht he EXTINCTION of domestic animals” went away since he now CONTROLS the HSUS?
Well you go ahead and continue to take *their* word for it, about anything!
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. … One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
– Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, (NOW PRESIDENT) formerly of Friends for Animals; Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
BIOGRAPHY of Wayne Pacelle;
In 2004 Wayne Pacelle was named president of the world’s richest animal-rights organization, the Humane Society of the United States. Pacelle, a strict vegan, joined HSUS in 1994 after working at the anti-hunting group the Fund for Animals for six years.
There he helped Paul Watson and his violent Sea Shepherd Conservation Society raise money for ships.
Pacelle’s goal is to create “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” He is in charge of HSUS’s many ballot initiative campaigns, winning 17 of the 22 in which he has been involved.
His biggest win was in Florida, where an initiative passed that gave constitutional rights to pregnant pigs.
Florida farmers were banned from using “gestation crates.” Many farmers killed their animals as a result and the pork industry in Florida is almost extinct. He plans campaigns against gestation crates in other states, and is already organizing in California and New Jersey.
At the 1996 HSUS annual meeting, Pacelle announced that the ballot initiative would be used for all manner of legislation in the future, including “companion animal issues and laboratory animal issues.” These operations, he says, “pay dividends and serve as a training ground for activists.” Pacelle’s wife, Kirsten Rosenberg, works for Ark Trust, now the HSUS Hollywood office.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $162 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.
Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends more than $5 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.
HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” But Pacelle may have more ambitious anti-hunting goals. In 1991, while he was the National Director of the Fund for Animals, Pacelle told the Associated Press: “[I]f we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. Just like we would shut down all dog fighting, all cock fighting or all bull fighting.”
Total “strawman” argument. You’re so focused on one man that you’ve completely forgotten what your argument is about. You have a tendency to do that in your posts, I’ve noticed – trying to connect two completely disconnected thoughts.
In this case, we are talking about bestiality – the activity that people like yourself believe is okay. We were not talking about any of the other agenda items. My post was that I support the position of groups like HSUS, SPCA, PETA and others regarding their position against having sex with animals!!!
You, on the other hand, are completely changing the subject, focusing on a totally different theme and trying to make it sound like it is part of the same argument.
And, considering that some of your previous posts have MIMICKED the philosophies of the people you mentioned, I fail to understand why in the world you are using their words to try and undermine my position when you yourself have said essentially the same thing previously?!!!!
Taking the position of the person you disagree with equals LOSING THE ARGUMENT!!!
Carnivore, you don’t see why I posted about those two groups. In your own words you stated you would take PeTA’s word over a “bestialist” word, so I posted a few of their very own garbage that they have stated to the media time and again. Their agenda against ALL uses of any animals for any reason at all.
They are against breeding animals for ANY reason, and they have stated pet ownership is like slavery. Given their statements such as “let us neuter, neuter, neuter until our pathetic version of the cat becomes EXTINCT” (Peta)
and “one generation and out, I have no problem with EXTINCTION of domestic animals, livestock” (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS)
Given their statements and agenda, well of COURSE they are against sex with animals! they are against even owning animals and using them for ANYTHING, and totally against even breeding them for show, performance, pets etc.
In fact they even have begun popularizing the idea that animal owners are “guardians” and have even managed to get that as language in several state laws over the years.
Just because my personal position against “sport” hunting, meat eating, and the blatant cruelty that goes on in rodeos, does not mean I support their radical agendas of paying the bail money for a convicted arsonist who burned down university facilities, or that I want to see pets eliminated, or responsible breeding eliminated.
They are radical animal RIGHTS groups, I am animal welfare, there’s a big difference, research it.
I posted about Wayne specifically because his radical biography is readily available, and he is now the PRESIDENT of HSUS. Do you think his radcial “one generation and OUT…” extinction stance has gone away after being promoted to President?
When you are taking the words of groups who openly stated they wish to see EXTINCTION of our “pathetic version of the cat”, and that dogs should” Disappear from our homes and concrete jungles and live in the wild” you are talking about groups that are 100% any and all uses of animals for any reason, including guide dogs, assitance dogs, police dogs etc.
Sorry, but their words mean nothing to me and most of the other groups in their class such as the sea shepherd society, Earth First!, greenpeace etc are JUST as radical and crazy as they are.
You have people connected to those groups and similar burning down new houses and SUV’s in protest, firebombing abortion clinics, shooting doctors, and releasing captive bred mink, and animals from medical research facilities and burning the buildings down.
These are not the actions of rational people or the groups behind them.
carnivore, I had made a post earlier but there was a database error and lost it. I reposted it from memory but left out the part about Animal right “father” and Peta man Professor Peter Singer.
The quote he made was;
“In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers’ Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals”
And then a curious thing happened with Newkirk/Peta, when she stated this to the media after Singer’s;
Commenting on Singer’s article “Heavy Petting,” in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, “If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it’s great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong.”
But then under big public fire for stating that, she suddenly flip-flopped like a typical politician and said;
” Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.”
Note too the inclusion of “any exploitation” which by the way includes pet ownership, breeding, riding horses, rodeos, meat eating, guide dogs etc etc.
Note also that Singer stated the obvious, and which I agree with- that anything “that results in harm to the animal should remain illegal”
Existing animal cruelty laws already address injuries and pain and no special law is needed to single out SEX. If an act causes INJURY and PAIN, it’s abuse, it doesn’t matter if the act is sex, puncturing the animal’s skin with a knife to cause pain, beating, kicking, setting on fire, starving, it’s all abuse causing injury and pain and that should be illegal.
The case in Canada- with the man who shot his dog in the head with an industrial nail gun, and most of her puppies in order to kill them (it didn’t) so he tried gassing them to death with carbon monoxide, when that failed he packed them in the car and abandoned them up on a snowy mountain by the side of the road (one puppy died) and drove off.
“The seriously injured pup died during the drive and veterinarians later found that two nails had been driven into its skull.
They were able to remove a nail, which was about eight centimetres long, from the back of the mother’s skull”
He got community service and a fine for that cruelty, so you come back and justify how someone who masturbates a willing dog should get two YEARS in prison, when this crazy monster gets community service and a fine for killing a puppy, blasting 4″ long nails into the dog’s skulls with a power nail gun, tries gassing them to death and ultimately dumps them in a remote snowy mountain road in the dead of winter to die.
Click on my name in this post for an url to the story, there are followups, pictures and videos from the news available.
We don’t agree on most of this but I’m pleased we are able to debate and discuss the issue like rational adults here.
Carnivore, since you prefer to take Peta and HSUS’ words over mine, why don’t you read a few more of their own words to see just how nutty they are!
Notice the statements about neutering cats till they CEASE TO EXIST,and that companion dogs would be “phased out” to live only in the wild, we’ll see how well THAT works!
Now you’ll see the real reason WHY they push neuter spay so much, and you’ll see why they are against breeding of ANY kind too. You will also understand why they came up with this cute sounding name for animal owner; “animal *guardian*” which if you know how the laws work and how they can be used, when you are a GUARDIAN you can be removed as such. So they are using this term animal guardian and according to all their other nutty statements on animals and their agendas on extincting purebred dogs, livestock breeding, rodeos etc etc that the plan is to use that “guardianship” in a sinister way to accomplish their end goals- eliminating ALL use of any animal for any reason.
Read on;
Animal rights groups seek the end to all breeding of animals – that would mean purebred animals will become extinct. The stated ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is no use of animals by man — for food, fiber, medical research nor even as pets. This is apparent from the quotes of their agendas and views you will find below. Animal rights and Animal Welfare have markedly different philosophies.
Some PETA statements;
“The cat, like the dog, must disappear… We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.”
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15
“As the surplus of cats and dogs (artifically engineered by centuries forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment from a distance.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, “Just Like Us?”
“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats … If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, “Animals,” May/June 1993
“I don’t use the word ‘pet.’ I think it’s speciest language. I prefer ‘companion animal.’ We would no longer allow… pet shops… Eventually companion animals would be phased out.”
— (Harper’s Magazine, Aug. 1988)
“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.”
— John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington D C, PETA, 1982). p. 15
“One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990
“It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.”
— Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997
FROM HSUS
Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage.”
— Dr. Michael W. Fox, HSUS, in 1988 Newsweek interview
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. … One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals; Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
“The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.”
— Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals – In Inhumane Society, 1990
THE TWELVE STEPS OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AGENDA
The agenda is taken from “The politics of Animal Liberation” written by Kim Barlett, Editor of the Animals’ Agenda, Nov. 1987 but a miminally modified version is part of the Green Party Platform for 2000.
Abolish by law animal research.
Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstrations and weapons development.
Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools.
Eliminate all animal agriculture. (This is your food sources people)
End herbicides, pesticides, and other Agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.
Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the dept. of Agriculture
Eliminate fur ranching and end the use of furs.
Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.
End the international trade in wildlife goods.
Stop any further breeding of companion animals, *including purebred dogs and cats*. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by State and Municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the *pet trade* should be abolished.
End the use of animals in entertainment
I get first pick of the litter!
Click on my name to watch on youtube;
“Animal Passions”
A 50 minute long British documentary on zoophilia by Channel 4 in the UK presenting various personal, religious, psychological, and sociological views on the phenomenon of sexual relations between humans and other animals.
Dr John Money and Dr Hani Miletski are interviewed and comment on the documentary.
I just had a customer stop in & tell me another side of this story. He said the L.P. driver had stomach pains & knowing he couldn’t wait he squated behind the garage & the dog, who had not left him alone since he got there came up to him & started humping his leg. At that time the woman in the house took a picture with her cell phone through the window. I bet you can’t see much from that pic. I think this is more believable then tring to have sex with a dog. I do have sympathy for his family & if this is true, for him too.
“I just had a customer stop in & tell me another side of this story.”
There’s always three sides to every story, there’s the “he said” the “she said” and there’s the “what really happened” which is usually somewhere between the two.
“He said the L.P. driver had stomach pains & knowing he couldn’t wait he squated behind the garage & the dog, who had not left him alone since he got there came up to him & started humping his leg.”
That’s a nice, interesting story and theory postulated by his attorney I’m sure, but there’s too many coincidences to be believable. He just happened to get cramps by that house, going behind the garage that just happened to have an unneutered male dog, who just happened to start humping his leg (neutered males don’t usually do this) and amazing coincidence of all, the woman in the house just happened to have a cell phone handy and turned it on to record at exactly the right time for the three seconds this happened.
Most everyone would push the dog away and the “act” would have been over in two seconds- long before the lady of the house ever could have gotten her cell phone out and turned on let alone trained out the window undetected by her dog or the guy, and film.
With odds like that the Irish sweepstakes could win you millions!
“I think this is more believable then tring to have sex with a dog.”
I’m sorry, but I certainly don’t buy that story at all and zoophilia/ bestiality is a subject which I have considerable knowledge and have done a lot of research on this, especially as an animal welfare advocate.
It is far more common than most would think, especially in rural areas, it’s not just the old stereotyped geezer farmer and Bessie the cow or sheep, it’s men and dogs and horses- both genders, and women and male dogs.
I certainly do not feel it is abuse (in most cases) and this case certainly is not abuse by any stretch when the dog was actively participating- I’ll buy that portion of the story- the dog was humping and dogs care not with what they hump. You cant force a dog to do that.
I am dismayed however that the accused apparantly did the act with someone else’s dog instead of his own, and did so by going onto someone else’s property uninvited, and on his employer’s time while driving the employer’s truck.
With that said and done, what this is known as in the ethical zoophilia circles who consider their animals partners in every sense of the word, or like a spouse- is “fence hopping” and it’s extremely frowned on as a violation of ethics similar to cheating in a marriage.
Also, his actions have generated extremely negative media for real, ethical zoophiles who treat their animals as equals, and partners in a relationship.
Stories like this one paint everyone with the same brush and it’s simply false.
“I do have sympathy for his family & if this is true, for him too.”
It is good to have sympathy during this life changing event and I hope and I am sure that he will just pay a fine and be done with it. Jailing someone for this is absolutely the wrong approach, even the experts like Dr Hani Miletski and others say zoophilia/bestiality is usually harmless, and that there is a big difference between two forms of it, with one (zoophilia/zoophile) being more like a partnership in a relationship, and the other- using an animal as a disposable sex toy- (bestiality/bestialist or zoosadist who enjoys hurting animals)
Anyone interested in researching further on the general topic and learning the differences, the “why” of it, the background childhood of those involved, and more should go to wikipedia.org and search for either bestiality or zoophilia, they lead to the same article.
The article is a neutral, both sides reasonably balanced one, full of references.
My handle is clickable to the article there as well.
Also on wikipedia’s article is a link to Dr Miletski’s web site and book “Understanding bestiality and zoophilia” which can be purchased used on Amazon, or even purchased in electronic download form.
Miletski conducted an extensive study involving over 120 participants who were involved with animals. She mailed to each an extensive, detailed psychological and profile questionnaire, and spoke via phone with the people in the subject group.
She also arranged to visit a number of them personally, and meet their animals, and watch their social interactions, animal’s care, living conditions, health etc.
Other mental health and sexuality professionals have conducted similar studies and also published their findings in peer reviewed publications and in book form.
The overall conclusions in short, paraphrased- bestiality is not a mental illness but is a paraphilia, and as long as it doesn’t cause the person any internal or other problems, depressions, suicidal tendencies etc., then for the most part it’s completely harmless.
However, there are a small number of people who engage in bestiality who do not have the animal’s interest at heart, are using the animal for a sex toy, or enjoy HURTING the animal on purpose. Those are usually the ones we read about being arrested after someone found them in their barn with their horses, and the horses had injuries, or they forced themselves on a dog too small or otherwise caused injury on purpose or by carelessness.
Don’t make the mistake of lumping both into one category and one act- bestiality, it is no more accurate to do that than it is to say rapists are all heterosexuals, so all heterosexuals are rapists, just because someone engages in bestiality doesnt mean they are harming the animal or that it’s automatically abuse or forced.
Zoo, I don’t know what is more disturbing – the fact that this guy performed these acts with this dog or the fact that you have pretty much written a graduate thesis on the topic. It seems more than apparent to me that you are a staunch defender of this “lifestyle”, if not an actual participant in this lifestyle. But, then again, maybe I am just “barking up the wrong tree”…………
Well carnivore, I believe and feel what I believe and feel about zoophilia, you are of course free to believe and feel what you believe and feel, but beliefs and feelings are not justification for condemnation of aperson, or passing laws.
Fact is, there is considerable interest in zoophilia, and it’s been around for ages.
Just one forum for this has this right now on the main page for their discussion board statistics;
Our members have made a total of 6,920,986 posts
We have 1,029,473 registered members
The newest member is
Most users ever online was 10,632 on Jun 19 2010, 08:32 PM
It is unknown how many actually “do” and how many are “wannabes” and how many just get exciting watching it or animals mate, but that’s over one million members and just one discussion forum.
That’s a lot of interest, and by people’ you’d never even suspect, including married men and women.
The issue certainly is not going to go away, nor go back into the closet no matter what the laws are or what people think about it.
I’m quite happy the way I am, and will not change a thing.
Hopefully when the defendant is all finished with this incident, he will seek out and find one of the zoo support forums if that’s what he wants, or never look at another dog again and get on with his life with his current wife if that’s what he wants instead.
” but beliefs and feelings are not justification for condemnation of aperson, or passing laws.”
Actually, beliefs and feelings have been the justification for passing PLENTY of laws. Most people believe that stealing is a crime. So we passed laws against that. Most people believe tax evasion is a crime. So we passed laws against that. Most people believe that murder is a crime. So we passed laws against that. So your statement doesn’t make much sense.
“Fact is, there is considerable interest in zoophilia, and it’s been around for ages.”
There has been considerable interest in pedophilia and necrophilia and those two “interests” have been around for ages. People have been committing murder for “ages”, too. People have been doing an awful lot of different things for ages and ages.
But just because someone has been doing something repeatedly for years and years does not, in and of itself, justify the act. There have been countless rapes of women since the beginning of recorded time. It hasn’t made rape mainstream now, has it?
My point exactly. I’m not necessarily judging one way or the other, as far as the bestiality thing goes. I have my personal beliefs, but I know it isn’t my PLACE to judge. I know there are all kinds of different quirks and kinks that people are into and many that most people are not into. But just because some people are into a certain sexual activity does not automatically mean that people who have beliefs AGAINST that activity are the narrow-minded ones.
And your argument that this activity is okay or justifiable simply because the human happens to own the animal is akin to saying that pedophilia or incest is okay as long as the child is your own. Complete and total nonsense.
If this is something you’re into, then so be it. Just don’t expect everyone else to agree with it or imply that we are somehow backwards or obtuse in our thinking just because we do NOT agree with it.
“Actually, beliefs and feelings have been the justification for passing PLENTY of laws. Most people believe that stealing is a crime. So we passed laws against that.”
Not even remotely the same as the subject at hand.
Stealing harms another person by negatively DEPRIVING them of money and property belonging to them that they worked for and earned.
They believed blacks were inferior too and passed laws against them too, that make it ok?
You notice after Rosa Parks and King, the “whites only” washrooms and things went away. Society evolved.
Being gay was once a crime too, notice that’s changed as well.
“There has been considerable interest in pedophilia and necrophilia and those two “interests” have been around for ages. People have been committing murder for “ages”, too. People have been doing an awful lot of different things for ages and ages.”
You are going way off in a totally unrelated tangent, I cited that board’s numbers for a reason- to prove interest in zoophilia is not an anomaly, a once in a blue moon thing of some backwoods retarded hick caught with ole Bessie the cow because he cant get a date. That those involved are considerable in numbers and come from every walk of life, income level, education, emoployment etc.
“But just because someone has been doing something repeatedly for years and years does not, in and of itself, justify the act. There have been countless rapes of women since the beginning of recorded time. It hasn’t made rape mainstream now, has it?”
Those NEGATIVELY affect other people’s lives, you don’t seem to know the difference between your “examples”, stealing, rape, murder are NOT the same as having consentual unforced sex with a willing animal who is free to simply walk away, or one who as in this case with the MALE dog- initiated the act to begin with.
And I might add- an animal who can kill a grown man as the news shows often enough.
” But just because some people are into a certain sexual activity does not automatically mean that people who have beliefs AGAINST that activity are the narrow-minded ones.”
Actualy is does mean that when those people are repeatedly proven their unfounded opinions on this are wrong via numerous peer reviewed studies, published papers in the medical journals, statements by those in the field etc.
So those people throw ALL of that out the window in favor of what they THINK goes on between a male dog and a man, or a man and a 1500# mare, or a woman and a poodle, or how they think “it is” when in fact they never even witnessed an act for themselves with their own eyes to judge at all, and see the animals’ actions and reactions in person, themselves.
So they assume they know how “it” is based on what they think they know, what someone in their family thinks and said, or what they read in a biased newspaper with headlines like “man sexually ABUSES dog, story at 5”
“And your argument that this activity is okay or justifiable simply because the human happens to own the animal is akin to saying that pedophilia or incest is okay as long as the child is your own. Complete and total nonsense.”
I have news for you- animals are not children with fur, secondly, non zoo humans do whatever they want to animals totally without consent or regard at all, or need I remind you you did not ask for consent from that steer brutally killed for your meat dinner last night, DID YOU?
You want to look at abuse and consent issues? just look over the fence at your neighbors’ livestock operation, actually I call it DEADstock because every one of those animals winds up brutally dead as the videos of Agriprocessors reveals on youtube.
“If this is something you’re into, then so be it. Just don’t expect everyone else to agree with it or imply that we are somehow backwards or obtuse in our thinking just because we do NOT agree with it.”
I don’t care if people agree with it, I do care when people repeat garbage about it as “fact” and repeat third hand hear-say about it as fact, or connect it to child rape for more hysterical effects, or as you do- constantly draw your own leading conclusions to pedophilia as being the same, like, or connected to zoophilia when it’s not even remotely the same- I’ve already described why it’s not earlier.
There are loads of videos on youtube showing dogs attempting to seriously mate goats, sheep, ducks, and other animals attempting the same- a goat trying to mate a dog, it happens, so what. There’s even a caged tiger trying to mate a Rottweiler dog;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qrFmBzrhB4
In short, what I or anyone else does in PRIVATE that harms no one is the person’s business, not the church, not the neighbors, not the legislatures.
You realize its scientifcally wrong and it gives you diseases
“They believed blacks were inferior too and passed laws against them too, that make it ok?
You notice after Rosa Parks and King, the “whites only” washrooms and things went away. Society evolved.
Being gay was once a crime too, notice that’s changed as well.”
Really? You’re comparing the civil rights movement to people who want to shag their pets?
“……NOT the same as having consentual unforced sex with a willing animal who is free to simply walk away, or one who as in this case with the MALE dog- initiated the act to begin with.
And I might add- an animal who can kill a grown man as the news shows often enough.”
Really? Consentual? Most dogs who try humping someone’s leg do so as an act of dominance and aggression, not because they are consenting to mutual sex. And other dogs and animals do so as a conditioned response, something they either do for their own gratification or in anticipation of some type of reward.
For every study you bring up showing why zoophilia was downgraded by DSM-IV and should not be considered a crime against nature, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles that say it is wholly unnatural and in no way connected to gay rights and other sexual-rights issues between CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS.
If you want to get your freak on with your dog, knock yourself out. I keep forgetting that we live in the era of moral relativism and if it feels good, then it must be okay. And your previous argument in another post that, simply because half of marriages end in divorce is justification that zoophilia is perfectly okay, makes absolutely zero sense.
Nothing I say is probably going to make a dent in your opinion and I don’t expect it to. You’re ultimately going to do whatever you want to. Just spare me the pretension that this is natural, moral or ethical.
As I said, people are going to do whatever feels good these days, not necessarily what is right.
“Really? You’re comparing the civil rights movement to people who want to shag their pets?”
I’m comparing how the LAWS change over time, and how what is illegal one day becomes legal the next, laws are dynamic, culture and location driven and not absolute.
“Really? Consentual? Most dogs who try humping someone’s leg do so as an act of dominance and aggression, not because they are consenting to mutual sex.”
You like so many have no clue about that, dominance displays are easy to tell from a sexual mounting. In a dominance display the dog half heartedly mounts the other dog or whatever, thrusts a few times and dismounts, there will also be aggressive posturing such as ears stanting up, growling, staring.
A sexual mount, regardless of the situation involves an erection, multiple attempts to seriously mount and thrusting motions. The dog’s expression will be soft, non aggressive, no growling. The two acts are barely similar except for the mounting.
Your problem is, you refuse to believe dogs even have an orgasm the same as people do, and that all female mammals have a clitorus just like women do.
“they either do for their own gratification or in anticipation of some type of reward.”
Yes, the reward of orgasm, which is what sex is ABOUT, so where’s the problem there when the dog is initiating the act and the person helps them complete it since they dont have hands, and they enjoy themselves? I see no problem, by the way, people do it all the time it’s called “collecting” for artificial insemination and the like, and the animal doesn’t care what the reason is.
“For every study you bring up showing why zoophilia was downgraded by DSM-IV and should not be considered a crime against nature, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles that say it is wholly unnatural and in no way connected to gay rights and other sexual-rights issues between CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS.”
You open a can of worms when you start referencing “natural” as a basis for anything like this! It’s certainly not natural humans live in concrete cities, or drive cars and airplanes. Nor is it natural to eat pre-processed food.
Almost nothing to day is “natural”, if you want natural we would be living in caves and wearing bearskins, and eating raw meat killed ourselves.
If you bring up the consent thing you also open a can of worms, for not one thing non zoo huamns do to animals is EVER with their consent, not one, so that’s a red herring argument that doesn’t apply.
“I keep forgetting that we live in the era of moral relativism and if it feels good, then it must be okay.”
If it harms no one then it’s just fine, like the Wicca crede that goes something like “an it harm no one do as ye will”
” And your previous argument in another post that, simply because half of marriages end in divorce is justification that zoophilia is perfectly okay, makes absolutely zero sense.”
You misread that entirely, I had said marriage is a failure as an institution with 50% failur rate, that was in response I believe- to the post about marrying a dog, and the constant reference too to gay marriage being “allowed” then the slippery slope willallow marriage to animals.
“Nothing I say is probably going to make a dent in your opinion and I don’t expect it to. You’re ultimately going to do whatever you want to. Just spare me the pretension that this is natural, moral or ethical.”
You certainly will never change my opinions or mind on this topic, I have more than 35 years experience with this issue in every aspect, I went through veterinary assistant courses, bred dogs for show and obedience trialing, studied them and wolves, their behavior, biology, everything extensively, and I know what I’m talking about.
What is all comes down to is;
1)The person’s intent and attitude towards an animal, i.e the animal is either seen as an equal, and in a relationship, or the animal is seen as a disposable toy or means to an end like livestock producers and hunters use them for.
2) Religious objections
3) Personal distaste
This has nothing to do with “consent” issues, I’ve proven non- zoo humans never get consent from an animal anyway for anything, so consent as an argument for the one activity that happens to involve sex, JUST sex- is a red herring.
This has nothing to do with cruelty either, because referring back to item 1 above- intent is the key, an ethical person does not force the animal nor restrain them in any way, they are free to simply walk away if they so choose.
It is also ridiculous beyond belief how some will claim a 1200# mare is “abused” by some guy’s six incher, when she is built to easily accomodate the stallion whose member is the length and size of a man’s arm! Forget that she can break the guy’s legs like toothpicks with one kick, being he is standing behind her in the danger zone!
“As I said, people are going to do whatever feels good these days, not necessarily what is right.”
What is “right” is open to interpretation, and varies by culture, time and location. Here we have dogs as pets, in many countries they are raised like we raise cattle and killed for meat. Here we kill cows like tossing the newspaper in the trash, in India they are sacred.
“Your problem is, you refuse to believe dogs even have an orgasm the same as people do, and that all female mammals have a clitorus just like women do.”
I never made that statement. And I took plenty of biology and zoology classes in college. But just because female mammals share the fact of having a clitoris – THEY ARE STILL NOT HUMAN!!!!!
“I see no problem, by the way, people do it all the time it’s called “collecting” for artificial insemination and the like, and the animal doesn’t care what the reason is.”
So, basically you are saying that all the animal cares about is getting his rocks off. This kind of negates your previous statements in other posts about humans and animals sharing emotional bonding and pairing as strictly human couples do. So, either you see the animal as strictly a sex toy or you believe the animal sees YOU as strictly a sex toy.
“If you bring up the consent thing you also open a can of worms, for not one thing non zoo huamns do to animals is EVER with their consent, not one, so that’s a red herring argument that doesn’t apply.”
That is such a load of BS. I, along with MILLIONS of other non-zoo responsible pet owners, do very little to threaten or physically or emotionally harm our animals. You just want everyone to believe that while you are F***ing an animal you are creating some kind of emotional bond with the animal when it is still just a physical, sexual act. You already said previously that the animal is just in it for the sex and nothing more. And there is no way you can legitimately argue that a “zoo” has the ability to obtain consent from an animal and a “non-zoo” does not. The only difference is that you are able to train and condition the animal to get out of it what YOU want, which is sex.
“If it harms no one then it’s just fine, like the Wicca crede that goes something like “an it harm no one do as ye will””
Yeah, right. That’s the same argument that purveyors of vice crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.) like to use to justify why their particular “interests” ought to be legal and justified. The old “victimless crime” argument. It is anything BUT that!
“I have more than 35 years experience with this issue in every aspect,”
As I said previously, simple history and doing the same thing over and over again does not make it justifiable. In fact, one of the classic definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Society frowns on this behavior for a reason.
“This has nothing to do with “consent” issues, I’ve proven non- zoo humans never get consent from an animal anyway for anything, so consent as an argument for the one activity that happens to involve sex, JUST sex- is a red herring.”
You’re right. For zoophiles, it doesn’t have a damned thing to do with consent. Because there is no way you can legally obtain consent from an animal. You cannot even begin to remotely say that an animal is consenting to the act. You can only say that an animal has been conditioned BY THE HUMAN to initiate or follow through with a trained action.
“This has nothing to do with cruelty either, because referring back to item 1 above- intent is the key, an ethical person does not force the animal nor restrain them in any way, they are free to simply walk away if they so choose.”
Yes, your intent is to have sex with an animal. The animal has been conditioned NOT to simply walk away, much like a long-term abuse victim learns to bend to the will of their abuser. Hence, any pretension of having the ability to walk away is absurd.
“What is “right” is open to interpretation, and varies by culture, time and location. Here we have dogs as pets, in many countries they are raised like we raise cattle and killed for meat. Here we kill cows like tossing the newspaper in the trash, in India they are sacred.”
Show me a nation or culture where zoophilia is widely seen as acceptable by the majority of the population. Can’t think of one? Me neither. There’s a reason for that.
About the only factual statements one can glean from this diatribe is that cows are sacred in India, where the Hindus are probably not having sex with them either, and that in the USA we love few things more in society than a good barbecue.
And on that note, I think I’ll take my dog for a walk on this lovely afternoon, taking good care to keep an eye peeled for any predatory zoophiles driving LP trucks. Thank goodness I have a permit to carry.
And after that, I think I’ll come home and start planning my weekend St Patrick’s Day barbeque. I think some nice Black Angus beef kabobs sounds like a mighty good menu option, eh? I thought you might agree!!!!!!!!
” But just because female mammals share the fact of having a clitoris – THEY ARE STILL NOT HUMAN!!!!!”
So they are not HUMAN, what’s the PROBLEM there? if the animal doesn’t care and the person doesn’t either, then that equals no problem! I personally don’t consider most animals lesser lumps of mindless animated flesh and consider mine equals.
“So, basically you are saying that all the animal cares about is getting his rocks off. This kind of negates your previous statements in other posts about humans and animals sharing emotional bonding and pairing as strictly human couples do.”
No it actually doesn’t, animals obviously don’t care one bit about the things humans are obsessed with- religion, morality, relationships, sharing, property of value etc. Conversely, in the case of dogs, they offer a no-strings honest love and affection and non-judgement of any kind, that is a main reason why people have pet dogs to begin with, that plus companionship and more.
The animal ONLY cares about getting off is correct, and so what if the person enjoys helping them do that and get enjoyment watching the animal enjoy themselves?
I see no problem there at all.
“So, either you see the animal as strictly a sex toy or you believe the animal sees YOU as strictly a sex toy.”
Neither one of those applies to a real zoophile, they don’t use an animal as a sex toy, they have a relationship that may or may not even include sex at all, most do, but a percentage don’t.
The so called “bestialist” is the one who sees them strictly as sex toy.
Dogs see their owner as much more than just a sex toy, there is that usual dog and owner simbiotic relationship and bond to begin with. Any zoophillic activities tends to strengthen and deepen that considerably.
“That is such a load of BS. I, along with MILLIONS of other non-zoo responsible pet owners, do very little to threaten or physically or emotionally harm our animals.”
I never said harm or threaten, but FORCE, no dog owner would accept a dog who refuses to obey simple obedience or pet commands like “come” “sit” “quiet”, and things like pulling on the leash, constantly barking, soiling the house, tearing things up, being confined instead of running free, undergoing cosmetic surgery and other things, not one of these things does any owner ask for permission before doing, or obtaining their consent.
It’s even worse with livestock, not one cow has ever been asked for their permission in human history, humans just DO whatever they wish because they are “livestock”, well, miss, in some places DOGS are “livestock” and raised for meat and fur, no one ever asks those dogs for their consent!
It doesn’t take threats or harm to override consent, so making a statement as you did that because you haven’t harmed your dog or threatened them, that you somehow got “consent” is not kosher.
“You just want everyone to believe that while you are F***ing an animal you are creating some kind of emotional bond with the animal when it is still just a physical, sexual act. You already said previously that the animal is just in it for the sex and nothing more.”
No, that is wrong, first, you still obviously don’t know the details about what zoophilia IS by your statement, it’s not all about
“F’ing” animals as you so elloquently put it, it is a deep emotional bond on the part of the owner with the animal, that may or may not even include any sexual contact at all, usually it does but it’s not a prerequisite! Not all animals are interested when they are old and their hormones are reduced a lot, and some may be too old, too small, or have a medical issue.
Whether the animal is in it just for the sex or not doesn’t matter one bit. That’s all sex IS, a physical act that feels good, there’s no mysterious magical force or whatever behind it, you do it, it feels good, and it’s over till next time.
“Yeah, right. That’s the same argument that purveyors of vice crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.) like to use to justify why”
Now we are branching out from zoophilia that harms no one, to drugs and prostitution which do?
People are free to argue whatever they wish, but everyone knows drugs causes harm, prostitution spreads disease and both are connected to organized crime- drug cartels and “pimps” who abuse the girls and take their money.
I have no problem with consentual prostitution, if a woman wants to sell her best assett for the highest price, I say go for it, it’s not up to me to say anything about it if some fool is willing to pay $200 or $500 for an hour in a motel with a hooker who could care less about him.
” Society frowns on this behavior for a reason.”
Yes- religious reasons mostly, go read back in history, you’ll find references to bestiality and the church connection, the church as you will read condemned it for three reasons;
1) their bible forbade it (forget it also forbids a whole lot of other stuff that’s still done anyway)
Of course there’s many religions, and not one of them is correct anyway, so what an old book written by men says, doesn’t matter.
2) they had great fear of some super-human evil monster resulting as offspring from such a union. This is proven impossible by modern science, so that superstition falls away as stupid.
3)The church’s teachings that humans have a self-appointed “human exceptionalism” that is “above” the lowly beasts, and that to couple with one was “degrading” to the human.
Of course only people who think of animals as lowly,filthy, souless beasts would think of them in that way.
“And there is no way you can legitimately argue that a “zoo” has the ability to obtain consent from an animal and a “non-zoo” does not.”
I sure can demonstrait that quite well with a variety of things, but one paper comes to mind published quite a few years ago which does a pretty fair job showing exactly how a dog (or horse) would consent and show it.
Conversely it reasonably proves the real zoo, the kind who learns to “read” their animal’s body language and heeds that- can easily deciper consent.
I will have to search for it and put a link to it if I can as it’s too long and copyrighted to put here.
“The only difference is that you are able to train and condition the animal to get out of it what YOU want, which is sex.”
First thing is, all dog ownership involves training of some kind, doesn’t matter if it’s not pulling on the least, not barking all night, not chewing the furniture, not peeing on the sofa- all of that involves conditioning and training.
The only “training” a zoo would need if you want to call it that, is how to not scratch or injure the person in their enthusiasm. Dogs don’t realise people’s eyes can be damaged by jumping up and a claw scratches it, or that their claws can scratch skin very easily, so in that regards they would be taught to calm down, not jump up, not “rake” etc.
“For zoophiles, it doesn’t have a damned thing to do with consent. Because there is no way you can legally obtain consent from an animal.”
“legally” doesn’t matter, but consent is easy to see, in body language. You know, the same body language even a kid can recognise- you get the dog’s food bowl, toys or leash out and watch how they act, now get the nail cutters and bath materials out and watch how the ears go down, and they slink off to escape the nail cutting routing (most dogs hate it and clearly show it)
That’s called body language, and in dogs it’s especially easy to “read” the basics- ears up , tail wagging, animated expression= the dog is happy and sees something it enjoys.
Ears down, slinky, houndy, low body carriage, head down, trying to move away= something the dog doesn’t like or is afraid of.
Real simple!
Don’t forget that a dog can KILL a grown man, they have very large sharp teeth with about 800 to 1200 pounds of bite force behind them depending on the breed. They can also run much faster than a human, as well as make a heck of a lot of noise that tends to get neighbors angry real fast.
“You cannot even begin to remotely say that an animal is consenting to the act.”
I already have and can back it up with documentation, but I suspect no matter what I post showing your error, your mind is made up anyway.
“You can only say that an animal has been conditioned BY THE HUMAN to initiate or follow through with a trained action.”
“The animal has been conditioned NOT to simply walk away, much like a long-term abuse victim learns to bend to the will of their abuser. Hence, any pretension of having the ability to walk away is absurd.”
No, that doesn’t even BEGIN to explain how a zoo can approach a NEW adult male dog who had never been engaged in this before, and in ten minutes or less that dog is their best pal and tries to initiate more.
According to what you said, that would not happen, I positively know it does, I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes.
Conditiong takes TIME, certainly more than ten minutes with a total stranger to them!
It all boils down to the person’s INTENT, if it’s genuine and to please the dog or animal, or if it’s being used as a sex toy with no regards at all.
“Show me a nation or culture where zoophilia is widely seen as acceptable by the majority of the population. Can’t think of one? Me neither. There’s a reason for that.”
Why would that be applicable to this discussion? There is a region in North Brazil where the boys and men in the villages “practice” on donkeys, everyone knows about it, all the men and boys do it, and no one cares they do, it’s part of how things are there and it’s been filmed in a documentary which is on youtube.
They interviewed a number of women and they all just thought it was funny, that it was something the men did and they didn’t care.
Other cultures who have done this include the Hopi indians and a few other indian tribes, because they consider animals differently then Americans do and there’s no bible to get in their way with condemnations.
There are tribes in Africa where bestiality goes on and no one cares about it, they don’t make an issue of it.
Here you go carnivore, on youtube search for this title, it’s the documentary about the donkeys in Columbia. It has some “language” but no porn images.
“Asses of the Caribbean”
They also interviewed Dr Hani Miletski in her office and talk to her about bestiality.
Nevyn, on Consent.
==================
Introduction.
Here is the one article I mentioned carnivore-
“Do animals consent to sex with a human partner?”
It is a good question. If an animal is consenting to sex
with a human, then there are no moral reasons for outlawing
bestiality. Can animals willingly choose a human partner?
Every year, hundreds of millions of animals are killed for
food. Cows have milk sucked from their udders by machines,
while sheep that are the product of mankind’s selective breeding
programs have their coats shorn. Even our “pets” are kept purely
on our terms: exercised when we have time, locked in cages,
trained to conform to our wishes.
All the above occurs without thought of the consent of the
animal involved. Why should it? After all, they are only dumb
animals. But the instant the issue of sex is brought into the
equation, consent becomes a key factor.”
Full thing is here in plain text;
http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/nev-con.txt
There is also a good article on reading dog body language here, this explains the differences between the various aspects of dogs and what is behind these expressions;
“Knowing how to read your dog’s body language is the key to understanding your dog, assessing her attitude, and predicting her next move. Because dogs are non-verbal – their body language does the talking for them. Vocalization actually takes second place to a dog’s body language.”
http://dogs.about.com/od/dogtraining/tp/dogbodylanguage.htm
Here’s what happens when a horse DOESNT consent to something, in this case this horse is being branded, and the horse very effectively, very clearly shows he or she doesn’t like this one bit, and put a stop to it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1HbYS6sQuI
Ok carnivore, the article I mentioned, in plain text.
You’ll have to copy the urls as the comment box doesn’t allow clickable urls it seems;
Nevyn, on Consent.
==================
Introduction.
Here is the one article I mentioned carnivore-
“Do animals consent to sex with a human partner?”
It is a good question. If an animal is consenting to sex
with a human, then there are no moral reasons for outlawing
bestiality. Can animals willingly choose a human partner?
Every year, hundreds of millions of animals are killed for
food. Cows have milk sucked from their udders by machines,
while sheep that are the product of mankind’s selective breeding
programs have their coats shorn. Even our “pets” are kept purely
on our terms: exercised when we have time, locked in cages,
trained to conform to our wishes.
All the above occurs without thought of the consent of the
animal involved. Why should it? After all, they are only dumb
animals. But the instant the issue of sex is brought into the
equation, consent becomes a key factor.”
Full thing is here in plain text;
http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/nev-con.txt
There is also a good article on reading dog body language here, this explains the differences between the various aspects of dogs and what is behind these expressions;
“Knowing how to read your dog’s body language is the key to understanding your dog, assessing her attitude, and predicting her next move. Because dogs are non-verbal – their body language does the talking for them. Vocalization actually takes second place to a dog’s body language.”
dogs.about.com/od/dogtraining/tp/dogbodylanguage.htm
Here’s what happens when a horse DOESNT consent to something, in this case this horse is being branded, and the horse very effectively, very clearly shows he or she doesn’t like this one bit, and put a stop to it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1HbYS6sQuI
Big deal. So you posted a video. And you mention an article. It still doesn’t disprove my point that this type of behavior is not accepted by wide segments of our society. Maybe small niches of society, but that is about it.
Also, you only mention areas of the world in which animal welfare and protection doesn’t really have a big footprint, if any at all.
And I fail to see where branding a horse, which I do NOT approve of, has a whole lot to do with people who like to hump horses.
Again, you really haven’t proven anything.
Big deal. So you posted a video. And you mention an article. It still doesn’t disprove my point that this type of behavior is not accepted by wide segments of our society. Maybe small niches of society, but that is about it.”
I never said, and dont care one iota if it was “widely accepted” or not, seriously, I don’t care! Nor did that video or article intend to make that claim, ((FOCUS)) please, the first video as I stated shows how an animal can easily DEFEND itself against something that it doesn’t like- even when as that horse was- restrained to be branded.
WE both strongly disaprove of branding, but this, polling, castrating and much more goes on with all livestock nation-wide EVERY DAY, and that’s *legal,* go figure!
The article was written by someone who as I said, showed how consent can be clearly seen in a dog, and read by their body language.
The other video about the Brazilian men was only to show it certainly does go on and in some parts of the world it doesn’t raise PANIC, HATE, THREATS or HYSTERICS like it does here! It doesn’t there because people dont see it as any big deal, and no harm done anyway.
There are many cultures in history who copulated with animals, even the Greek’s produced many bowls and artifacts with designs clearly showing bestiality between men and deer and other animals.
There is an ancient temple overseas known for it’s carvings of sexual scenes, a number of the carvings depict men with a mare.
Most all of the Greek mythology included bestiality themes of gods in animal form copulating with humans, leda and the swan and others depicted in many many artifacts and objects.
Bestiality went on, and despite the death penalty courtesy of the christians and their insanity, and it will continue regardless.
“Also, you only mention areas of the world in which animal welfare and protection doesn’t really have a big footprint, if any at all.”
They sure don’t here either, if you examine the livestock industry and the fact they are trying to pass a law to make it a crime to film abuse in their facilities because are trying desperately to HIDE it!
“And I fail to see where branding a horse, which I do NOT approve of, has a whole lot to do with people who like to hump horses.”
Think about it- the supposedly “defenseless” animal, and this horse was even RETRAINED (something a real zoo would never do) not only clearly showed his displeasure at what the man was doing, but the horse slammed the guy so hard and fast in the chest it probably killed him, or at the very least sent him to the hospital with broken ribs.
As a side issue, what that guy was doing it perfectly LEGAL! yet, if the horse was a mar and the guy was instead of trying to brand her, he was on a bucket trying to have sex with his six incher, he would be accused of animal ABUSE and be arrested.
NOW you see an obvious difference there between legal branding, and bestiality in that example?
If that was a mare, she would be built to accept a stallion whose member is about the size- length and girth of that guy’s ARM being SHOVED in, and usually with breeding of mares they also have her back legs hobbled so she cant run or kick, and they have around 2-3 guys with ropes holding her in place forcing her to be bred despite any protests on her part or dislike of the stallion.
The ONLY thing they care about is getting a foal out of it and the money
But that’s all perfectly LEGAL rape and there are many videos on youtube showing this.
In closing this for now, a very good book I neglected to include earlier which clearly shows how the church and religious beliefs infiltrated and infested every aspect of human culture and existance, laws and behavior, and much of it was designed to create an artificial gulf between “lower” beasts and humans who self- elevated themselves onto a near god-like pedistal.
Some of the things the church caused- included changing how people ate, had sex and lived.
The so called “missionary position” was to distance human mating position from the usual way animals do it, same for eating at a table and many other things.
It very well shows how religion and the church were responsible for the kill-em-all, hunt-em-down for-trophies, use em up disposable attitude people have towards so called “livestock” and other animals today.
The book is titled;
“The Beast Within: Animals In The Middle Ages”
Content list
1Preface to the Second Edition Introduction: What is an animal?
1: Animals as Property Animal Use Animal Values Attitudes and Ambiguities
2: Animals as Food Wild Animals Domestic Animals Attitudes Toward Food
3: Animal Sexuality Sexual Characteristics of Animals Bestiality
4: Animals as Human Exemplars Classical Heritage Medieval Rediscovery The Animals
5: Animals as Humans Animals on Trial Companion Animals, or Pets
6: Humans as Animals Creatures on the Borders Bestial Humans Metamorphosis
Conclusion: What is a Human? Appendix: Relative Animal Values Notes Bibliography
Author: Joyce E. Salisbury
ISBN: 0415780950
This important book offers a unique exploration of the use of and attitude towards animals from the 4th to the 14th centuries.
The Beast Within explores the varying roles of animals as property, food and sexual objects, and the complex relationship that this created with the people and world around them. Joyce E. Salisbury takes an interdisciplinary approach to the subject, weaving a historical narrative that includes economic, legal, theological, literary and artistic sources.
The book shows how by the end of the Middle Ages the lines between humans and animals had blurred completely, making us recognise the beast that lay within us all.
This new edition has been brought right up to date with current scholarship, and includes a brand new chapter on animals on trial and animals as human companions, as well as expanded and updated discussions on fables and saints, and a new section on a bestial humansa (TM). This important and provocative book remains a key work on the historical study of animals, as well as in the field of environmental history more generally, and also provides crucial context to ongoing debates on animal rights and the environment.
“Think about it- the supposedly “defenseless” animal, and this horse was even RETRAINED ”
Typo, that SHOULD have read; RESTRAINED not retrained.
Iowa’s law banning bestiality:
717C.1 Bestiality .
1. For purposes of this section:
a. “Animal” means any nonhuman vertebrate, either dead or alive.
b. “Sex act” means any sexual contact between a person and an animal by penetration of the penis into the vagina or anus, contact between the mouth and genitalia, or by contact between the genitalia of one and the genitalia or anus of the other.
2. A person who performs a sex act with an animal is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.
3. Upon a conviction for a violation of this section, and in addition to any sentence authorized by law, the court shall require the person to submit to a psychological evaluation and treatment at the person’s expense.
2001 Acts, ch 131, §3
“Iowa’s law banning bestiality:”
What about it? it doesn’t affect me in the least, I don’t live in Iowa… but since you bring it up, let’s examine this law shall we?
First, youre state never had this law before a few years back when some drunk idiot was caught in a University barn nude with a sheep dressed in a nightgown or somesuch.
The students and or faculty discovered the idiot and called the police.
That guy was not a zoo, he was a drunk, opportunistic bestialist and got what he deserved.
His stupidity caused the law you cite below, so let’s look at this in part because it’s significant!
“717C.1 Bestiality .
1. For purposes of this section:
a. “Animal” means any nonhuman vertebrate, either dead or alive.”
What do you see there in that first section? anything unusual?
Ok, easy to miss I suppose, but take special note how this supposed bill that became law was to “protect animals from animal abuse”
notice where it defines said animals as; “either DEAD…. or alive.”
My emphasis on “dead,” this is significant because it gives away the TRUE motives for this bill, and that was certainly NOT to protect animals as much as it was to foist Judeo-Christian religious values onto other people in law form.
The TRUE intent was not protecting animals, but regulating people’s private sexual activities, that for the most part harms no one, for DEAD animals feel no pain and can’t be abused!
IF the legislature’s real intent was to stop animal ABUSE, they would have outlawed almost all of the common practices done every day in your state in pig “confinement” facilities (the animal version of Sobibor) and all other livestock operations such as ear tagging and surgery w/o anesthesia, overdosing the animals with antibiotics and other drugs used as growth promoters to fatten them up faster etc etc.
But it is clear from that law’s text (it’s the same garbage text in several states) that their intent was NOT preventing animal abuse at all but cowing down to the religious fundies who seemto have their hands in everyone’s pants these days trying to regulate what they do, say and think, and animal rights nuts who don’t think people should even HAVE animals at all.
“2. A person who performs a sex act with an animal is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.”
Basically about one step above a serious traffic citation, a fine, maybe community service, and done.
“3. the court shall require the person to submit to a psychological evaluation and treatment at the person’s expense.”
That’s fine, it won’t do a damn thing however, and the psychiatrist is likely to agree with the studies put forth by Miletski, Beetz and others as well as the DSM manual which states this is NOT a mental illness that needs treatement.
The thing with such a law is, you have to get CAUGHT first, and then there has to be PROOF, proof as in the form of pictures, videos, statements made under oath, or an eye witness willing to testify.
Since 99.9% of zoophillic acts take place entirely in PRIVATE, behind closed and locked doors, the ones you see in the news represent a minute number, and they represent the fools who do stupid things like getting drunk and going to a University barn late at night, or mess around with a horse in an open field where passerby witness, or cameras can capture images.
There again, those individuals are not real zoos, they are opportunistic bestialists using animals as a sex toy for the evening, and they usually get what they deserve by being arrested.
However, this law has one big negative result the idiots in the legislature never even thought about in their knee-jerk rush to ram the bill through.
Here’s what it will do- create a paranoia among animal owners to the extent that should a man who happens to own a female animal discover she has some kind of vaginal discharge may in fact due to this stupid law- not even take her in for treatment out of fear he could be ACCUSED of bestiality, and then how would he defend against such an accusation, especially if his name and all are plastered all over the place.
Otehr animal owners will be extremely reluctant to have any kind of veterinary treatment /exam on an animal that has any kind of a genital discharge, infection or injury, no matter how benign and non bestiality related it is.
So this owner is now far more likely to forego treatment, and or kill the animal rather than even RISK someone suspecting bestiality, reporting it, or making an unfounded accusation.
And that is what the gem of a bill that passed has now created, a situation where untold numbers of animals will not see veterinary treatment, and could in fact be quietyly killed and disposed of as a result, way to go, real smart move there!
Also, on the law carnivore, that’s not bad at all, since bestiality once carried the DEATH PENALTY, the church you see used to first kill all the animals involved, usually with a pole-axe, and then killed the accused, and then burned all the bodies.
It is easy to see below how one religion has almost exclusively been behind ALL laws and penalties involving sex, and then things like alcohol, working on sunday, blasphemy, divorce, adultry etc.
The church did this to a 16 year old child even! Imagine that! that’s the extent of the insanity and paranoia, by the way, his name was Thomas Grainger.
Obviously the law cited and the execution came directly from the BIBLE, which proves how this religious belief kills people who don’t agree with it, just like today’s Muslims;
Thomas Graunger or Granger (1625 – September 8, 1642) was the first person hanged in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the first known juvenile to be sentenced to death and executed in the territory of today’s United States.
He was a servant to Love Brewster, of Duxbury, in the Plymouth Colony of British North America. Graunger, at the age of 16 or 17, was convicted of “buggery with a mare, a cowe, two goats, divers sheepe, two calves, and a turkey”, according to court records of 7 September 1642
Graunger confessed to his crimes in court privately to local magistrates, and upon indictment, publicly to ministers and the jury, being sentenced to “death by hanging until he was dead”.
Before Graunger’s execution, following the laws set down in Leviticus 20:15 the animals involved were slaughtered before his face and thrown into a large pit dug for their disposal, no use being made of any part of them.”
There you go, it in part proves well the main objection to bestiality, which infested various laws over the decades, is mostly RELIGIOUS and has nothing to do with supposed “animal abuse”
David Hackett Fischer traces the Puritan disdain for sodomy (and all forms of “unnatural sex” to a passage in the book of Genesis, “where Onan ‘spilled his seed upon the ground’ in an effort to prevent conception and the Lord slew him.” Fischer relates that “seed-spilling in general was known as the ‘hideous sin of Onanism'” in Massachusettes (1989:93). The story from the book of Genesis explains why both sodomy and buggery might have been listed as crimes punishable by death.
In Boston in 1656, Captain Kemble was forced against his will to sit in the stocks for two hours. He was charged with “lewd and unseemly behavior” on the Sabbath. All Captain Kemble did was kiss his wife upon returning home after three long years at sea. In Massachusetts the Sabbath laws were enforced frequently. In the town of Salem in 1668, John Smith and Mrs. John Kitchin were fined “for frequent absenting themselves from the public worship of God on the Lord’s day.”
Crimes were considered sins and any offense against God was an automatic crime against the village and the people therein. Many religious leaders preached sermons about God’s punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah to remind the people of what could happen to them if they disobeyed God’s law. But, it was more a case of the colony leader’s own law rather than God’s moral law.
The Puritans believed that if one member of their group suffered guilt, then the whole group must suffer along with that person or persons. If the person was not punished in a satisfying manner to the public, then they believed that they too would be punished. A simple breaking of their legal codes such as lying or idleness could cause the whole group to pay the price.
“Every year, hundreds of millions of animals are killed for
food. Cows have milk sucked from their udders by machines,
while sheep that are the product of mankind’s selective breeding
programs have their coats shorn. Even our “pets” are kept purely
on our terms: exercised when we have time, locked in cages,
trained to conform to our wishes.
All the above occurs without thought of the consent of the
animal involved. Why should it? After all, they are only dumb
animals. But the instant the issue of sex is brought into the
equation, consent becomes a key factor.”
I guess the whole thing that gets me is this: You talk about the fact that humans, in general, use various animals for food & clothing and have domesticated other animals as working animals and still others as pets. And you make the argument that all of this is done, generally, without the animals’ consent.
And I would agree. HOWEVER, I would most certainly NOT agree with the idea that animals would not consent to being our food, clothing, working for us and becoming our pets but that they WOULD consent to SEX with a human. That idea in and of itself makes absolutely ZERO sense to me, whatsoever.
By your argument, a reasonable person would have to believe that no animal in its right mind would want to have ANYTHING to do with a human being, much less being an object of sexual attraction.
Beyong a dog trying to hump a leg, I can’t think of another instance in my entire life where I ever even REMOTELY suspected an animal exhibiting some type of sexual attraction to me or any other human being. And since you like to bring up the whole horse thing, I have been around and worked with horses for most of my life. Everything from ponies, to Quarter Horses, to Morgans to several teams of Belgian draft horses. And I can’t think of a single time where ANY horse I have ever owned personally or been in the vicinity of has EVER shown a sexual attraction to another human being. NEVER IN FORTY+ YEARS!!!!! So the only way that any human would ever have sex with a horse is purely and totally, in my educated & experienced opinion, WITHOUT that animal’s consent! Your argument that a human male is physically incapable of harming a mare during a sex act is irrelevant. You will not get me to believe any kind of sexual attraction exists and the act is only to please the human male, not the female horse.
Your Wikipedia article mentions only a few instances where animals in nature naturally show any kind of attraction to humans – dogs, pandas and Emus. And why any human being would ever want to have sex with a flightless bird that is marginally smaller than an Ostrich is WAY beyond me. The only other instances mentioned involve “human imprinting” which occurs in A LOT of species who THINK they are human because they have been reared from birth by humans. This is most certainly NOT the same thing as a natural, innate attraction to humans.
And, if most animals do not naturally show sexual attraction to humans, the argument that they can somehow consent to the act goes out the window. How in the world could they consent if there is no attraction in the first place? Because animals are just that generous to humans? I think not. We already covered your theories against consent to be used for food, clothing, work or companionship. And if they wouldn’t consent to that, there obviously isn’t any INTEREST in doing those things, either.
That, ultimately is where the whole “zoophile” argument falls apart. You say that the animals would never consent to those things. Hence, there is no reason to believe that an animal would consent to sex with humans for anything OTHER than a trained response. Which puts “zoophilia” in the same category of bestiality.
Because in the end, my argument is still the same – that you are still only using the animal for sex and nothing more.
My family and I love deeply and care exquisitely for all of our pets. But I couldn’t even begin to fathom the idea of using our pets in the manner that you and your “zoo” friends think is perfectly acceptable.
Again, I realize that you’re going to do whatever you’re going to do. Hopefully, in the privacy of your own home where the rest of us don’t have to see it or hear about it. Unlike your friend, the LP truck driver.
I like to think I’m a progressive, liberal and open-minded individual. A Democrat, even. But my progressiveness, liberal nature and open-mindedness only goes so far. And it sure as hell doesn’t go in the direction of bestiality.
Call it “zoophilia” all you want to. The term is and always should be interchangeable with bestiality. Funny how zoophilia, necrophilia and pedophilia all end with the same suffix.
And they should all be abhored equally. You may see yourselves as the next generation of the sexual rights movement. But you are all one giant step backwards for the animal welfare movement.
Oops. I guess I broke my promise not to interject my personal beliefs. But I’m guessing that after previous posts, it probably wasn’t that much of a secret.
“I guess the whole thing that gets me is this: You talk about the fact that humans, in general, use various animals for food & clothing and have domesticated other animals as working animals and still others as pets. And you make the argument that all of this is done, generally, without the animals’ consent.”
Correct, you have that pretty accurate carnivore.
“And I would agree. HOWEVER, I would most certainly NOT agree with the idea that animals would not consent to being our food, clothing, working for us and becoming our pets but that they WOULD consent to SEX with a human. That idea in and of itself makes absolutely ZERO sense to me, whatsoever.”
Ok, fair enough, so let’s look at that then. Of those uses, and actually of all uses of animals we humans do, many if not most of those involve either pain, discomfort or death (except for say, pet dogs and riding horses)
You could pretty well say across the board that all traditional “livestock” is going to be kept confined, almost certainly caused a variety of discomfort and pain. For example, bulls tied down, and castrated without anesthesia, foul jammed into crates so small they cant turn around, veal calves kept in dark cages they cant turn aroudn in or run. Egg producing hens having their beaks burned off so they don’t peck each other to death due to overcrowding.
Without going further into those practices, I think the point is made with those examples. Once those animals reach a certain age, size or weight, they are jamemd into trucks and transported to the slaughterhouse. That is, except the few kept for breeding purposes, at least for a time, but they will meet this same fate eventually as well.
Without detailing the actual cruelty of common slaughterhouse practices ala Agriprocessors et al, (videos on youtube) the point is made on the pain/discomfort/death.
We all know no animal would willingly and happily go through any portion of the above.
So then we come to the sex portion, now, assuming a large animal (horse, donkey, large dog) is involved, and assuming the animal is full grown and sexually matured, acts of sex would not involve pain, discomfort or death as the aforementioned does.
As all female mammals have a fully functional clitorus and all the same basic genitalia women do, and the males likewise have the same parts men do, including a prostate, and both have the ability to have multiple orgasms.
Assuming the person is not using any restraints or force which would tend to cause fear, discomfort or pain, then the only thing left is pleasure from orgasm, which being a pleasurable thing would strongly tend to make the animal want more of it and to repeat whatever made it happen in previous acts.
Animals are governed by what causes fear, discomfort or pain and this causes them to want to escape or move away from the source of that, OTH something pleasureable or that the animal wants, tends to make the animal move towards that source, it doesn’t matter if it’s a special food, toy, person, shade etc as long as it’s pleasureable to the animal they will seek that out to either repeat it or to continue it, or to find it again.
The animal only knows two basic things afect it in it’s life; fear and pleasure, you can add sub sections to both such as pain etc but those are the two broad ones- fear and pleasure.
They don’t have religion, morals, embarassment, fear of ridicule, deceit, complex inter-personal relationships, or any of those human vices and situations, they are free of those.
Thus, they have absolutely no qualms about licking their genitals, eating feces or mating in front of a crowd of laughing people with cameras at a zoo.
“Beyong a dog trying to hump a leg, I can’t think of another instance in my entire life where I ever even REMOTELY suspected an animal exhibiting some type of sexual attraction to me or any other human being.”
That’s largely because MOST pet dogs are neutered and spayed, and almost all male livestock are castrated, this totally removes all sexual desire and hormones.Also, most every dog owned by a non zoo learns real fast that to show any such behavior will earn them a kick, hit, slap, loud NO!!!!! or other punishment.
I have seen videos of people at horse shows and the like WHACKING a stallion’s erection with a stick as a punishment for getting one at the event!
I have also known of instances where dog owners have “pinched” their male puppy’s penis for housebreaking infractions when they are still too young to know any better, as a result of all this, the animal learns that pain is earned.
I can assure you, there are plenty of videos around not only on youtube but elsewhere of animals “coming on” to humans in a sexual way. I know one that was removed from youtube of a farmer in his field witht he cows when a bull mounted him with an erection and tried to mate with him when he had bent over to pick up something.
Might have been mating season, but it happens.
“I can’t think of a single time where ANY horse I have ever owned personally or been in the vicinity of has EVER shown a sexual attraction to another human being.”
Because the vast majority of horses are GELDINGS! gelding, like neutering turns the animal into basically a “rocking horse, pet.”
Horses are different than dogs for one thing, they dont usually have that close bond a pet dog has living indoors with their owner and even sleeping in the same bed. Their temperament is very different, and they are prey animals which differs from predatory animals like canines.
“You will not get me to believe any kind of sexual attraction exists and the act is only to please the human male, not the female horse.”
Well, I know of many zoos are are strictly into horses and grew up with them, and they say otherwise. Also it comes down to the person’s intent, I certainly have communicated with many into mares who enjoy pleasuring HER first and foremost, even mares have a clitorus…
Maybe one of them will post a response here to that, I can only say I know next to nothing about horses, having not grown up around them.
But I do know a horse given a lot of personal time and attention, unlike most that are put into a field and left mostly by themselves, that they can become very tame, human oriented and it’s not unheard of people allowing them indoors and even to some extent housetraining them.
Youtube has videos of “house horses” showing this.
Such a horse would be very different than the one dumped in the field and left by itself for 6-1/2 days a week with minimal contact.
“Your Wikipedia article mentions only a few instances where animals in nature naturally show any kind of attraction to humans – dogs, pandas and Emus.”
That sounds about right, more so given that most all other animals such as livestock have extremely unpleasant contacts with humans their entire lives, and are raised in extremely poor, overcrowded, dirty, scary conditions, and often abused.
“And why any human being would ever want to have sex with a flightless bird that is marginally smaller than an Ostrich is WAY beyond me.”
I have no idea on that one, birds have no sentiments or affections towards humans as do dogs and horses, only thing I can say to that is the person is not a zoo but is more of a bestialist using the bird as a disposable sex toy, in which case that makes sense.
“The only other instances mentioned involve “human imprinting” which occurs in A LOT of species who THINK they are human because they have been reared from birth by humans. This is most certainly NOT the same thing as a natural, innate attraction to humans.”
I don’t believe I ever used the term or concept of “natural innate attraction to humans” in any form, animals have hormones that drive their sex drive, in the case of a dog who has never seen a female dog or will not be used for stud, he has urges and hormones he doesn’t know what exactly to DO with, the usual result is the dog tries mounting a person, the sofa, the cat, another male dog, and the usual result is punishment, pain and loud NO!! scaring them.
If the person the dog is trying to mount were to help them via hand and the dog has an orgasm and relief, then as I said earlier in this post, the dog finding pleasure in that will seek it out AGAIN, repeatedly then, and at future times as well.
A horse isnt going to try that because horses are trained to not kick at people, jump up, or try mounting them under threats of pain and punishment.
Most people also don’t get themselves into a situation where they are standing in a position or bent over and at risk of being jumped on by a 1200# stallion.
“And, if most animals do not naturally show sexual attraction to humans, the argument that they can somehow consent to the act goes out the window. How in the world could they consent if there is no attraction in the first place?”
I think I covered that in the paragraph above about the dog mounting anything.
“My family and I love deeply and care exquisitely for all of our pets.”
I have known more than a couple of zoos over the years who have suicided over the loss of one of their mates, one of those was “found out” and the local redneck sheriff/police type lawman beat the guy’s mare to death in front of him with a metal pipe.
Sorry, but many real zoos would I believe, lay down their lives for their animals, I have seen it in various forms over the years enough to know the background stories in their lives.
These are people who consider their animal exactly the same as you consider your married spouse, and unfortunately for them animals don’t live 80 years, and in the case of dogs, they go through a dog’s death and personal loss many times over their lives, with as devastating emotional results as you would have if your spouse died, you remarried and your new spouse died in 9 or 10 years and so on.
“Funny how zoophilia, necrophilia and pedophilia all end with the same suffix.”
Yes, but audiophile, pedophile and zoophile also end with the same suffixes too, and we know there’s no connection between audiophiles and bestiality.
“philia” is just a definition, all it means is “love” per this definition;
Philia is one of the four ancient Greek words for love.
Philia as a word doesn’t denote sex, illness or mental illness.
“And they should all be abhored equally.”
No question sex with dead bodies and children should be and are abhored, but animals are not children with fur, or dead, rotting bodies.
“You may see yourselves as the next generation of the sexual rights movement. But you are all one giant step backwards for the animal welfare movement.”
Actually you would be surprised to learn first of all that I don’t believe that bestiality or zoophilia should be involved in any kind of “rights movement,” for the simple fact that if it became fashionable the bestialist types, the curious kinks wanting to only USE animals as a new kinky to try out and share- would be the forefront majority and that would cause a lot of animals to be abused, purchased for a weekend and dumped, purchased by the wrong person for the wrong reasons and living situation (an Irish wolfhound living in a tiny travel trailer for example)
and likely to be dumped when they get to be too much work or cost.
OTH I do not believe that simply having sex with an animal should be a CRIME unless the animal is INJURED or hurt in some way, or is being neglected, starved etc
I also do not like (and am 100% against) the commercial porn industry, or their use of animals they ultimately dispose of- to use in bestiality films, almost all of which use paid hookers, druggies and idiots who have no clue how to pleasure an animal and don’t care.
You would also be surprised to learn that almost all real zoos are involved in animal welfare and animal rights groups, (including unfortunately donating money to the radicals at PeTA) donating money, time and more to various causes.
Why do you keep bringing up the fact that female animals and female humans have a clitoris? You talk about them as though they are homologous to one another. They are not.
Simply put, a human vagina was made to accept a human penis. A human penis was made to insert in a human vagina.
Likewise, a dog’s penis was made for a dog’s vagina and vice versa.
The same thing with EVERY other animal on earth.
In this case, it is really an “US VS. THEM”, only not in a confrontational way. Animals primarily stay and mate with their own species. I don’t see or hear about too many grizzly bears wandering into town to pick up female humans.
Dogs were domesticated for a reason. Same thing with house cats. In the case of dogs, it was primarily for work, companionship and protection. Cats? Primarily for companionship.
Other animals were domesticated or kept for various other reasons. I’m not going to get into a war of words over whether you think keeping animals to be slaughtered for food is okay. You’re either a vegan or not. Personally, I am an omnivore, like most other humans.
But the fact to the matter is this: Animals were NOT meant to be kept for sexual activity. And almost EVERY single animal welfare rights organization opposes human beings having sex with animals, including the Human Society, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and even PETA.
I’ll even take PETA’s word over that of a bestialist.
“Why do you keep bringing up the fact that female animals and female humans have a clitoris? You talk about them as though they are homologous to one another. They are not. Simply put, a ”
I bring it up to prove they are fully capable of orgasm (that’s what a clitorus helps provide) and that they are mammals with the same body parts we have there that function essentially identically aside from minor difference such as size, coloration, exact shapes etc.
It is factual to state also that a very large male dog’s penis is larger than the average man has, both in diameter and length- which puts to rest the notion that a man can’t possibly have intercourse with a female dog without tearing, rupture and injury or pain.
Providing the dog is a large to giant breed, i.e., Newfoundland, Gt Pyr, Mastiff, Labrador etc., their male counterparts have LARGER penis’ than the average human male does.
This is especially true of horses.
A giant breed dog’s penis is around 9″ to 10″ long, and there is a very large appendage called the bulbous glandis at the base (“bulb like gland”) or in laymen’s terms- the “knot,” which in such a dog is about the size of a man’s FIST, and all of that is fully inserted into the female during the act of breeding, with no difficulty, injury etc.
It is however, uncomfortable for the female, and many novices panic when they can’t “untie” which can take up to an hour. Sometimes that is accompanied by thrashing around, biting and attempting to escape the male.
That is not a problem with a human male, they don’t have that expanding glandis.
Whether a particular SPECIES of penis is “meant” to be inserted into a particular vagina is of no consequence or validity to the argument about zoophilia, except where the act is done to produce offspring, or to personal, religious/morality related objections/arguments, which as I pointed out before have no validity.
“In this case, it is really an “US VS. THEM”, only not in a confrontational way. Animals primarily stay and mate with their own species. I don’t see or hear about too many grizzly bears wandering into town to pick up female humans.”
There are many videos and other proof showing that animals not only masturbate, but they do on occasion cross out of their own direct species to attempt to mate with others. Some examples off the top of my head I have photos showing;
dog/goat, dog/sheep, cat/rabbit,
goat trying to mate a dog, a tiger trying to mate a female rottweiler dog- video taped in what appears to be some sort of wildlife park, zoo or rehab center.
Bonobos and some primates have sex for pleasure and masturbate as well as perform oral sex, as can also be seen of various animals videotaped at public zoos.
Horses and donkeys also cross over and produce offspring called mules, though they are sterile, the horse and zebra= zorse.
Tiger and lion = liger, wolf and dog, or dog and coyote.
You wont find a bear and a lion mating because they are natural ENEMIES, but there are many examples of cross-species matings, even if it’s a tiny number of the whole, that still blows the theory animals only stick to their kind 100% out of the water.
Now here’s a statement, and this was important because at the time the Danish legislature was pressured into outlawing animal bordellos which cropped up because bestiality was totally legal there as was almost all porn.
After extensively researching the matter they decided not to pass a law, as existing animal abuse laws covering *real* injury were already in place, but later passed a new law not to “protect” animals, but under international pressure due to the negative press from the bordellos and porn. Again, such bordellos and bestiality porn are NOT part of *real* zoophiles or genuine zoophilia, those are bestialists and zoosadists using animals as disposable sex toys.
The statement:
A 2006 Danish Animal Ethics Council report which examined current knowledge of animal sexuality in the context of legal queries concerning sexual acts by humans, has the following comments, primarily related to domestically common animals:
“it is not actually the creating of offspring which originally causes them to mate. It is probable that they mate because they are motivated for the actual copulation, and because this is connected with a positive experience. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is some form of pleasure or satisfaction connected with the act. This assumption is confirmed by the behaviour of males, who in the case of many species are prepared to work to get access to female animals, especially if the female animal is in oestrus, and males who for breeding purposes are used to having sperm collected become very eager, when the equipment they associate with the collection is taken out.
There is nothing in female mammals’ anatomy or physiology, that contradicts that stimulation of the sexual organs and mating is able to be a positive experience. For instance, the clitoris acts in the same way as with women, and scientific studies have shown that the success of reproduction is improved by stimulation of clitoris on (among other species) cows and mares in connection with insemination, because it improves the transportation of the sperm due to contractions of the inner genitalia. This probably also concerns female animals of other animal species, and contractions in the inner genitals are seen e.g. also during orgasm for women. It is therefore reasonable to assume that sexual intercourse may be linked with a positive experience for female animals.
(Udtalelse om menneskers seksuelle omgang med dyr published November 2006.Council members included two academics, two farmers/smallholders, and two veterinary surgeons, as well as a third veterinary surgeon acting as secretary.)”
The Bonobo, which has a matriarchal society, is a fully bisexual species — both males and females engage in sexual behaviour with the same and the opposite sex, with females being particularly noted for engaging in sexual behaviour with each other and at up to 75% of sexual activity being nonreproductive. Primatologist Frans de Waal believes that Bonobos use sexual activity to resolve conflict between individuals. Sexual activity occurs between almost all ages and sexes of Bonobo societies.
Other evidence of interspecies sexual activity
Looking back in history, current research into human evolution tends to confirm that in some cases, interspecies sexual activity may have been responsible for the evolution of entire new species. Analysis of human and animal genes in 2006 provides strong evidence that after humans had diverged from other apes, interspecies mating nonetheless occurred regularly enough to change certain genes in the new gene pool:
A new comparison of the human and chimp genomes suggests that after the two lineages separated, they may have begun interbreeding. A principal finding is that the X chromosomes of humans and chimps appear to have diverged about 1.2 million years more recently than the other chromosomes.
The Washington Post comments, “If this theory proves correct, it will mean modern people are descended from something akin to chimp-human hybrids.”
Another interesting article I have was from Russia, where for fertility studies on human females and falopian tube blockages, they used fresh equine semen obtained from a breeding farm. The idea was the specific cell’s slightly different shape was easy to recognize under the microscope, and finding them around the eggs would prove the tubes were unblocked.
They used the samples and reported large numbers of the equine cells were colelcting around the human eggs and attempting to get into it (normal for all sperm) the thing is, even so different a species as a horse was able to recognize a human egg AS an egg to go to, the environment supported the cell’s life and allowed them to reach the eggs and try to get in.
There’s another piece of evidence showing humans and animals are similar enough at the biological level that even horse sperm tries to fertilize human eggs!
“I’m not going to get into a war of words over whether you think keeping animals to be slaughtered for food is okay. You’re either a vegan or not.”
Well in any argument against zoophilia or bestiality being either “abuse” “wrong” causing pain, not obtaining conset etc there is no way that you can logically omit the argument!
You can’t state on one hand that masturbating a male dog to orgasm is “abuse” and on the other hand say that electrocuting foxes, mink and other fur bearing animals by shoving an electrode up their anus to kill them is either not abuse, consented to by the animal or right. The same goes for cows, sheep, cattle and livestock.
“But the fact to the matter is this: Animals were NOT meant to be kept for sexual activity.”
Animals were not meant for us to “use” in the first place! they are their own sentient beings, but in the case of domestic pets there is a beneficial symbiotic relationship there that benefits BOTH. Not one thing about a pig farm benefits pigs, anything done to the pig is strictly to increase profits for the person.
“And almost EVERY single animal welfare rights organization opposes human beings having sex with animals, including the Human Society, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and even PETA. I’ll even take PETA’s word over that of a bestialist.”
I really don’t care what the radicals at HSUS or Peta think or say, they don’t mean a thing to me at all, and if you did a modicum of research on those groups you would find horror story after horror story about financial irregularities, about paying the bail money for convicted arsonists, about cheering when domesticated animals are released from university facilities by animal RIGHTS vandals, and die in the woods because they had never know the wild. You would also learn that Peta is against *ANY* use of animals at all, including for pets (they say its slavery) guide dogs, riding horses, breeding animals of any kind for ANY reason, rodeos, food, circus, all of that they have made statements to the media they want ended and outlawed, and they push bills that are attempting to do just that, bit by bit.
HSUS has employees in it now who were working at PeTA, it’s essentially been taken over by those radical nuts too.
HSUS doesn’t operate one single animal shelter anywhere, not one! Peta emplyees were caught a few years back obtaining dogs from vets and others under false pretenses, telling them they would find good homes, and then KILLING them in the back of the official PeTA van using syringes and drugs they were not licensed to use. These two groups are the enemy of ALL animal owners.
I suggest you go research them on some sites such as activistcash dot com for starters before you believe one word they tell you about anything.
Now if you want to see REAL cruelty, and the perp get off with PROBATION, here’s the back story;
A Granby man who pleaded guilty to animal cruelty has avoided jail time.
Normand Girard, 52, admitted his guilt last year to three counts of animal cruelty, coming after he tried to kill a dog and its puppies.
First Girard tried to gas the dogs, but when that didn’t work he used a nail gun to shoot several animals in the head, then dumped them on the side of a road in Brome Lake.
One of the animals died, while the rest recovered from their injuries.
Girard has been sentenced to community service and must make a $2,000 donation to a humane society.
===
So this dog murderer first tried to gas the dog and her puppies to death and failed, then he shot them in the head with a construction nail-gun, published xrays show a 4″ long spike embedded in a dog’s skull, when that failed to kill them, he gathered them all in his vehicle and dumped them beside the road in the snow and drove off, leaving them to freeze to death.
It was only because a passing motorist happened to stop that the dogs were saved, except the one this guy killed.
That’s really crappy. You poke a dog you go to jail, But if you torture and kill a dog you get a slap on the hand.
I guess this shows that poking a dog is a moral issue and not one that is really considered cruelty to animals.
All I can say about this mess is that my heart goes out to his family. I can’t image what his children are going through if he has any. I think about his family members and I just get sick.
man and dog, man and man, what the difference?
Scary similarity, both unnatural… I can see the NIT headlines now “PETA joins fight for animal and their animal lovers to marry” “Purina to produce Human/Animal food to please both Partners”
Unnatural? and what exactly is NATURAL these days that humans do? do you think living in concrete cities and driving cars is “natural”? what about getting drunk, smoking cigarettes or getting on an airplane, are those “natural” too?
If they are so natural to the world order how come animals dont do that too.
The term “natural” has no value in this discussion.
I see no difference, as long as all participants are consenting and can freely leave, why should anyone care what they do in private?
A dog or horse certainly can say NO very easily, they have teeth or hooves, and can easily kill an adult human.
Thanks Peter, welcome back.
@Buzz Crumcutter
“Thanks Peter, welcome back.”
I’m not “Peter,” your reply comment to mine was inserted in the wrong place.
You people don’t know the whole story. He has a family and children. Don’t you think they’re going through enough?…all this talk humiliates them even more. Stop making jokes and just leave the situation alone and let the court decide.
While he never should have involved a dog not his own, zoophilia is typically harmless depending on the person.
The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself, it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles.
Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones, and that zoosexual partners are usually dogs and/or horses (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia.
Medical research suggests that some zoophiles only become aroused by a specific species (such as horses), some zoophiles become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some zoophiles are not attracted to humans at all.
One can easily argue that “consent” is irrelevant because human practices (such as hunting, laboratory testing, and slaughtering animals for meat) do not involve the consent of the animal and has never been sought by anyone.
Dr Hani Miletski believes that “Animals are capable of sexual consent – and even initiation – in their own way.” It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with (“hump”) the legs of people of both genders.
Academic and professional books
Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Bestiality and Zoophilia (2005), ISBN 978-1-55753-412-5
Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals (2002), ISBN 978-3-8322-0020-6
Dr Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Bestiality – Zoophilia: An exploratory study, Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. – San Francisco, CA, October 1999
Dr Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Bestiality/zoophilia – An exploratory study, 2000, Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3(4), 149-150.
Dr Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, 2002, Journal of sex research
Thank you, Zoo, for an informative post. Your citations provide crediblity and allow me to read more regarding this topic.
How refreshing to read an “educated” post.
Most welcome and thanks for the comments. I am always happy to put the published facts out about this instead of allowing hysterics and misinformation rule the day. Hysterics color people’s perceptions of such things based on what they think they know, or what some third hand tells them.
I’m not defending the accused, he should not have messed around with an animal not belonging to him simply because the dog was not his.
He is not a zoophile as defined per my reference article, but is an opportunistic bestialist who used the animal like a use once, dispose of- sex toy.
The jist of the zoophilia reference article and resources is, not all sexual contact with animals is automatically abuse, much depends on the person’s motives.
It is very hypocritical to claim non injurious acts with animals is “abuse,” while wiping the hamburger grease off ones’ fingers to type the response!
It is also ridiculous beyond all rationality to claim a 1200# mare, built to accept a stallion whose member is the girth and length of an adult man’s ARM- is some how being “abused” by “Joe” and his puny six incher.
Indeed, many youtube videos showing artificial insemination of mares vividly shows the operator inserting their gloved arm to the elbow, and deeper to insert the pipette, and for the most part the mare hardly even notices.
It is to bad for his family! How embarrassing for them.
I bet they were embarressed having such a slut for a dog, but I guess the dog like it “ruff” LOL
You idiots making disgusting jokes are just plain screwed up in the head! This is a serious crime & needs to be punished! Go figure out why you’re so damn disgusting, this is no laughing matter!!!! How would you like to get raped?? Horrible, beyond words!!!!
If that would have been my dog, I would have just asked for a larger discount on the price of the LP.
Wait til the truth comes out. That tramp of a dog came on to him!
Maybe he took the old nursery rhyme literally… “With a knick-knack paddywhack give your dog a bone” so he did. Only it wasn’t his dog. Instead of the old man who came rolling home it was the old mans wife.
I wondering if they got stuck together LOL!!!!
Shutta might have a view on this !!!
I heard he was in past the dog knot.
Someone should beat the Shih Tzu out of him.
Heard he was the receiver not the giver. Who’s the Guy Tim kensett?
Damn auto text. Who was the Guy from kensett?
Please show photo of dog, I can not pass judgement tell then. Dog may be very nice looking. Maybe even a pure bread.
This guy is one sick freak. Giving him help won’t work. Lock him up and throw away the key. Or else give him the death penelty before he does something to a child.
He wasn’t boning the dog, the dog was boning him.
Hope the dog was female, anyway I think it’s called ‘bestiality’.
If you need me I’ll be in my Lab.
And if need be you may take a ‘paws’ for refreshment !!!
Exodus 22:19 : “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.”
Soon our perverted world and society will allow man to marry beast, it is coming, and we will all feel the lord’s wrath.
God is fake Delphy. It’s all make believe and fairy tales.
Lets not bring unfounded, unproven religious propaganda into this, not everyone believes in your brand of mind control or book.
If you want to pick and choose passages from your book, then ye shall not overlook the OTHER fatal sins in it too, such as;
Divorce
Fornication outside of marriage
Stealing, and yes, EVERYONE has done it, and even one cent is still theft.
Working on the sabbath- how dare you!
Not stoning to death the child who curses their parents, or the adulterers in your town- you fail to abide by that direct order therefore you are guilty and condemned as well.
There’s hundreds of other beliefs out there, yours is not the only one, and certainly cannot lay claim to being the correct one.
Delphy- I have shocking news for you, there is no “allow” or disallow of marriage to an animal, it’s already done and has been for a long time. I personally know of someone in the Netherlands who had a pagan hand-fasting marriage ceremony to his pony-mare about 15 years ago.
Friends and people who knew them supported it, the rest of them, if anyone objected didn’t matter.
So, whether or not you like the idea, people certainly have, do and will marry animals through a variety of non-Western religion ceremonies such as practiced by pagan, heathen, druid, wicca and others.
Old Steven Michael Hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch his poor dog a bone, but when he bent over old Rover took over, cause he had a bone of his own.
Always heard it was ‘rover drover’ but what the hey, same result. Sure wrests the humorless out in the open though. lol
What the heck? What is the matter with people? Mental evaluation, I think so, and should be followed by some kind of mental institution.
Did you forget, Iowa, and most states in the U.S. have been closing institutions for the last four decades. And funding for Mental Health barely covers the need.
Another problem is, in the institutions left, finding competent help is not easy. The rate of abuse is quite high in some states.
Zoophilia was removed from the DSM psychiatric manual as a mental disorder.
It was instead placed in the classification
“paraphilias not otherwise specified.” in the DSM-III and IV.
Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal. In the article “Heavy Petting,” Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed.
Singer and others have argued that people’s dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational speciesism and anthropocentrism. Because interspecies sex occurs in nature, and because humans are animals, it is argued that zoophilic activity is not “unnatural” and is not intrinsically wrong.
Jacob M. Appel has also advocated for the decriminalization of bestialty, arguing that lack of consent is not a meaningful concept when discussing human-animal sex.
He has written that society does “not describe owning a pet dog as kidnapping, even when the canine is restricted to the inside of a home, although confining a human being in the same manner would clearly be unethical.”
According to Appel, such relations “may well be neutral or even pleasurable for the animals concerned”, and are primarily prohibited because of social taboos, not for any defensible philosophical reason.
What is quite interesting, is the fact that an author who conducted an academic study on zoophilia/bestiality and published a book on this- Andrea Beetz, co-authored the book with
Anthony L Podberscek, what is significant was twofold, one is the book does not condemn zoophilia, the other which is very significant is Mr Podberscek’s and Ms Beetz’ credentials, which are as follows;
Anthony L. Podberscek is a director at the Centre for Animal Welfare & Anthrozoology Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge, UK.
Andrea M. Beetz is at the Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK
Yes, both of them are involved in veterinary medicine and animal welfare.
The book is;
Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals
Andrea M Beetz,
Anthony L Podberscek
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Purdue University Press (September 1, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1557534128
Did the dog get the whole load?? Of LP??
No, he has a ‘burning’ desire for more !!!
Gives a whole new meaning to doggie style!
Why the pass word bit,seemes to me that this is no longer free speech. some one must have the gas man that dog fision was the way to go.
Jim, because too many spammers are filling up the comment section. Some of which have links to their nefarious sites, which may have something you do NOT want in your computer.
I much prefer the security, which does not limit speech at all.
How ugly are the women in north Iowa?
They look just like your mom.
Good one Brandi !!!
LMFAO !
Wow!! This guy delivers LP to my house!! Thankfully I have 2 100lb huskies so I don’t think he will be doing any sex acts to them or he would lose his parts!!
he did lose his pants
You’d be very surprised to research and learn something on this, your dogs almost certainly would not do what you suggest.
I hate to tell you this but my dogs aren’t very nice, they are in a locked pen for this reason. Maybe you should do some research.
“I hate to tell you this but my dogs aren’t very nice, they are in a locked pen for this reason. Maybe you should do some research.”
You’d be very surprised, most dogs that way are that way when the OWNER is around, when the owner is not, and they don’t feel they have to “protect” a member of their pack, they don’t pull that bluff and snarl stuff.
That is why most veterinarians will not allow the owner in the room when there are to be procedures, the dog is more aggressive with the owner present, and in some cases the dog will bite the owner who is holding them still.
Better go through a veterinary assistant program like I did and study dogs, breeding, behavior, showing and training for 35 years as I have.
If your dogs are indeed that bad, then they are a severe liability if one ever gets loose and attacks someone, it will be you who is arrested, and it will be you who has to pay on a civil lawsuit for damages.
News is full of dog owners now being held criminally liable for death and injury of another person.
The two california lawyer yahoos who owned presa canario dogs Bane and Herra went to jail after their dogs killed a neighbor woman in the hallway of their apartment building.
The stupid woman couldn’t control her own dogs.
Jesus…you people want to send people to prison and reward them for bad behavior…3 hots, a cot, medical care, and plus they have rights… Why the hell would you want to reward evil people with a life or no work, all play so they can get out and do it or worse again.. time for the death penalty…better yet… they used to hang or shoot people for horse theft… i would say this would be a case that would save us all some time and money with a well placed stray bullet
This guy will prob get time for this. Unlike the owner of wildhorse in kensett. Guess it doesnt matter that you beat 4 different people at different times with a gun pulled on them and treaten to kill them and family if they tell. And to think he only gets 5 days in jail at his time!! Makes you wonder who is payin who off on a deal like this!!?? They both need to rot!!!!!!
So Joe are you saying the owner of wild horse in kensett is doing the dirty with his horses? Your right about his assaults, I looked them up on online courts.
boy some people will go to any lenghts to tell lies wont they yes he got an assutle charge for hitting a thief, and if i was him i would have hit him even harder………
joe you need to get your facts stright, you dont know what your talking about, your taking facts from certain peoplr in kensett who want what wild horse has but dont want to work for it, so they want to lie and try to get money……………
Ummm i do know what im talking about and this guy is a fricken nut case!!! And he carries a gun?? He is a ticking time bomb and needs to be put away. It happens all the time!!!!!
sounds to me you are the one who needs help, you must be the person from kensett who is making up[ all these lies and we know who you are
No im not from that town. LIES look at the records!!!! Sounds like you might know him well and maybe sounds like your threating me??? Are you a big bad brad too???
if your not from kensett than you must be the one he through out of his yard tring to sell stollen stuff………..
Wrong again!!! Just hate the man for the things he gets away with, and doesnt do time for it. Well enough arguing with you, dont care anymore, Why dont you just go to the bottom of the page and talk to the eagle.
fine i just think people should belive about 5%of what you say and if people have any smarts at all they should questionthat 5% so long goodby and happy hunting……..
Yes,He does have a rap sheet bigger than Kensett itself.
Actually, I doubt he will do any time, more likely community service and a fine. He’s already unemployed no doubt, and the dog wasn’t harmed.
If you want to get angry about animal abuse, you only need to look over the fence at your nearest rancher’s cattle spread and your own dinner plate, the one with the MEAT on it that came from an animal who suffered a miserable life, and a worse death than you’d wish on your worst enemy.
Friend of David Schreiber????
O my!! Do we know that it was a dog or maybe the customers wife??? Either way OMG!!!!
Sad & embarrassing for the family. Seems like a pretty decent family from there and kids went to Garrigan. Also looks like wife owns a local travel agency.
I like how the GG copys and paste this info & article from NIT as if they reported it first. Lazy bums!
The Globe plays more dirty tricks than you can imagine, this would just be one of them. The public sees it now, they are exposed.
Please. The GG did a copy/paste from the same news release Matt did.
Sick Sick Sick! Send his a* to prison! Looser!
OMG!!!! That is so horrible!!! Lock him up! Disgusting!!!! Poor dog!!!!! 🙁
Wattya mean poor dog? Maybe it liked it. Just think, a two legged dog that walks upright could happen !!!
Kinkyh, you are one sick individual. I’ve read your comments on several stories & you make no sense & make disgusting jokes. Stop stealing your neighbors internet, put down the spoon & go to rehab. Everyone else on here making uncalled for idiotic jokes – YOU ARE DISGUSTING!!!
hahahhahahah