Breakthrough Web Design - 515-897-1144 - Web sites for businesses
News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the Entire North Iowa Region

Founded October 1, 2010


Man charged with bestiality pleads not guilty



This news story was published on March 8, 2012.
Advertise on NIT Subscribe to NIT

GARNER – A LuVerne man who authorities allege performed a sex act on a dog pleaded not guilty on March 1st to a bestiality charge.

Steven Schindler, 50, waived his right to a preliminary hearing and entered a written plea of not guilty. No new court date is set.

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 is innocent until proven guilty.

Need help with your website?
Call your local professional,
Breakthrough Web Design:
515-897-1144
or go to
BreakthoughWebDesign.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 characters available

64 Responses to Man charged with bestiality pleads not guilty

  1. One Stroke Nail Art Reply Report comment

    January 5, 2014 at 1:32 am

    Once your nails are dry, you can remove the guides and then paint
    the rest of the nails with your sheer or opaque color.

    It is really a bit milder than the acetone remover. It can be a great reward for them and an effective motivational return for you.

    Here is my website – One Stroke Nail Art

  2. website Reply Report comment

    February 10, 2013 at 11:53 am

  3. homepage Reply Report comment

    February 10, 2013 at 8:03 am

  4. Zoo Reply Report comment

    August 2, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    Good thing he pled NOT GUILTY and forced the state to PROVE their nothing of a “case” as in the end they state couldn’t do much of anything based on a hysterical woman’s claim, and a grainy cellphone picture.
    Logic won out.

    GARNER, Iowa (AP) — A northern Iowa man who has been given two years of probation after being convicted of bestiality.

    The Mason City Globe Gazette reports that 50-year-old Steven Schindler was given a deferred judgment, which means that the crime will be removed from his record if he successfully completes the probation.

  5. Zoo Reply Report comment

    August 2, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Looks like the accused has had his case dropped, this is GOOD news and the arrest will drop off his record after a short probation period.

  6. zoo Reply Report comment

    April 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    “I do not even know how I ended up here, however I believed this post was once great. I do not know who you are however definitely you are going to a well-known blogger if you aren’t already.”

    You searched for “bestiality” was how you got here, or someone sent you the url to a “disgusting story” (their words I’m sure.)
    This “post’ is still great but I’m no “blogger” and have no interest in “fame,” my sole interest is correcting the bullshit with facts. Whether the accused is found not guilty and released, fined, or jailed for longer is no concern of mine, he’s not a zoo but unfortunately fencehopping bestialists and clueless fools like him who play with someone else’s dog and don’t even check to see if they are being watched- get real zoos mixed up in their sordid media catastrophies when they get caught by some hysterical fool who doesn’t know the difference between a child, and a dog.

  7. how to apply mascara Reply Report comment

    April 11, 2012 at 7:33 am

    You could definitely see your enthusiasm in the work you write. The arena hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. Always go after your heart.

  8. Aluzky Reply Report comment

    April 8, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    @Peter L

    “I agree animals should receive better treatment by humans, but sexual contact between human and animal is not one of them” ◄•I let you know that sex is not always a bad thing. Consensual sex acts done with non-human animals are enjoyable or neutral to the animal (not harmful and not something you or anyone needs to worry about) If you think acts that humans do to animals that are neutral or enjoyable to them should not be done, let me ask you, are you against people petting their pets too? Or you only have a double standard when the act is sexual?

    Seems that all you have to say that humans should not do that is your personal (subjective) opinion. And the answer to that is, if you don’t like consensual bestiality, then don’t do it. You should not try to discriminate or stop people who do like to do consensual bestiality. If you do that, you become like the homophobes who are trying to stop and discriminate homosexuals just because they subjectively don’t like what homosexuals do in private.

    If a zoosexual is not harming anyone, then live and let live.

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      April 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm

      Wish you had showed up sooner Aluzky, could have used the input as I was here by myself.
      There is a second thread on this with 108 comments here.
      Peter was dragged in by some fool posting that he thought I was him, think he want’s to be left out of the discussion.
      Carnivore and I have had the bulk of the discussions and it seems carnivore is just beginning to learn the differences between a real, ethical zoophile and a bestialist at least.
      For the record, even though Aluzky and I agree on the basics of zoophilia, we disagree on at least a few things related to this topic, namely the production and distribution of bestiality porn by those using the word “zoo” on web sites and forums, and the eager consumption of it by those calling themselves “zoos.” I could also include the furries who are extremely talented
      top notch graphic artists resorting to creating paintings and drawings of bestiality subjects complete with semen spread all over the view and huge exagerated members.
      We don’t agree on this issue, but it goes to show that lumping all people who happen to be sexually attracted animals in one box is wrong, even two zoos don’t agree on some aspects.

    • iknewit Reply Report comment

      July 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm

      I would like to know how a animal gives consent? And seriously you need help if you think it’s ok to have sex with animals. You must be one sad strange little FREAK!

  9. zoo Reply Report comment

    April 2, 2012 at 8:34 am

    “appears to be very serious in the promotion of intercourse with animals,”

    No, I do not *promote* zoophilia, in fact if you read the document linked to my name in a post last night, I try to DISCOURAGE thrill seekers, and curious kinks who want to “test drive.” If i promote anything it’s understanding the issue and education about what zoophilia really is from the factual standpoints.
    I have no control over what people do, someone bound and determined to have sex with an animal after reading the document is going to do it no matter what I or anyone else tries to tell them. But nowhere in the document or any of my posts here will you ever find any language such as “you should try its it’s great!” “it’s the best thing since sliced bread!” “I’ll help you find an animal”
    You’ll never see such words from me in any kind of promotion!

    ” I’m guessing Zoo is not from this area and followed a link into NIT to open up a discussion on the matter.”

    I’m not from your state, but I do get news alert emails based on keywords, and this arrest came up.

    “I agree animals should receive better treatment by humans,”

    Glad we agree there then.

  10. Carnivore Reply Report comment

    April 1, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    I was simply going to the site you mentioned to another person in a previous post. You have to understand that I don’t really delve into the world of bestiality/zoophilia and wouldn’t really know what to look for, in particular.

    It was on that site you specifically mentioned where I discovered all of the posts on the “how-to’s” of having sex with dogs, horses, etc. In nearly every one of them, it was all about how to get the animal to respond to the human, not about perpetuating any kind of mutual attraction or response.

    Again, I acknowledge that you would know better than I where to go for such information. As such, I simply checked out a site that you had previously mentioned.

    And I understand that you are in no way responsible for any or all of the content on there and also acknowledge that I don’t remember seeing anything quoted by you directly from that site and don’t wish to impune you in that way. You simply mentioned the site, the number of users at that time and the number of users who were currently online at the moment you posted, if I remember correctly.

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      April 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm

      ” You have to understand that I don’t really delve into the world of bestiality/zoophilia and wouldn’t really know what to look for, in particular.”

      Understood, and it can be overwhelming sorting through the thousands of trashy porn urls and posts.

      “It was on that site you specifically mentioned where I discovered all of the posts on the “how-to’s”

      I actually didn’t include an url to it because I don’t want to give them links or traffic revenue, I really only included the board stats to show the numbers and interest, and with over a million members there that is a large amount and that is just one forum.
      But as I mentioned earlier, I totally hate that site and everything it is doing under the false banner of “zoo”, it is a commercially owned porn trading rag cashing in on the beast porn.
      Any “how to” articles or posts there are in my opinion there to draw traffic in for the porn, and to get more “hits” thru google via all the keywords in the files.

      Indeed, those “how to” guides even to me are disgustingly pornographic in their language, they have circulated around the internet for over a decade, and they were written by people who don’t know better and for a target audience- the young wanna-be idiots who are looking for the porn mostly.
      The language is far from professional, and absolutely disrespects the animals and “cheapens” them into being viewed as a sex toy for the evening to test drive.

      The big problem is, I frankly just don’t KNOW of any really well thought put, well compiled real zoo site that I can just point someone to with confidence.
      The best I came up with is the file I linked to in my name here that is on woofiles to download as plain text.
      If you read it you’ll find it refreshingly different than those “how to” guides you saw, it is written in a professional way, with professional language devoid of pornifying it, and it clearly is written to discourage wanna-be’s and “test drivers”

      ” I don’t remember seeing anything quoted by you directly from that site and don’t wish to impune you in that way.”

      Appreciated, and I’m glad you can see what I am speaking of about that site.

  11. zoo Reply Report comment

    April 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    “First of all, I’m NOT the individual writing this treatise on the Virtues of Bestiality.”

    I don’t know why anyone said or thought you had, I took the reference in the post to be a joke as I never heard of a Peter L before and have no idea about it.
    Must be some internal argument you are having with some regulars in here.

    “With that said, I will say that I believe this writer named “Zoo” is essentially trying to point out the hypocrisy of Society being perfectly willing to be complicit in exploiting, torturing and murdering animals for work,food, pets, and medical research, yet when one talks about an act with them that could possibly be construed as “loving”, and pleasurable for one or more parties, society shuns on the thought. Kill the animal, okay. F*** the animal: be an outcast and go to jail. I see the larger point this writer is making, and with it I agree.”

    That is exactly the point I’ve made all along in both article pages on this arrest here, and I’m glad we agree on the above points of hypocracy because it’s a very important aspect that if people sat down for two minutes rationally and thought about, they would see it.

    ” However, personally I find the thought of sexual gratification with an animal, quite unsavory. I wouldn’t want to invite a bestialist into my home, or want them anywhere near my neighborhood or town really, regardless of ”

    That’s ok, I find what gays and heterosexuals do in the same light, so it works both ways.
    What you fail to understand however is the sheer numbers involved. I can tell you without reservation that no matter what sized town you reside in, there are people around you who either have a fetish for watching animals mate (very common), or they have an interest in zoophilia, or they just enbjoy the porn depicting it and watching women in them “degrade” themselves.
    I guarantee you that there are people around you who are one of the three, and you would absolutely never know it.
    The above includes married men and women, couples who have children and would be appear to be a typical “all American family,” but unless they make a mistake and someone witnesses an act, or their kid finds porn in the computer and sends it to a friend, no one would ever know.
    The only reason the propane guy was arrested is the owner of the house happened to be HOME at the time and it’s obvious he didn’t know that.

    For all anyone knows he’s been there many times with that dog when he knew she was out, this time he got careless.
    For the record and FYI, I do not approve of his specific actions (as I said in detail on the other article’s comment page) his actions are that of a bestialist using the animal for a quick get-off toy, this is not zoophilia. Real zoophiles frown on and discourage doing this with other people’s animals, it’s known as “fence hopping.”

    “if the horse or sheep tries to walk away and you don’t let it could you be convicted of rape?”

    Again, that would be the actions of a bestialist using the animal for a one-night sex TOY, and real zoophiles would not approve of or condone retraining any animal that way- ever! It’s the same as a husband holding his wife down for sex when she says no and doesn’t want it. That husband should be arrested, as should the bestialist who fence hops and restrains or otherwise ties up an animal and doesn’t allow it free-choice to walk away, or deliberately or carelessly causes injury.
    I would be among the first to report such a person.

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      April 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm

      “Furthermore, were this practice deemed non criminal, i would think at the very least, you would need to not engage in sexual relations with another person’s animal. ”

      Peter, real zoophiles have their OWN animals, and in a relationship, they don’t need to sneak around and “fence hop” in the first place, in the second place it’s not what an ethical zoo does.
      Being legal however opens the door to abuse by abusive bestialists who could skirt the line as long as they don’t cause visible injury.
      THAT kind of person is not what real zoophiles want to be associated with any more than heterosexual men want to be associated with rapists.
      But the public and the law lump both into ONE group, this is like lumping all heterosexual men with rapists even though clearly there are two individual groups having nothing in common with one another other than the act of “sex”

      “, I’m really learning a lot about something I knew little about. I had no idea for instance the differentiation between bestialist and zoophile. I believe “fence hopping” is what caused me to LOL, although I’m sure to practicing orthodox zoophiles, there’s nothing humorous about it. As a Buddhist i do believe in animals rights, and this includes animals’ rights to sexual gratification. Cross species sexual interaction is something that does occur, so removing the religion, I guess it’s not too far of a jump to include human beings.

      I am glad you are benefitting form the discussions, as a pagan I feel much as you do as a
      buddhist. You are correct that a certain amount of cross-species sex does occur, not real common but it DOES occur and that’s a key issue.

    • Carnivore Reply Report comment

      April 2, 2012 at 1:35 am

      No offense intended, Zoo, regarding the website. Again, I have absolutely no idea what would be considered a legitimate zoo site versus a bestiality site. I only looked at the one site because it had been previously mentioned by you in another post. At that time, you hadn’t stated any objections to it so I took it as being kind of the “Google” or “Yahoo!” of beast sites.

      And I would imagine that posting the url for any other sites would only be inviting chaos at this point. Not looking to give anyone any more fodder. If nothing else, it has been an entertaining discussion.

  12. MrsE Reply Report comment

    March 28, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    There is no defense to this horrible crime. Just plain sick!!! This POS needs to be sentenced to the MAX! 🙁

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      March 28, 2012 at 7:59 pm

      Sure there is, the dog wasn’t harmed at all first of all. Secondly, the man has not even been to court OR convicted yet and you already have him drawn and quartered, and hanging from the nearest gallows!
      Boy, you’d have done real well in the 1850’s wild west that’s for sure, just hang em high based on someone’s so far unproven ACCCUSATION and an out of context poor quality cell phone photo.

      Hate to disappoint ya, but “the max” is mostly likely going to be a fine and maybe community service, if they even get a conviction at all.
      The more I read on this incident the more I was convinced there’s a lot we haven’t been told, and the woman who took the time out during the supposed “attack” on her dog, to go get her cell phone, turn it on, sneak up and take a photo before her dog or the man heard/saw her.
      The guy claims he had stomach cramps and went behind the barn, the dog followed him and tried to “hump” him when the cell phone pic was taken.
      The picture is worthless because 1/2 second afetr it was taken the guy very well could have shouted “get away” at the dog and pushed him away, destroying the prosecution’s “case.” That’s why the photo is all but worthless, it doesn’t show events before or after that second.
      I don’t buy the suspect’s story at all, I also don’t buy the woman’s story either, or about how come she had time to get a cell phone, turn it on, and take photos all the while the supposed “attack” was happening on her beloved dog while she was fiddling around with taking pictures!
      Neither story adds up.

      Good luck proving anything more than being on private property.

      If indeed the guy does have a zoophillic affinity for animals, I hope he winds up finding one of the many good support groups for real, ethical zoos and joins that one to get support and learn. I hope he avoids the shady, mostly porn trading “zoo” rags on the web that do nothing but trade and sell illegal porn.
      Wikipedia search for zoophilia is a good place to start which does have some resources and links.
      But above all, don’t mess with someone else’s animals, get your own!

  13. ill Reply Report comment

    March 15, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    I feel like i’m going to throw up – couldn’t read all of zoo’s bs – what a demented soul – wow. It’s a scary world out there.

    • Zoo Reply Report comment

      March 15, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      Throw up all you wish, and skip over this story in the future to avoid future illness, but don’t refer to someone’s professional and medical related comments as “BS” when you don’t have the capacity to even begin to understand this topic, and obviously have made up your mind.

      Have a nice day 🙂

      • Tuneman Reply Report comment

        March 26, 2012 at 12:08 am

        Wow! So now you’re a “professional” bestialist? Or did you mean that you practice bestiality for medical reasons?

        Sad part is, I’ve seen pedophiles on TV that have been fairly well educated and offer in depth, detailed diatribes and psycho-babble like yours to try and justify their actions and why they should be allowed to practice pedophilia.

        Either way, it is pretty much sick and wrong. Not quite the point of barfing, like Ill, but then again, I did not have to witness the act, either.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        March 26, 2012 at 12:30 am

        Tuneman

        Wow! So now you’re a “professional” bestialist? Or did you mean that you practice bestiality for medical reasons?”

        Wow, so you are a “professional” jerk, or just a bigot for medical reasons?

        “Sad part is, I’ve seen”

        Sad part is for you… animals are not children with fur, so your garbage about pedophiles is not applicable, sorry but you’ll have to do way better than that LOL

        “Either way, it is pretty much sick and wrong.”

        Tha’s your opinion, and I think what you do with your wife is pretty sick, and wrong too, so that makes us even I guess.

        “Not quite the point of barfing, like Ill, but then again, I did not have to witness the act, either.”

        Thankfully I don’t have to watch your fat behind in bed with whatsherface either, so it looks like we’re square there.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        March 26, 2012 at 12:32 am

        Zoophilia is typically harmless depending on the person’s motives.

        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

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        March 26, 2012 at 12:39 am

        The problem with crack armchair wannabe psychiatrists like you tuneman is, you don’t know what you are talking about in regards to pedophilia either, and the medically proven facts are- underage children are harmed mentally/emotionally and physically by sex with an adult. BOTH of which are lacking in regards to animals.
        THAT is why pedophilia is illegal today even though in the ancient Greek’s time it was openly practiced and part of their culture, as was bestiality which was depicted on many object de art.

        Also, FYI- in some states a 14 year old can get married with parental permission. You have to assume a marriage would include SEX with that 14 year old. Obviously those states don’t see a problem there, otherwise they couldn’t even marry at that age with an official state issued marriage license.

      • Tuneman Reply Report comment

        March 26, 2012 at 2:26 am

        “Wow, so you are a “professional” jerk, or just a bigot for medical reasons?”

        Mmmmmm, I’d have to say an amateur jerk.

        “Sad part is for you… animals are not children with fur, so your garbage about pedophiles is not applicable, sorry but you’ll have to do way better than that LOL.”

        Nothing sad about that for me. And you’re right. Animals are not children with fur. I never said they were. Animals are animals. Humans are humans. Most humans in their right mind choose not to have sex with their pets.

        “Tha’s your opinion, and I think what you do with your wife is pretty sick, and wrong too, so that makes us even I guess.”

        Really? Hmm. Interesting. Funny, though, that the majority of states have NOT passed laws criminalizing heterosexual activity. Why? Oh, that’s right. Because it is human/human and not humans and animals. So who is really the sicko here? Take a look at the VAST majority of the rest of the comments on this article and the comments pertaining to the other article written about this same incident and you can get a very clear idea of what the majority of people consider acceptable behavior and what they don’t.

        The rest of us aren’t using this section to brag about our sexuality, either. Or use it to try and convince others that it is an acceptable way of life.

        “The problem with crack armchair wannabe psychiatrists like you tuneman is, you don’t know what you are talking about in regards to pedophilia either,”

        I have absolutely no interest in being a psychiatrist. And it doesn’t take a friggin’ rocket scientist to figure out how harmful pedophilia is to children.

        And, since animals cannot directly communicate with humans, you can’t tell me or anyone else with 100% certainty that the animal is not harmed by it. And just because the animal does not appear physically harmed, does not mean that it is not harmed in other ways.

        I’m sure you could probably care less. But to most of us, we try to follow societal norms on what behavior is acceptable and what is not. Society’s views are changing daily, weekly, monthly and yearly.

        I can’t imagine the day when society thinks behavior like this should be universally accepted. But, I never would have imagined years ago that gay marriage would, either. So I suppose anything is possible. I think a lot of people just got tired of hearing about it and decided to quit putting up a fight.

        So, who knows. Maybe the “Rise of the animal lovers” will happen some time in the future. Hopefully, it will happen well and away after I’m gone, which I would imagine you think can’t happen soon enough.

        I’d love to believe that this country’s best days are ahead of it. And then I read articles about something like this and think, “Wow. This pretty much guarantees the end of America as we know it.”

        Your opinions and writings, Mr Zoo, only reinforce that belief.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        March 26, 2012 at 8:31 am

        “And you’re right. Animals are not children with fur. I never said they were. ”

        Then stop comparing sex with animals to pedophilia, they are not even remotely the same.

        “Funny, though, that the majority of states have NOT passed laws criminalizing heterosexual activity. Why? Oh, that’s right. Because it is human/human and not humans and animals.”

        Funnier still you forget we are MAMMALS and have all the same body parts and functions, including orgasm- that other mammals do, basic biology look it up.
        The church had heterosexual sex as a crime outside of marriage, masturbation once was too, dito for adultry, even laws against sodomy (anal sex) with your own wife exist today in some states.

        “and you can get a very clear idea of what the majority of people consider acceptable behavior and what they don’t. ”

        You know bud, I honesty don’t care what other people think, or think they know how “it” is based on religious propaganda. The objectiosn come from religion not logic or fact.

        “The rest of us aren’t using this section to brag about our sexuality, either. Or use it to try and convince others that it is an acceptable way of life. ”

        I’m not bragging about anything, I’m simply providing the facts, including peer-reviewed published studies on this that show you are wrong.

        “And, since animals cannot directly communicate with humans, you can’t tell me or anyone else with 100% certainty that the animal is not harmed by it. And just because the animal does not appear physically harmed, does not mean that it is not harmed in other ways”

        You don’t know much about animals do you, they certainly do communicate and it’s fairly easy to “read” if you know even the basics of animal “body language.”
        The day you can prove to me that raising livestock in confinement sheds (the animal version of sobibor death camps) as is done today, and eating meat doesn’t harm them is the day I’ll let you win that hypocritical argument.
        Sex doesnt harm a willing animal who is large enough, eating meat KILLS them, eating dairy products subjects them to a lifetime of harm. Factory farms and mass breedign farms included.

        “Society’s views are changing daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. I can’t imagine the day when society thinks behavior like this should be universally accepted. But, I never would have imagined years ago that gay marriage would, either. So I suppose anything is possible. ”

        That’s right, it wasn’t long ago that blacks were sold as slaves and that was perfectly acceptable, now we have a black president 150 years later. Being gay was a jailable crime, so was blasphemy, heresy, adultry and working on Sunday, now there’s gay marriage and free speech.

        “I think a lot of people just got tired of hearing about it and decided to quit putting up a fight. So, who knows.”

        Doubt it, more likely they came to realise that you cant deny basic civil rights to other people based on gender, color OR sexual orientation. Also, psychiatrists and medical science finally figured out that being black or female was not inferior to white men, and that being gay wasn’t a mental illness or one that needed electro-therapy and “treatment”, they came to the same conclusions regarding zoophilia which is classified simply as a sexual paraphilia needing no treatment unless the person feels they do.

  14. lockhimup Reply Report comment

    March 15, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Your a very sick individual! nothing u say justifys this behavior.

    • Zoo Reply Report comment

      March 15, 2012 at 7:58 pm

      That’s your opinion, the facts and peer reviewed medical studies and more that I posted, say otherwise.
      There is no justification for objection of a harmless act with a willing animal who can walk away.

      Have a good day 🙂

      • Tuneman Reply Report comment

        March 31, 2012 at 9:47 pm

        Peer reviewed, huh? The only people that probably reviewed any of the materials you suggested are other people who think it is okay to have sex with animals. Let’s just ignore all of the opinions expressed over the years by other psychologists and medical professionals who have repeatedly classified bestiality as, at a minimum, a paraphilia and at worst, true sexual deviancy.

        And you also compared a lot of other “civil rights” cases to your case in favor of bestiality. The only problem is, that all of the things you mentioned (interracial marriage, adultery, sodomy, slavery, etc…..) involve HUMAN BEINGS! So, instead of calling them civil rights, let’s separate it and call it HUMAN RIGHTS!!! That is basically what civil rights is!

        So, let’s take that a step further and separate HUMAN rights from ANIMAL rights. And one of the things that animals have a right to is to not be molested by humans!!!

        I, for one, do NOT believe that animals are the equal of humans. I do believe that we are omnivores, both vegetarian AND meat-eating people, and that it is okay to raise certain livestock for food, as long as it is done appropriately. Afterall, as you like to point out SO often, humans are also mammals. And mammals kill other mammals for food EVERY SINGLE DAY in the wild. Why should human beings be any different? And the majority of mammals in the wild aren’t going to try and screw the same animal they are going to eat.

        Dogs and cats and other animals were domesticated for companionship and, in some cases, for servitude. Some animals are used by human beings as a source of food. But I don’t think science generally accepts the notion that some animals have a secondary purpose of becoming sex partners for human beings. I believe that inter-species sex between humans and animals is just plain wrong. It simply makes NO sense as far as procreation goes. Recreational sex? I suppose if you have some paraphilia or fetish. But the animal doesn’t really get a say in that and I believe they will only participate if TRAINED to do so!

        Look, I respect your rights to believe what you want to believe, Zoo. And I am a proponent of gay rights, civil unions and gay marriage. I fully support consensual sexual activity between CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS. I just can’t see that sex between humans and animals is normal. My progressive thinking only goes so far. I can’t look at my sleeping bulldog and see any kind of sexual attraction between her and I. And it appalls me to even think that there are people out there who would actually see her that way.

        My love for my dog is strong enough that I would NEVER do anything like that to her.

        Again, you are entitled to your opinions and I respect that. But the rest of us are entitled to ours, too. And simply having a different opinion than you does not make ours any less valid.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        April 1, 2012 at 12:04 am

        “Peer reviewed, huh? The only people that probably reviewed any of the materials you suggested are other people who think it is okay to have sex with animals. Let’s just ignore all of the opinions expressed over the years by other psychologists and medical professionals who have repeatedly”

        Those very same ones back then used to claim being homosexual was a mental illness that required electro-shock treatments and even lobotomy to try and “cure.” But that was back in the days when “colored” people were prohibited by law from using the whites only washrooms and had to give up a seat on the bus for a white.
        Maybe you rememebr those days as fondly as you remember those psychiatrists who performed lobotomies on gay people to try and “cure” them of their “mental disorder.”

        So you are saying Dr Miletski, Andrea Beetz and her collegue who is head of a veterinary medicine dept at a university, and those on the Dutch ethics committee which also included two involved with veterinary medicine, and all the rest all have sex with animals themselves or something, so that’s why they approve? GET REAL!

        “And you also compared a lot of other “civil rights” cases to your case in favor of bestiality. The only problem is, that all of the things you mentioned (interracial marriage, adultery, sodomy, slavery, etc…..) involve HUMAN BEINGS!”

        And so your point is what? my point is if someone who is white wants to marry someone who is black (illegal not long ago) it is their civil right to do so, same as if a person owns an animal and they have consentual and private relations with, that is their right to do so just as it would be YOUR right if you owned cattle- to cut their throats and KILL THEM if they cost you too much and you don’t make a profit on them. See how that works now?

        “So, let’s take that a step further and separate HUMAN rights from ANIMAL rights. And one of the things that animals have a right to is to not be molested by humans!!!”

        But it’s okay in YOUR book to cut a steer’s throat and KILL them as you desire, for any reason, or no reason at all right?! if they have the right to not be “molested” as you claim, then they have the right to not be raised JAMMED into feedlots, jammed into semi’s and then brutally KILLED for your enjoyment! You can’t have it both ways!

        I, for one, do NOT believe that animals are the equal of humans.”

        There we differ, I certainly DO believe dogs, horses and a few other mammals ARE equal to humans in every way but being able to speak, write text, use tools, plan a future etc. Your problem is like that of most due to the bible- you see animals strictly as DISPOSABLE commodities to use, use up and discard, that is why you eat MEAT which you don’t need.

        ” and that it is okay to raise certain livestock for food, as long as it is done appropriately. Afterall, as you like to point out SO often, humans are also mammals. And mammals kill other mammals for food EVERY SINGLE DAY in the wild. Why should human beings be any different?”

        Imagine if an alien race of advanced humanoids from another planet landed here and thought the same of humans and treated humans like hamburgers on the hoof the way we treat animals! But that would be okay because it would be “done right” eh?
        Animals- predators kill prey animals every day, true, but the difference is they HAVE TO in order to survive. Lions cant decide to graze grass instead of “Bambi” and predators serve an important purpose in the eco-system. Humans on the other hand are unique in that they HAVE a choice and can grow all their own food- rice, grains, flours, nuts, berries, fruits, vegetables and more. Humans on the other hand DON’T serve an important purpose to the eco-system which existed just fine before we came along and tried to “manage” it.

        “I believe that inter-species sex between humans and animals is just plain wrong. It simply makes NO sense as far as procreation goes. Recreational sex? I suppose if you have some paraphilia or fetish.”

        You have the right to believe as you wish, as I do, and I believe human overpopulation has become a scourge on this planet and it’s worsened with every new mouth added. Time for ONE child per couple laws or something because this “be fruitful and multiple” scheme has destroyed vast areas of the planet and is only getting worse.
        Zoophilia IS a paraphilia, that is what it’s defined as.
        With sex, few encounters ever are done these days to strictly produce babies, almost all sex today is done recreationally. If you want to bring up the sex is for procreation angle, then you have to include the elderly, infertile, those past menopause, the impotent and others as doing wrong because like the zoophile with an animal partner- they CANT procreate, therefore they shouldn’t have sex at all, that sound about right?

        “But the animal doesn’t really get a say in that and I believe they will only participate if TRAINED to do so!”

        The heck they don’t, ever try forcing a dog who doesn’t like what you are doing to keep doing it? how about a 1,000# horse? Have you watched the youtube videos showing horse breeding and how most all of them have at least three handlers wearing hard hats, tall boots, the mare is hobbled with ropes so she can’t kick, she is usally tied to a fence post, and then the stallion is brought out and it takes everything they have to get the act accomplished if the mare doesn’t like the stallion or resists.
        I have a dog who HATES nail trimming with a passion, nothing I ever tried worked, not treats or anything. I have to literally hold her down with my body on the floor with a lot of effort and try to trim one or two nails at a time because she is trying to get up, pulls the leg away or dodges me soon as the nail clippers come out. It’s a huge difficult battle. Yup, I can cut her nails by force, but she CLEARLY shows and tells me she hates the whole process and puts up a battle about it every single time.
        BODY language is the key my man, and that dog’s body language is crystal clear and easy to read.

        “Look, I respect your rights to believe what you want to believe, Zoo. And I am a proponent of gay rights, civil unions and gay marriage.”

        Same here.

        “I fully support consensual sexual activity between CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS. I just can’t see that sex between humans and animals is normal.”

        My love for my dog is strong enough that I would NEVER do anything like that to her.”

        What is “normal” is not set in stone, it varies by culture, geography and time, in India they worship cows as sacred animals, it’s normal there, here we KILL them. In N Korea and other places they raise dogs for MEAT, it’s normal, here were horrified at that.
        150 years ago slavery was normal here, everyone with money had slaves and domestic servants, that all changed rapidly.

        You are mistaking zoophilia as an act of force or violence or whatever, you just don’t GET what it is and you are assuming with that last line about your love for your dog- that having sex is NOT about love, when in fact with real, GENUINE ethical zoophilia (not talking about the propane man here) the love and relationship is so deep it’s like a marriage partnership, and one which can include sex as an EXTENSION of that.

        “Again, you are entitled to your opinions and I respect that. But the rest of us are entitled to ours, too. And simply having a different opinion than you does not make ours any less valid.”

        I’d like to say I agree with your last line there about validity, but you see, opinions don’t make facts. I know the facts about zoophilia, inside and out, I’ve studied and researched it extensively from every angle for over fourty years, I own all of the books on the subject in print, including R.E.L Master’s 1966 work on human sexuality which devoted the entire first chapter to this matter, even he back then did not really condemn it at all (surprising for the era.)

        When you are faced with all of this, countered by the fact that you have not studied this matter at all, except recently and very superficially due to this arrest, what you are trying to tell me about this matter and laying claim to validity of your opionions on this, would be like my trying to tell a surgeon I know- how to do heart transplants. You simply are not qualified to speak on this issue as a researcher, devotee, or professor of sexuality would be, that doesn’t mean you are stupid, it just means you are looking at the matter through a heavy curtain and can’t see clearly because you don’t have the time, inclination or resources to thoroughly investigate and research this as might a medical researcher, or book author would do.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        April 1, 2012 at 12:32 am

        Bestiality section excerpted from:
        FORBIDDEN SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR and MORALITY
        by R. E. L. MASTERS
        (c) The Julian Press (1st edition 1966)
        The imbecility of American sex statutes is perhaps no-where more evident to the
        dispassionate inquirer than in this area. In most sexual acts which are punishable, there is
        at least the off chance that some other person will be injured in some way by the conduct
        of the person engaging in the prohibited behavior. But in the case of bestiality, no other
        person can possibly be injured, unless in the rare instance where domestic animals
        belonging to another person are used and subjected to sadistic or cruel mistreatment. And
        even here, in these extremely rare cases, the damage is one to property only, and the
        property is quite adequately protected by legislation haveing nothing to do with sexual
        behavior. (We should perhaps grant one other exception: The possibility of cardiac arrest,
        little or large strokes, or other trauma that might be sustained by elderly ladies chancing to
        happen upon farmhands in flagrante delicto with the lap-dog or the livestock.)
        But on what possible rationa* grounds can our society send to prison for many years,
        or otherwise severely punish, the individual who engages in the peccadillo of sexual
        relations with an animal? Moreover, given the rather substantial frequency of such
        behavior, especially in rural areas where there is abundant opportunity for it, how can
        society justify the undeniably scapegoat prosecution and persecution of that negligible
        minority of individuals who come before the courts to be tried or sentenced outright on
        guilty pleas to this offense?
        Emotionalism run amok, magical and theological susperstition, puritanism, and hysteria
        are invariably present, singly or in combination, in these cases, working to magnify the
        significance of the act and to create a psychical climate wherein few judges are able to
        function sanely, dispassionately, and humanely, as they ought to. Most often, the offender
        is some poor farmer or other rustic, cut off from the possibilities to engage in the multiple
        fornication enjoyed by the bulk of the male population. (I say *male*, because apparently
        only one conviction for bestiality has ever been obtained against a female in this country.
        Mentioned by Kinsey, the case is State v. Tarrant 1949:80 N.E. 2d Ohio 509.)
        The question will arise, and it is a legitimate one: What of the rights of the animals?
        Should they not be protected by law from abuse at the hands of sex deviates and rural
        voluptuaries who would exploit them for erotic purposes? But in considering the protection
        of animals, the same criteria should be applied here as elsewhere – which implies that the
        question must be shorn of the magical-emotional aura with which sexuality tends to
        enshroud it. The question will then be seen to be one of whether the animal is injured, or
        endures pain, as the result of the bestial intercourse.
        In acts of sadistic bestiality, which are primarily sadistic and only secondarily bestiality,
        the animal does, of course, require protection. It may be pointed out, however, that there
        are ample laws prohibiting cruelty to animals (ample *laws*, not ample *enforcement*),
        and it is these laws which should be invoked, whether the curelty be sexually or otherwise
        motivated. There are, indeed, no grounds for a separate sub-species of legislation where
        sex-motivated cruelty to animals is concerned.
        Where sadism is not present, there is considerable room for doubt as to whether there
        is any cruelty. It has always been noted in fact, by ancient historians and up through
        Kinsey in our own time, that animals tend to become affectionately attached (not only
        physically) to human’s who have sex relations with them, and sometimes have even been
        known to forsake intercourse with their own kind in testimony to their preference for
        relations with human’s. Whatever one may think of bestiality, this does not sound as if it
        were an act of cruelty so far as the animal is concerned.
        And it is in any case ironic and suggestive of hypocrisy that those who pronounce
        bestiality to be an act of cruelty to the animal, and who here evince such touching concern
        about the animals’ welfare, are in most cases not at all concerned about the use of
        animals for heavy labor, their unnatural confinement as household pets, their slaughter for
        food, their being placed on display in zoos, and most odiously of all, their being hunted
        down and maimed or killed by so-called sportsmen – all practices which, beyond the
        slightest doubt, are more painful and more inimical to the beasts’ welfare than is the sexual
        relationship with a human, in which the animal may even find considerable pleasure.
        It must therefore, if we are to be at all realistic, be concluded that any infringement on
        the rights or protective needs of animals is a negligible one, and that it is not here that we
        should seek to justify our severe punishment of the individual convicted of bestiality.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        April 1, 2012 at 12:38 am

        Bestiality section excerpted from:
        FORBIDDEN SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR and MORALITY
        by R. E. L. MASTERS
        (c) The Julian Press (1st edition 1966)

        The question of whether bestial relations are physically painful to the animal has already been discussed, and need to be touched upon only casually here. It is desirable to investigate more thoroughly, however, the question of the psychological and emotional effects of such intercourse upon animals.

        The psychophysiological responses of the animal to sexual contacts with human’s are largely, though it would not do to say entirely, dependent upon the methods of approach and consummation, both physical and psychological employed by the human party to the sexual act. Thus, most obviously, the human may largely preclude the possibility of physical suffering on the part of the beast by taking commonsense precautions against inflicting such suffering.

        Generally speaking, it is only through sadism or brutal negligence that the animal is made to suffer in these contacts. It is evident also that a gentle manner will suffice to alleviate much of the psychological discomfort – anxiety, terror, panic, etc. – which the animal might otherwise experience in a situation both strange and sometimes seemingly menacing. It is well known that most or many animals appear to respond in kind to the mental states of human’s with whom they come in contact.

        Anxiety and tranquility are engendered in the beast by way of the human, particularly so once the animal and man are familiar to one another and elementary rapport has been established. Even very large and sometimes ferocious animals – the gorilla and the lion, for example – have often been noted to be psychically susceptible to the mental and emotional states of human’s. In unaccustomed, close physical contact with men and women, particularly where, as is often the case in bestiality, the human is in a state of unusual excitation, this excitation and contact, especially if the latter consists of partly restraint of the animal, are likely to generate in the animal feelings of anxiety which in some cases may reach the proportions of terror and even panic.

        On the other hand, it is reported in some cases that sexual excitation and desire for physical contact are responded to in kind. In yet other instances, doubtless the great majority, the psychical and emotional states of the animal are not spectacular and probably blend elements of both anxiety and erotic arousal. It is particularly worth noting that the animal’s response is far more likely to be an erotic one if, as is the case with human females, it has been subjected to a lengthy period of caresses and what may be called “love play,” leading through fondling to the masturbation of the animal and, in some instances, the repeated apposition of the genitalia of the animal to the part of the body of the human with which contact is to be had.

        The bestialist no less than the human lover must, in other words, and bizarre as it may sound, “woo” the chosen sex-object, in order to allay anxieties, and in order to bring that object to a pitch of erotic arousal similar to his own (animals responding to rape even less satisfactorily, and often with more vigorous resistance, I am told,{17} than women). Where this (arousal process) has been artfully managed and fully accomplished there is not, of course, any longer a question of psychical suffering on the part of the beast.

        It is further reported by initiates that animals, again like women, respond to competent erotic training, by becoming conditioned eventually to an increasingly swift response to the needs of the sex partner, so that “love play” need not be so prolonged as when the animal was still a novice to the zoophilic relationship. Perhaps the best evidence that an animal need not suffer either physically or psychologically as the result of human-animal sex contacts is the already discussed observation that animals often tend to become very devoted to the human’s with whom they have such contacts, and thereafter may shun intercourse with their own species.

        While this is, of course, speculation, it seems necessary to assume (on the basis of eliminated alternatives) that the greater pleasure derived by the animal – and it must be greater to induce the animal to forsake sexual relations with its own kind – is largely the product of the psychical and emotional climate of bestiality, to which the beast responds pleasurably. That is to say, it is not at all likely that the superiority of the experience for the animal resides solely or even mainly in the physical aspects of the coition, which may be surely more satisfactorily enjoyed on a purely biological plane with another animal of its own species and opposite sex.

        Rather, one seems forced to conclude, the animal derives a considerable psychical and/or emotional pleasure from sexual contact with a being of a higher nervous, emotional, and intellectual organization, who is somehow able to provide the animal with non-material rewards which another animal is not able to offer. We are speaking, of course, probably in the great majority of instances, of male animals, which either perform coitus with women, commit sodomy on members of either sex, or which are masturbated (or occasionally fellated) by either men or women. It is these male animals which, by almost all reports, become especially attached to their human lovers, and which may consequently abandon other methods of sexual expression.

      • Carnivore Reply Report comment

        April 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm

        Jeez, Zoo! Are you still at it on here? Wow! You just won’t let this topic die, will you?!!! I think the majority of people on here have spoken their minds and I think that the majority of them happen to be intelligent people who can think for themselves. And they happen to think that bestiality is disgusting and immoral.

        I have to admit, that I took your advice and actually visited your favorite website that you mentioned in one of your previous posts. And I have to say that I feel fairly vindicated in my own opinions.

        Reason being, that I couldn’t help but notice all of the “How-To” forums on there in which numerous people either gave advice or asked for advice on how to get an animal to have sex with them.

        I couldn’t believe all of the detailed “training manuals” there were on that website, which leads me to believe that I was right all along when it comes to “training” an animal to have sex. Because that is exactly what it involved. TRAINING!

        Almost none of the topics I read on that site involved the animal initiating the sexual activity. They were almost exclusively situations in which the HUMAN initiated the activity. In many cases, the humans were asking for advice on how to train or coerce the animal to do what the HUMAN wanted to, including graphics descriptions on where to apply certain things like peanut butter on your body to get the animal to “lick” where you wanted it to!

        I could only handle reading so much. But I figured that in the spirit of an open and honest debate, I would at least check out your site and see what you were talking about. In a way, I’m glad I did because it reaffirmed EXACTLY what I had been talking about – that animals are almost exclusively trained to have sex with humans and not because they possess an innate sexual attraction to humans.

        And it is funny how you don’t want people to compare bestiality with other paraphilias, such as pedophilia and necrophilia. But you still want to compare people who are against bestiality with people who persecuted blacks and gays YEARS ago. Those days are long gone. If anyone is living in the past, you are. I seriously doubt that Medgar Evers and MLK Junior would want you trying to compare THEIR struggle to achieve HUMAN rights to your struggle to obtain the right to screw your pets.

        This isn’t about Judeo-Christian values versus pagan beliefs, either. I can’t think of one post where I or anyone else even mentioned a single Bible verse, let alone quoted any.

        As secular as society has become these days, more and more people only set foot in a Church or Synagogue maybe once a year, if even that.

        So, if people are appalled by the concept of bestiality, it is because they are appalled by bestiality itself. Not because they learned to despise it from a bully pulpit.

        So save the pretentious BS and demagoguery for somebody else. Nobody is buying it here.

        Again, all one needs to do is go and visit the site you recommended previously and you can see that this whole “thing” is heavily slanted toward the human side, and NOT the animals. In some cases, people specifically wrote about aggression they experienced from their pets when they tried to approach them sexually. That is NOT NORMAL! I’m sure you would like to quote another book or article to say it is. In theory, perhaps. In practice? Anecdotal evidence from your own site would seem to suggest otherwise.

        And, again, save the Jew/Christian bashing for some other place. It only undercuts your own argument when you chastise other people for perceived prejudice and then throw out gallons of your own. Bad form.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        April 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm

        “Jeez, Zoo! Are you still at it on here? Wow! You just won’t let this topic die, will you?!”

        When someone posts, everyone gets a notice of a new post, and when I get a new post response I read it.

        “I have to admit, that I took your advice and actually visited your favorite website that you mentioned in one of your previous posts.”

        Assuming the wikipedia article, it is far from my favorite, but I refer to it because it offers BOTH sides of the argument. I do not know what “training manuals” you are referring to, I have no control over what people put on the web, animals are not “trained” for sex, the only “training” that I’m aware of is teaching the animal to calm down- you don’t want an excited 1500# stallion flaying his hooves at you and trying to suddenly MOUNT you- this can cause injury. Same thing with a dog, you don’t want an excited large dog clawing and scratching at your skin with his nails trying to mount and hump you.

        The “training” would be similar to teaching a dog to not jump up on people and that sort of thing.
        A virgin dog also wouldn’t have a clue WHICH end to mount on another dog or a person, so any “training” there would involve guiding him to the correct position.
        Whatever other “training manuals” you found were not put out by TRUE zoophiles, they along with all of the commercial porn, the operators of the various bestiality trading forums etc are bestialists at best, NOT zoophiles!
        The only other “training” I know about, or approve of, is that which instructs the PERSON on what to do or NOT to do, and how to treat the animal. I think many of those manuals you found probably fall under that, or their original goal was but they failed to convey that intent.

        ” In many cases, the humans were asking for advice on how to train or coerce the animal to do what the HUMAN wanted to, including graphics descriptions on where to apply certain things like peanut butter on your body to get the animal to “lick” where you wanted it to”

        Well I can assure you that THOSE persons are newbies who probably read or saw some porn and want to dabble in it and try it, the peanut butter remark proves that to me. NO ONE who has experience with animals ever uses stupid things like peanut butter, dog food or vaseline, those are idiots without a clue who are wannabe bestialists.
        With someone like that, real zoophiles only have a couple of options- try to DISCOURAGE them as I do, or try to provide medical and other information as I do, so that if they are going to try it anyway despite it all, they will not injure the animal or themselves from a lack of knowlege.
        We all know people are going to do what they want no matter what anyone tells them, all I can do is hope to DISCOURAGE these kinds of curious kinks who want to “try” an animal, but if they are going to do it anyway what can I do about it!

        A real zoophile doesn’t just wake up when they are 30 or 40 or 50 and suddenly become a zoo- the ones who do are bestialists/curious kinks as described above.
        REAL zoophiles know very early on in their lives they have a very strong sexual attraction to animals, typically BEFORE puberty, or during puberty. They may not know what to do with this attraction and feelings, but almost universally it starts very young, not when someone is in their 30s or 40s.

        “that animals are almost exclusively trained to have sex with humans and not because they possess an innate sexual attraction to humans.”

        Not exactly true, animals DO have a large, sex drive, and in the case of an animal never allowed to mate with another of their species, they have the urge and drive and don’t know what to DO with it, that’s when you see male dogs humping the sofa, the cat, a guest’s leg, the pillow, the goat in the back yard, or they start peeing and marking indoors and tearing things up and masturbating.

        Once shown what to DO with those urges and that drive, and that humping a guest’s leg will earn punishment and banishment, but doing that with a zoophile owner doesnt, then they redirect those urges towards the PERSON providing the pleasure.
        Easy concept to understand, if you want to call that “training” then so be it, but everything humans do with animals involves training of some sort, especially dogs.

        “In some cases, people specifically wrote about aggression they experienced from their pets when they tried to approach them sexually. That is NOT NORMAL! ”

        I don’t know what “site” you read that on, but again as I said- I dont have control over what idiots post on a web site, and those words are NOT those os real zoophile, they are words of a wanna-be curious kink bestialist who wants to “try out” a dog like test driving a new car.
        REAL zoos find that dismaying and offensive, it shows a total lack of empathy or respect for the animal.
        The lack of respect is why I don’t approve of porn, real zoophiles dont take photos and post them for all th gawk at as stroke material any more that your husband would post nude photos of you and post them on a public web site.

        “And it is funny how you don’t want people to compare bestiality with other paraphilias, such as pedophilia and necrophilia. But you still want to compare people who are against bestiality with people who persecuted blacks and gays YEARS ago. Those days are long gone.”

        Why do you find that funny? pedophilia and necrophila have as much to do with zoophilia as
        audiophile has to do with zoophile- other than the “phile” extension they are not even remotely the same, and are as different as heterosexual sex in a marriage and the rape of a 5 year old- both involving vaginal sex, but worlds of differences!

        I drew attention to the blacks and gays in the context of showing how social things and laws CHANGE rapidly, and also touching on the civil rights issues and laws.

        “This isn’t about Judeo-Christian values versus pagan beliefs, either. I can’t think of one post where I or anyone else even mentioned a single Bible verse, let alone quoted any.”

        Actually, it’s origins ARE, because if you go back into history pre christian era, you’ll find all sorts of things done, including bestiality as well as various pagan rituals that INVOLVED sex with an animal. Even the Greeks were so fascinated by it their art and mythology included numerous tales and references as well as depictions of humans copulating with gods who came to earth in ANIMAL FORM to do it- Leda and the Swan, Pan and the goat (Pan was half human half goat)
        Minotaurs and centaurs- half human half horse, where do you think all that came from?

        It wasn’t till the church and christianity infiltrated everything, that things changed, adultry became a crime punished by death as did bestiality, blasphemy and working on Sunday became crimes punishable by torture and even death. It brought in the witch trials and executions as well.
        It you had a copy of Joyce Rutledge’s book “Animals in the middle ages” you would read just how the church, religion and christianity infiltrated every aspect of society from the position we EAT at (a table with chairs), to the position we have sex in- the “missionary position” is not named that by coincidence!

        All along the Western religion, church and Christianity CONDEMNED ALL non-procreative sex, including masturbation, adultry and wasting of “seed.” In the 1500’s it made sense to build up population, it became the culture and the LAW in every way.
        Bestiality was largely condemned because of the bible, and becausew of unfounded irrational fears that some half human monster or demon would result from such a union, that was why the church killed the person AND all of the animals involved, and burned the bodies.
        Even that of a 16 year old child named Thomas Grainger in New England.

        All of that has been handed down since, including the taboos against incest, poligamy, bestiality, and sex topics in general have long been very uptight, censored and brushed aside in the media and social circles, and peopel embarassed to discuss sex because of it.

        “So, if people are appalled by the concept of bestiality, it is because they are appalled by bestiality itself.”

        Most would have learned the disgust from their PARENTS early on too, kids watch and follow their parent’s leads a lot, a parent goes “EWWW that’s disgusting” or “those blacks are sub human” and the kid follows along on that for the most part.
        The kids learn bigotry against blacks, gays and more from their parents. You find a gay hating teen chances are you’ll find DAD hates gays too and negatively comments about them regularly.

        Everyone has their disgust level and choices, personally, I find other human bodies disgusting, unattractive.

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        April 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm

        “In some cases, people specifically wrote about aggression they experienced from their pets when they tried to approach them sexually. That is NOT NORMAL! ”

        One more thing on that I thought of carnivore- the dog(s) those persons would have been talking about were almost certainly neutered, and that totally destroys the sex drive and the dog would have no interest at all.

        Another possibility is they were not doing things correctly and were causing the dog discomfort or pain, something those so called “training manuals” would if written properly would have instructed those people on what NOT to do.

  15. lockhimup Reply Report comment

    March 15, 2012 at 11:34 am

    So zoo …your saying its ok to screw animals? thats what it sounds like. freak!

    • Zoo Reply Report comment

      March 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      Perfectly fine as long as the animal belongs to the person and they have a relationship with that animal, the animal is large enough and matured, is not restrained or injured in any way, and the act takes place in private so those who don’t wish to be exposed to it don’t have to.

      With all of those criteria met, then what’s the problem other than your personal distaste and religion?

      Neither one of those are valid reasons to negatively affect, attack, insult or threaten another person and what they choose to do by the way.

      It’s already been shown to not be a mental illness, and removed as such (along with homosexuality) from the DSM psychiatric manuals as such, but is simply defined as a sexual paraphilia, and one which has absolutely nothing to do with children/pedophilia.

      Have a good day 🙂

  16. Emma Reply Report comment

    March 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    You guys who are joking about this are insanely sick!!!!! This guy needs to be put away!!!! I hope the dog is okay, this is horrible!!!!

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      March 12, 2012 at 6:41 pm

      Of COURSE the dog is okay, the dog is a MALE dog, and he was doing the motions, or did you just totally skip over those facts and miss it and assumed it was a female?

  17. Buzz Crumcutter Reply Report comment

    March 11, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    I have wondered the very same thing my self.

  18. Anonymous Reply Report comment

    March 11, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Zoo,

    Are really Peter L in disguise?

    • Zoo Reply Report comment

      March 11, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      I have no idea who Peter L and don’t care who he is, why would you think I am this person?

      My sole interest is setting the facts straight on this case and countering the hysterical garbage with the medical and related facts about zoophilia/bestiality.

      If you have a problem with that, don’t bother returning to post another comment, I’m here to post the facts not play games with trolls.

      • Buzz Crumcutter Reply Report comment

        March 11, 2012 at 5:42 pm

        OK, thanks Peter, but I’d say anyone who thinks its OK to hump their hound is out of touch with reality and is probably the troll.

        Have a nice day.

      • Zoo Reply Report comment

        March 11, 2012 at 5:55 pm

        “OK, thanks Peter,I’d say anyone who thinks its OK to hump their hound is out of touch with reality and is probably the troll.”

        Ok John, no, it is you who are out of touch with reality, the only real objection to bestiality are religious based, the same ones that said masturbation was a sin, killing babies, and evil.
        Go read the wikipedia article and learn something.

        The only troll here is yourself John, Im here to provide the facts free of hysteria and witch hunt, the suppositions based on
        imaginations and hear-say.

    • Observer Reply Report comment

      March 11, 2012 at 6:14 pm

      Would the real Peter L actually quote a Psychiatrist? There are some striking resemblances though.

      • Buzz Crumcutter Reply Report comment

        March 11, 2012 at 7:40 pm

        I’d say there are more similarities than not. One of the things where they act alike is their need to reply with a two foot long posting. As if the more they ramble on about their weird, twisted thoughts will finally convince the rest of us to come over to the dark side where they reside. If Zoo would try to get us all to believe that its OK to pound on your pooch while smoking marijuana, then I’d really think he was Peter, until then, I guess I’ll have to take him at his word.

      • Zoo Reply Report comment

        March 11, 2012 at 8:37 pm

        “One of the things where they act alike is their need to reply with a two foot long posting.”

        Not my fault if the poor layout design of this thing only allows about 5 words across each line.

        “As if the more they ramble on about their weird, twisted thoughts will finally convince the rest of us to come over to the dark side where they reside.”

        I don’t care one way or the other, no law or opinions about it will stop what usually goes on in private behind locked doors, something the accused would have been well situated to have heeded by having his own dog and not doing things where someone could FILM him in the act, but I will however correct bullchit and hysterics with the published medical facts and resources.

  19. Zoo Reply Report comment

    March 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    While the defendant 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

  20. chuck Reply Report comment

    March 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Hey zoo.
    I have some questions for you

    If you marry your dog,
    can she wear white?
    Who pays for the wedding?
    Do you have to buy her a ring?
    Could you post some photos for us?
    did you vote for Obama?
    can you call her a bitch?

    • Zoo Reply Report comment

      March 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm

      “If you marry your dog,
      can she wear white?”

      I don’t believe in the institution of marriage, marriage is an entity designed to control money, tax revenue, real property, estates, minor children, and generate fees for the state for the licenses.
      As 50% end in divorce, it’s an outdated useless govt program whose time it is to fade away.

      Although I certainly could marry my dogs any time I wish in a pagan handfast ceremony, marriage per the above is stupid, and it’s totally meaningless to an animal.

      “Could you post some photos for us?”

      beastforum.com might be your best bet there.

      “did you vote for Obama?”

      I certainly did, I will again in November.

      “can you call her a bitch?”

      That IS the correct term for a female dog…

  21. Wow Reply Report comment

    March 8, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    You really do not make any justification “zoo” Have to agree with “Prosecuter” on this one.

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      March 9, 2012 at 2:02 pm

      I’m not trying to justify the aledged specific act, in fact, if you read my comments on the other article on this case here, you would have known I condemn going onto other people’s private property, and doing anything with their animals. I further said that is known as “fence hopping” and it’s very frowned on by real zoophiles- those who consider and treat their animals as equals, or partners in a relationship.

      Anyone else is an opportunist, and using the animal as a sex toy.

      I further stated there I have no issues whatsoever with consentual activities with an animal owned by the person, provided it is their animal, no force, abuse or restraints are used, and the animal has free will to simply walk away.
      In this case, according to reports, it was the male dog who was actively trying to mount the accused, you can argue till sunrise religious, moral or whatever after that particular point in the act about what he should have done, what you think he should have done etc., but that is not applicable when the fact is the dog was the one openly trying to engage in sex acts. If the person then goes on to encourage that and the dog continues willingly then who cares! the dog certainly isn’t abused when he’s the one on top doing the motions!

      I will grant one other thing to you, and that is witnesses, those not wanting to see the act should not be forced to by someone going into their back yard and doing this out in the open- indecent exposure may apply there.

  22. prosecute Reply Report comment

    March 8, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Zoo
    Are you idiot or just plan stupid? Is the dog supposed to speak and say not to screw him?? Or maybe a child that cant talk and go and abuse it and its justification and ok to do it??? You are a lunatic! This guy needs to go to a mental instution and so do you for even thinking that what happened was ok. Why would this woman ask ” Why sir…are you screwing my dog?” Really???How dumb can you get. That would be stupid of her to even confront this predator. She did what she thought she should do and called the authorities to take care of it. No excuse for what he did…hes a straight up sick individual that needs to be prosecuted and casterated at the same time. Feel sorry for his family

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      March 8, 2012 at 7:01 pm

      Zoo
      Are you idiot or just plan stupid? Is the dog supposed to speak and say not to screw him??”

      Um… personal attacks will get you nowhere, secondly the dog is male and was according to accounts- humping the defendant, or can’t you read plain English yet?

      “Or maybe a child that cant talk and go and abuse it and ”

      Or maybe since you don’t seem to know the difference between a child and an animal, and that a dog is not a child with fur, you might look up the fact that dogs are already sexually mature by a year of age usually and only live a dozen years on average.

      “You are a lunatic!”

      You are a hysterical woman who doesn’t know the difference between a child and a dog, you probably think people give birth to puppies to make those fur children you are confused with.

      ” This guy needs to go to a mental instution and so do you for even thinking that what happened was ok.”

      You are totally off base, even the official DSM IV mental health manual disagrees with you, calling it simply a paraphilia, not a mental disorder.
      The only thing I will agree with you on is that this involved a dog not owned by the defendant, there may be an issue of being on the property without permission as well, but having sex with a willing animal, and in this case a participating male dog who could have freely walked away or bitten the man, is perfectly fine as long as the animal belongs to the person and the act is done in private.

      “Why would this woman ask ” Why sir…are you screwing my dog?” Really???How dumb can you get.”

      How dramatic… How about opening the window, or going outside around to the locationand yelling; “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING??!!!!”
      That is what people would do, they wouldn’t sneak off to the other room, grab a cell phone and turn it on and take a picture while allowing the act (if it even really happened as claimed) to continue with her dog?
      None of that part of her story makes any logical sense, but there is one possibility- blackmail, the woman saw the act going on, decided to take pictures, then confronted the defendant demanding money or the pics go to the police.

      Makes as much sense.

      “That would be stupid of her to even confront this predator.”

      Predator he is now, eh? I presume you are aware of the fact he has not even been to court yet, let alone convicted of any crime, and is innocent till the state proves it’s case, and a poor quality cell pic is all but inadmissible since it is misleading, a video showing an act going on for a period of time would be evidence, a picture could be made just before he pushed the dog away and yelled get away!

      “She did what she thought she should do and called the authorities to take care of it.”

      No, she thought she saw something, went and got her cell phone, turned it on, and took a picture, THEN called the police at some point

      “No excuse for what he did…hes a straight up sick individual that needs to be prosecuted and casterated at the same time. Feel sorry for his family”

      There is no excuse for going onto someone else’s property and engaging an animal that doesn’t belong to you, on that aspect I will totally agree.
      Prosecuting the man will serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever, none except cost the state a lot of money for nothing.
      Right, feel sorry for the family, but your words and actions would be damaging and hurtful to the very family you claim to be sympathetic to.
      The guy is out of a job now, and no doubt they will have to move as a result.
      What you need to do is look at how hypocritical you are, typing this while munching on a hamburger, meat sandwich, and washing it down with a tall glass of milk maybe- every gram of those brought to you courtesy of animals who were raised in absolute filth, all but never seeing the sun rise, jamme dinto hauler trucks, and cut open while still conscious and killed all so you can have that sandwich or hamburger.
      Now who is the animal abuser, animal murderer? it’s sure not the defendant abusing the dog, but it is people like you who claim abuse abuse!! while sitting down to a nice fat juicy steak, pork chops or hamburger dinner!

      • prosecute Reply Report comment

        March 8, 2012 at 7:50 pm

        Zoo
        Your really are a sick person too! No they shouldn’t prosecute him and cost us tax payers money, he should get his ass beat.Why are you defending him soooo much??? Your probably the propane guy that went out their trying to defend yourself. LOL Nice try… You can sit there behind your computer and say what you want and write a book on it but the fact is its disgusting and for you to defend it is disgusting. its not ok whether the animal is for it…ITS AN ANIMAL!!!! I really dont care what your justifications are for it or the wikipedia on Zoophilia..its not the same as eating meat or whatever your trying to condradict with it but nice try. Not going to change my feelings on it or anyone else’s. Write another book on here buddy..no body cares bout your antics lmfao!!

      • zoo Reply Report comment

        March 9, 2012 at 1:50 pm

        by prosecute
        Zoo
        he should get his ass beat.”

        So now you are advocating VIOLENCE, and against someone only accused, who has pled not guilty and has not even had a trial yet, boy, you sure have your hangin’ tree ready and rope huh, just like they did to the blacks in the 50s, just string em up, right!

        “Why are you defending him soooo much??? Your probably the propane guy that went out their trying to defend yourself.”

        I’m not the propane guy, I’m an animal welfare advocate, and I fully support consentual zoophilia as long as the animal belongs to the individual and there is no force, or other abuse. I know the facts about it, animal behavior, and biology extensively.

        “but the fact is its disgusting and for you to defend it is disgusting.”

        I really don’t care what you personally think is “disgusting,” that is irrelevent.
        Back in the last century it was “disgusting” and I might add- illegal, and considered bestiality for inter-racial coupling/marriage to take place.
        It didn’t matter then and it doesn’t matter today.

        “its not ok whether the animal is for it…ITS AN ANIMAL!!!!”

        So what? it’s an animal, you EAT them every day, you eat cheese, milk, butter- all of which come out of a cow’s tits or “teats” if you prefer, and you have no problem KILLING that animal for a hamburger.

        “I really dont care what your justifications are for it or the wikipedia on Zoophilia..”

        That’s too bad, so you are dismissing peer review-published, licensed psychiatrists, and sexuality experts such as REL Masters, Dr Hani Miletski, Andrea Beetz and Anthony L Podberscek- the latter two’s credentials-

        Andrea M. Beetz is at the Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK

        co-author Anthony Podberscek is a director at the Centre for Animal Welfare & Anthrozoology Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge, UK.

        So you even have two peer reviewed published authors right there whose studies on zoophilia have been published in the journals, and they authored books as well, and as a bonus they both are staffers of University veterinary medical departments which is significant!

        “its not the same as eating meat or whatever your trying to condradict with it but nice try.”

        Nice, try but it IS the same thing analogy wise showing the hypocracy when you scream animal *abuse!!* while munching on a hamburger produced from animal *torture* and a brutal *death.*
        Every hamburger, or steak is produced by death not sex.

        “Not going to change my feelings on it or anyone else’s.”

        You’d be surprised how many people with more than half a brain learn the facts, and research the matter they see the hypocracy of claiming consentual acts with an animal not forced in any way, who can simply walk away is not abuse, and agree for the most part zoophilia is not abuse.

        They also see that religious views are not applicable, and personal disgust is not sufficient criteria for laws, or in your case- inciting and encouraging violence against someone.

        I am certain this case will go by the wayside dropped for lack of proof, or the guy will pay a fine and be done with it. The fact he is fighting the charges is good, instead of laying down and accepting a bs plea deal which is what they want, admit nothing and force the state to *prove* a case they can’t. The bad quality cell picture will be thrown out as it doesn’t include context.
        Then it’s the defendant’s word against the complaint.

        Publication information on the Beetz-Podberscek book is as follows, it is available on Amazon dot com as well as the publisher’s site-

        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
        ISBN-13: 978-1557534125

        Product Description:

        Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals is a special issue of Anthrozoös, the journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology — a multi-disciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals.

        Review from Amazon:

        Possibly the most authorititve study, ever, into this taboo subject. For
        those of an inquisitve nature, stumbling on this title, it is not a work of erotica but a worthy collation of the author’s findings and works of other world established authorities.
        The author has researched, as far as is possible, those who do, or have indulged, since the dawning of mankind. The book also provides pointers to the publications of others.

        REL Masters’s 1966 book devoted the entire first chapter, over 158 pages to this subject in a clear, concise, professional way, and even his words agree with me on the abuse, and consent issues.

        Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality: An Objective Re-examination of Perverse Sex Practices in Different Cultures
        Robert E. L Masters

        Hardcover: 431 pages
        Publisher: Matrix House; (1966)
        ASIN: B0007DPAD2

        Publisher: The Julian Press Inc.; 1St Edition edition (1962)
        Language: English
        ASIN: B000STCCCM

        A Historical Overview of Sex with Animals
        by R. E. L. Masters
        (c) The Julian Press (1st edition 1966)

        Guess these researchers, PhD degree bearing, university veterinary dept researchers,psychiatrists and many others in those fields must all be totally wrong, and little “prosecute” is right!

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      March 8, 2012 at 7:33 pm

      Source(s):

      *DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification “paraphilias not otherwise specified”.

      If you googled, you would find millions of references to bestiality and zoophilia, it’s not new and there’s a lot more interest in it than you would think.

      On very large forum for this shows this on the bottom of the log-in screen, I only added commas to make it easier to read the numbers. So according to you, I guess the 1,027,858 members there are all mentally ill and should all be locked up, better build afew more jails because that is just one forum for discussions on bestiality and sharing pictures!


      … members have made a total of 6,911,870 posts
      We have 1,027,858 registered members
      The newest member is
      Most users ever online was 10,632 on Jun 19 2010, 08:32 PM

      I won’t name the forum, nor provide a link to it, I personally object to the porn and distribution of same, and I personally object to their objectifying and disrespecting their animals by posting photos of their… for everyone there to gawk at.

  23. chuck Reply Report comment

    March 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    WOW so is there a club in mason city, or what ?If a guy does a male dog, is he then gay? is the dog gay? super gay? Iowa should be the first state that allows gay guys to legaly get married to there dog.

    • Kinkyh Reply Report comment

      March 8, 2012 at 4:06 pm

      There dog? You mean that dog over there?

    • zoo Reply Report comment

      March 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm

      “WOW so is there a club in mason city, or what?”

      There could be, you’d never know about it.

      “If a guy does a male dog, is he then gay? is the dog gay? super gay?”

      No

      “Iowa should be the first state that allows gay guys to legaly get married to there dog.”

      Newsflash for you- there is no law that says someone can’t marry their animal, in fact, I personally know of more than a few who did so by having a pagan based handfast ceremony, complete with a priest and all the rest.
      There are many marriage forms around the world beside the Judeo-Xtian form of it which you Americans are familiar with that involves city hall, a license and a church or justice of the peace ceremony.

  24. Bender Reply Report comment

    March 8, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    thats ruff, ruff, ruff

  25. zoo Reply Report comment

    March 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Good man, fight those charges, let them PROVE their case from a poor cell phone video and claim from a woman who thinks she thought she saw something.
    Sexual contact with animals is not always abuse!
    Aside from the issue of his being on the dog owner’s property and messing with their dog, there is nothing other than religious based objections to it.

    “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 instead of yelling HEY!! what’s going on??! she sneaks around 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.

  26. Kinkyh Reply Report comment

    March 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Maybe he’s not guilty, If he was the dog could have taken a ‘bite’ out of crime!!!

    (a paws for the cause)