ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Bering in Mind

Bering in Mind


A research psychologist's curious look at human behavior
Bering in Mind Home

Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Out of context, many of our behaviors—if limited to the mere veneer of plain description—would raise many an eyebrow. The most innocent of things can sound tawdry and bizarre when certain facts and details are omitted. Here’s a perfect example: I accidentally bit my dog Gulliver’s tongue recently.

Now you may be asking yourself what I was doing with his tongue in my mouth to begin with. But I would submit that that is perhaps a better question for Gulliver, since he’s the one that violated my busily masticating maw by inserting that long, thin, delicatessen-slice muscle of his while I was simply enjoying a bite of a very banal bagel. Shocked by the feel of human teeth chomping down on his tongue, he yelped—then scampered off. Fortunately, Gulliver showed no signs of lasting trauma and I was saved from having to explain to the vet how it came to be that I bit off my dog’s tongue; but for days after the “incident” Gulliver kept his prized possession sealed behind the vault of his own clamped jaw. This gave my partner, Juan, and me at least a temporary reprieve from Gulliver’s normally overindulgent use of that particular organ on our faces. The story was strange enough for me to share with friends, and this particular tale of man-bites-dog unleashed the predictable onslaught of humorous bestiality innuendos. And that, ladies and gentleman, is where the real story begins.

These sarcastic remarks from my confidants reminded me of a rather peculiar email that I had received months earlier,  written by an unusually erudite reader of Bering in Mind. This individual, who shall go unnamed unless he wishes to identify himself in the comments section, was a self-professed “zoophile” (Greek for “animal lover”) with a particular romantic affinity for horses, and he was hoping that I might devote one of my column pieces to this neglected, much-maligned topic of forbidden interspecies love. “The politics of acknowledging zoophilia as a ‘legitimate’ sexual orientation,” wrote this reader, “often mean that zoophiles are either ignored as a class or subject to what can only be described as the most vicious, sustained, and hateful attacks by mainstream society.”

I have my own viscerally based, unreasoned biases and—I confess—on first reading this email I promptly mentally filed it away in the untouchable “Eww…” category. But Gulliver’s tongue, combined with my sympathy for human underdogs, inspired me to go back and reread it, and I saw a rather intriguing scientific question lurking there. Is it really possible for an otherwise normal, healthy person to develop a genuine sexual preference for a nonhuman species?

Of course, there’s nothing new under the sun about bestiality as a behavior. Prehistoric depictions of bestiality have been found in Siberia, Italy, France, Fezzan and Sweden. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Hebrews and Romans allegedly partook in these sexual activities as well. But the act of having sex with an animal is one thing; actually preferring animals sexually to other human beings is a different matter entirely. After all, the fact that I could, in principle, have sex with a woman—if I were plied with enough alcohol and she were tomboyish enough to create a suitable gender-modifying illusion—doesn’t exactly make me a heterosexual. So it is with, say, a randy farm boy who finds himself one day with his phallus lodged curiously in a bucking goat, his eyes closed and his brain replaying scenes of that flirtatious cheerleader from chemistry class. The act alone wouldn’t make him a zoophile, per se. No more, at least, than Jason Biggs’s character in the movie American Pie (1999) should be considered a “piephile.”

For decades, the scientific study of human beings’ sexual relations with (other) animals has concentrated almost entirely on the overt act of bestiality, viewing such behavior as a surrogate for human-to-human sex. As a consequence of this scholarly approach, researchers have until very recently overlooked the possibility that some people might actually prefer to have a romantic affair with a horse (or dog, lamb, cow, sow, or some other choice species) than to become trapped into such unthinkable carnal relations with another person.

This emphasis on bestiality as a behavior rather than as a possible sexual orientation can probably be traced back to the seminal work of Alfred Kinsey. In his classic 1948 book with Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (W. B. Saunders), Kinsey reported that 50 percent of the population of American “farm-bred males” claimed to have had sexual contact with various other species, usually ungulates. Many of these people, said Kinsey, were ashamed of their early sexual experimentation with animals (most of these puerile encounters took place when the boys were between ten and twelve years of age), and so he advised clinicians to assure these now grown males that it was all part of being raised in a rural environment where females were scarce and premarital relations strictly forbidden. “To a considerable extent,” wrote Kinsey, “contacts with animals are substitutes for heterosexual relations with human females.”

But the stereotypical portrait of the zoophile as a woman-deprived, down-on-the-farm, and poorly educated male is presently being challenged by some contemporary findings. The most fascinating of these, in my opinion, is a set of two case studies published by University of Montreal psychologist Christopher Earls and his colleague Martin Lalumière, of the University of Lethbridge. The first case study appeared in 2002 in the journal Sexual Abuse and documented the story of a low-IQ’ed, antisocial, fifty-four-year-old convict who had a strong sexual interest in horses. In fact, this was why he was in prison for the fourth time on related offenses; in the latest incident, he had cruelly killed a mare out of jealousy because he thought she’d been giving eyes to a certain stallion. (You thought you had issues.) The man’s self-reported sexual interest in mares was actually verified by a controlled, phallometric study. When hooked up to a penile plethysmograph and shown nude photos of all varieties and ages of humans, the man was decidedly flaccid. Nothing happening down there either when he looked at slides of cats, dogs, sheep, chickens, or cows. But he certainly wasn’t impotent, as the researchers clearly observed when the subject was shown images of horses.

This case and related anecdotal evidence reported by the authors (including a 1950’s study of a sixteen-year-old “imbecile” who sexually preferred rabbits to women) were important at the time because they suggested that zoophilia may be an extraordinarily rare—but real—type of minority sexual orientation. That is to say, for some people, having sex with their animal “lovers” may amount to more than just substituting human sex with the next best thing. Rather, for them, sex with nonhuman animals is the best thing.

On the heels of their 2002 study, Earls and Lalumière report having received a number of letters and emails from people who also self-identified as zoophiles (or “zoos” as many of these individuals refer to themselves on the Internet, which has served to connect them in unprecedented ways and to attract curious researchers like flies on a barnyard wall). And many of these respondents were vehement that they didn’t fit the mentally challenged, rural stereotype reflected by Kinsey’s analysis. Some were, in fact, highly educated professionals. In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles.

In an effort to disentangle myth from reality, then, Earls and Lalumière published a new case study in a 2009 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior, focusing on the first-person account of a forty-seven-year-old, high-functioning (he earned his M.D. at age twenty-eight) and seemingly well-adjusted male who had had, by all appearances, a completely unremarkable suburban upbringing with loving parents and no memories of abuse or neglect. Nonetheless, from an early age, this man had struggled to come to grips with his own zoophiliac tendencies. Again, horses served as the primary erotic target.

 

As I grew into adolescence my sexual ideation was different from what it was supposed to be. I looked at horses the same as other boys looked at girls. I watched cowboy movies to catch glimpses of horses. I furtively looked at pictures of horses in the library. This was before the Internet and I felt totally isolated. I was a city boy. I had never seen a horse up close, never touched or smelled one. No one in my family had any contact with horses, but for me, they held a powerful, wonderful, and, yes even—well primarily—sexual attraction. I had no idea that there were others like me in the world. I tried to be normal. I tried to get interested in girls, but for me they were always foreign, distasteful and repulsive. A couple of early adolescent sexual explorations … were mechanical, forced and unsuccessful.

 

At the age of fourteen, the boy had managed to find the nearest horse stables, which he would visit frequently—secretly—by bicycle. Imagine him there, a young boy lurking in the fields, leaning against fencing in the meadows, perhaps under the strawberry, pale blue sky of early Autumn, longing to be close to these huge, mysterious creatures that created such strange stirrings in his loins. Eventually they came close enough for him to touch them and smell them, a scent he would describe over thirty years later as “astonishingly wonderful.” This was no copycat version of the fabled play Equus (in fact, it was still years before the alleged British case of bestiality that the play was loosely based on), but instead a real developmental experience for an otherwise normal human being. This is what makes it so extraordinarily interesting. Three years later, the teenager purchased his own mare, took riding lessons and began a “long courtship” with the female horse until, finally, the pair consummated their relationship:

 

When that black mare finally just stood there quietly while I cuddled and caressed her, when she lifted her tail up and to the side when I stroked the root of it, and when she left it there, and stood quietly while I climbed upon a bucket, then, breathlessly, electrically, warmly, I slipped inside her, it was a moment of sheer peace and harmony, it felt so right, it was an epiphany.

 

This case study reveals that, again, it’s not only mentally deficient farmhands that have sex with animals. And neither, it seems, is it simply unattractive, unsavory men who can’t find willing sexual partners of their own species. In fact, shortly after obtaining his medical degree, this particular man married a (human) woman and had two children with her. But their sex life relied on his imagining her to be a horse and—perhaps not surprisingly—the marriage didn’t last. As my sister said when I mentioned this tidbit to her: “I can see how that would be a problem.”

Another pioneering researcher in zoophilia, Maryland-based sexologist Hani Miletski, found similarly in her Internet surveys that more than half of the 93 self-identified zoophiles she’d spoken to (82 men and 11 women with an average age of thirty-eight years) reported being more attracted to animals than to people. And just like the mare-lover from Earls and Lalumière’s 2009 study, the majority (71 percent) considered themselves to be well-adjusted in their current lives, with 92 percent seeing no reason to stop having sex with their animal partners. This is an important point, because the current version of the American Psychological Association’s professional handbook (the DSM-IV) classifies zoophilia as a disorder only if an individual’s sexual attraction to nonhuman animals causes the person to experience distress. Bestiality is still illegal in all fifty states, but it’s rarely prosecuted, mainly because it’s quite a challenge catching an interspecies coital coupling as it’s happening.

As you can probably imagine, though, the subject of zoophilia is a highly charged one, attracting the ire of animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and causing a knee-jerk moralistic response in the rest of us platonic animal lovers. Ironically, it landed one prominent animal rights defender, Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, who authored the classic book Animal Liberation in 1975, in some hot water. Ten years ago, in an essay for Nerve magazine called “Heavy Petting,” Singer was asked to review the book Dearest Pet (Verso, 2000) by Dutch biologist Midas Dekkers. But he did more than just review the book. As a professor of bioethics, Singer also asked readers to reconsider whether humans’ having mutually pleasurable, nonabusive sex with other animals is as inherently wrong as we’ve been lead to believe by our traditional Judeo-Christian mores (go on, quote Leviticus).

 

The vehemence with which this prohibition [against sex with other species] continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is [a] powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.

 

Singer told me recently that he wasn’t advocating sex with animals in “Heavy Petting,” but rather just raising the question of why we find it so objectionable. Ever since, however, the piece has been used unfairly against Singer by his opponents, most of whom are trying to discredit his controversial views on human euthanasia and abortion: “Look,” argue many of Singer’s critics, “how can we take anything this guy says seriously when he wants us to have sex with animals!” But most zoophiles, of course, tend to agree with Singer’s general assessment of human “speciesism” being cloaked under the tenuous justification of animal protection. After all, we are animals.

In a 2009 chapter published in the edited volume Transgressive Sex: Subversion and Control in Erotic Encounters, Goldsmiths anthropologist Rebecca Cassidy offers a particularly sad account of how this religiously-laden assumption that humans are “more than animal” manifested itself in a 1601 courtroom in Rognon France. It was there that a sixteen-year-old girl named Claudine de Culam was being tried for bestiality with her pet dog.

 

Apparently uncertain as to whether such an act was anatomically possible, the judge appointed a number of female assistants in order to put the dog and the girl to the test. As the women undressed Claudine, the dog leaped upon her. On the basis of this evidence both the dog and the young woman were strangled, their bodies burned and scattered to the four winds, ‘that as little trace as possible might remain to remind mankind of their monstrous deeds.’

 

One especially provocative study published as a 2003 report in Archives of Sexual Behavior involved Indiana University sociologists Colin Williams and Martin Weinberg attending a zoophile gathering on a farm, where a group of predominantly young men—nearly all of whom were college educated—were observed to have “genuine affection” for the animals they had sex with. Many zoophiles consider “zoosadists” anathema, and they have been sincerely striving to distance themselves from those who derive pleasure from harming animals. Yet some scholars, such as University of Southern Maine criminologist Piers Bierne, contends that zoophiles incorrectly assume that animals are capable of consenting to having sex with them, and therefore human sexual relations with animals of any kind should be considered “interspecies sexual assault.”

In taking stock of my own position on this touchy subject, I find myself emotionally drawn to Bierne’s “zero tolerance” stance. If some unscrupulous zoophile were to lure away my beloved dog, Uma, with a bacon strip into the back of his van, well, hell hath no fury—even if she did come back wagging her tail. But this is mostly just the reflexive moralizer in me. Words like “pervert” and “unnatural” have all the theoretical depth of a thimble. Rationally, Singer is right to question our visceral aversion to interspecies sex. And having had an orangutan rudely thrust his penis into my ear, a chimpanzee in estrus forcibly back her swollen anogenital region into my midsection (“Darling,” I said, “not only are you the wrong species, but the wrong sex”), and more dogs than I care to mention mount my leg, I know that it’s not only humans who are at risk of misreading sexual interest in other species. The Arabian stallion that impaled a Seattle man with its erect penis in 2005, fatally perforating the man’s colon, makes one wonder who the victim really was.

And if zoophilia occurs in certain members of our own species, could members of other species be aroused primarily by humans? In Maurice Temerlin’s 1973 book about his chimpanzee “daughter” titled Lucy: Growing up Human (Science and Behavior Books), the author claims that, once she reached sexual maturity, the chimp was only interested sexually in human males. Temerlin, a psychotherapist, even bought Lucy a Playgirl magazine and found her rubbing her genitals on the full-page spread of a naked man.

In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding—and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective—that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.

Still, just as you probably do, I have a slew of unanswered questions that have yet to be addressed by researchers. What makes some domestic species—such as horses and dogs—more common erotic targets for zoophiles than others, such as, say, cats, llamas, or pigs? (Okay, okay, cats would be a problem.) Do zoophiles find particular members of their preferred species more “attractive” than other individuals from those species, and, if so, are they seduced by standard beauty cues, such as facial symmetry in horses? What is the percentage of homosexual zoophiles (those who prefer animal partners of the same sex) over heterosexual zoophiles? How do zoophiles differentiate between a “consenting” animal partner and one who isn’t “in the mood”?—aside from the hoof marks on their foreheads, that is. Why are men more likely to be zoophiles than women? Are zoophiles attracted only to sexually mature animals—and if not, does this make them “zoopedophiles”? What about cross-cultural differences? Is the tendency to become a zoophile heritable?

But I suppose that I’ll have to wait a while longer for some intrepid sexologist to dig into these and other unanswered scientific questions about zoophilia, perhaps the rarest of all the sexual paraphilias. Meanwhile, I must confess that I’m a bit jealous of you caring zoophiles out there. How nice it would be to be able to dispense with all those emotional encumbrances that come with being attracted to other members of the human species. If only I could settle down discreetly with a sassy little bitch—a consenting adult, of course—life would probably be a lot easier. 

In this column presented by Scientific American Mind magazine, research psychologist Jesse Bering of Queen’s University Belfast ponders some of the more obscure aspects of everyday human behavior. Ever wonder why yawning is contagious, why we point with our index fingers instead of our thumbs or whether being breastfed as an infant influences your sexual preferences as an adult? Get a closer look at the latest data as “Bering in Mind” tackles these and other quirky questions about human nature. Sign up for the RSS feed or friend Dr. Bering on Facebook and never miss an installment again. For articles published prior to September 29, 2009, click here: older Bering in Mind columns.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/JennaWagner

Tags:





Rights & Permissions

Comments 51 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. kategorienfehler 6:17 pm 04/4/2010

    Dear Mr. Bering,

    first of all, thanks for your article.

    I’d like to address on issue: Of course, no animal can give an informed consent in a way a human can. If that’s a moral prerequisite for having sexual intercourse, it follows to be equally wrong for an animal to have sexual intercourse even among their own species.

    As you’re a dog owner, I’m sure you can tell what your dog likes and dislikes – and act accordingly. If a male dog tries to mount your leg, you’ll forbid him to do so all of the time. A zoophile on the other hand will allow the dog to do so (and go further) at least some of the time.

    So, what’s the big deal?

    Link to this
  2. 2. garyg22 9:25 pm 04/5/2010

    Do you jail those horse breeders that shackle their mares and force them to be bred (after all they can’t consent).. by your definition, animal breeders should be charged with rape all over the USA.

    Why is is ok for a horses dick to be forced in to a mare and not a humans.. surely the smaller one will barely be noticed..

    Link to this
  3. 3. Wild-Wolf 6:48 pm 04/8/2010

    Openmind said: "How do you know the animal is NOT being harmed those way? animals dont talk? besides the idea of a human penis rapping a animal? i dont even get how it’s done? is it anal or vaginally? who knows if they damage the animal internally or not? if they feel violated or manipulated or not? they are not human? I can not see how this could be in any way good for the animal, this is good for only one, the one abusing the animal. I am open to a lot, but this is not moral or right at all."

    I say: [Sarcams...]If some one plays fetch with a dog. How do you know the animal is NOT being harmed by it? You don’t know if they animal is damage mentally or psychically? If they feel violated or manipulated into playing? they are not human they can’t talk? I can not see how this could be in any way good for the animal, people should not play fetch with dogs, this is good for only one, the one enjoying a fetch game with the dog.[... End of Sarcasm]

    @Openmind: People have manipulate, experimented, locked, trained, killed and eat animals since ever… and is morally OK as long as the animal is treat humanly. But having humanly sex with an animal is morally wrong?

    You are a hypocrite to believe that… unless you don’t use animals at all in your life (not even for food)

    PS: Animals are not children and children are not sexually mature like animals. You are saying one is wrong because the other one is wrong when the 2 has nothing to do with each other. You are trying to compare a red rock to an apple to say apples are rocks. Look at "straw man" article on wikipedia if you don’t know what you are doing.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Wild-Wolf 6:48 pm 04/8/2010

    Openmind said: "How do you know the animal is NOT being harmed those way? animals dont talk? besides the idea of a human penis rapping a animal? i dont even get how it’s done? is it anal or vaginally? who knows if they damage the animal internally or not? if they feel violated or manipulated or not? they are not human? I can not see how this could be in any way good for the animal, this is good for only one, the one abusing the animal. I am open to a lot, but this is not moral or right at all."

    I say: [Sarcams...]If some one plays fetch with a dog. How do you know the animal is NOT being harmed by it? You don’t know if they animal is damage mentally or psychically? If they feel violated or manipulated into playing? they are not human they can’t talk? I can not see how this could be in any way good for the animal, people should not play fetch with dogs, this is good for only one, the one enjoying a fetch game with the dog.[... End of Sarcasm]

    @Openmind: People have manipulate, experimented, locked, trained, killed and eat animals since ever… and is morally OK as long as the animal is treat humanly. But having humanly sex with an animal is morally wrong?

    You are a hypocrite to believe that… unless you don’t use animals at all in your life (not even for food)

    PS: Animals are not children and children are not sexually mature like animals. You are saying one is wrong because the other one is wrong when the 2 has nothing to do with each other. You are trying to compare a red rock to an apple to say apples are rocks. Look at "straw man" article on wikipedia if you don’t know what you are doing.

    Link to this
  5. 5. steele 12:13 am 04/11/2010

    Thank you for the wonderful article. I hope a lot of your viewers can set aside their personal feelings enjoy the though and effort put into it.

    >>Do zoophiles find particular members of their preferred species more attractive<<

    Yes. Especially when you are talking about a species as diverse as canines. Some prefer short-haired (great danes, greyhounds), or fighting breeds (pitbull, rotweilers, mastiff) or the more wolfish huskies and malamutes. GSD are probably one of the most popular. Many zoos say they are exclusively attracted to either canines or horses.

    >>What is the percentage of homosexual…<<

    Its probably slightly higher (homo, and bisexual) attraction towards animals. Their is still plenty of straight zoos, but when you cross the species barrier you less likely to find people who repress their urges for same sex intercourse.

    >>How do zoophiles differentiate between a consenting animal partner and one who isnt in the mood?<<
    Ask yourself if two humans didn’t speak the same language, would they be incapable of having sex (if they desired too)? No. Body language is pretty clear, even with a different species. Cowering, tail between the legs, and submissiveness too play bows and wagging are clear signs of a canines intent. I would guess most people wouldn’t need have explained to them what it means when a bitch presents herself to you or to have a male hump your leg (as you pointed out).

    >>Why are men more likely to be zoophiles than women?<<

    I’m not sure its true. Or how much so if it is. Perhaps since you tend to find less women in online communities it just looks like their are less in the online zoo community.

    >>Are zoophiles attracted only to sexually mature animalsand if not, does this make them zoopedophiles?<<

    I would agree that it would, though I’ve never heard of any.

    >>What about cross-cultural differences? Is the tendency to become a zoophile heritable?<<

    The ability to have an animal companion and freedom and privacy to have them as a partner is likely to be much more exclusive to people living in wealthy-western nations. I know zoos from the US, Canada, UK, Germany even as far as Brazil, South Africa and Australia.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Matt M. 4:46 am 04/18/2010

    Uhmmm…that bit about Humans being the only animals who have sex for pleasure is wrong. Dolphins, allegedly, have sex for pleasure as well.

    Putting that aside, there are some other questions about your response to the consent debate.

    First, while I do agree (in concept anyway) that tricking one’s pet to performing sexually *should* be considered an act of rape I have to wonder…if the animal is the ‘aggressor’ in the relationship (i.e. the dog is humping a given zoo’s leg) through no trickery on the part of the zoo being humped (i.e. the dog is not trained to hump on command; the zoo has not smeared himself in a female’s scent; stuff of this nature) and the zoo simply gets down ‘presents’ for the dog, would that still count? After all, it does not seem like the zoo is using any of those ‘higher cognitive powers’ to manipulate the dog into performing for them.

    A second point I would like to contest: why is consent towards sex such a special case? That is, why is it immoral to train one’s pet to perform sexually as opposed to training the dog how to play fetch, or roll over, or play dead? The dog, according to your argument, has no say in those matters either. Is it not just as ‘morally corrupt’ to have a pet who performs tricks and other such tasks on command as it is to get them to perform in sexual ways? Why is the dog consenting to sex so important when it cannot consent to any other action we have them do? Can a pet really even give consent to being one’s pet?

    Look, if you wanna maintain that anything done against the consent of the animal is abusive – that’s fine. But then you have to give an account of what – if anything – animals can give consent to and how we know they’re giving consent. And that’s one helluva battle right there. As it stands now though: if we’re to follow your consent argument, we’ve no right to even keep pets. Why? Because if animals cannot give consent to people (for we may be using our ‘cognitive powers’ to manipulate them) then they cannot give consent to being our pets making the average pet owner just as ‘morally corrupt’ as the zoophile (unless we assume sex to be some sort of ‘special kind of act’ that requires not just regular consent but ‘informed consent’).

    Link to this
  7. 7. 33Rev 10:53 pm 04/18/2010

    Well said, Matt M. I agree.
    However, I’ve read all the comments thus far and have to give most credit to Fausty, if for no other reason that there have been few criticism of his opinion and logic.

    Link to this
  8. 8. Avpx 1:20 am 04/19/2010

    33Rev, do you happen to know that Douglas Spink aka "Fausty" has been arrested?

    Link to this
  9. 9. ccccc 2:32 pm 04/21/2010

    I would be interested to know just how many zoophiles simply can’t relate to people (due to other disorders) and, as a result, become sexually attracted to animals. Maybe this behavior is just a possible side-effect of sociopathy, for example.

    Link to this
  10. 10. -Bernard- 9:26 pm 04/21/2010

    By my rough but broad count, very few zoophiles are sociopaths. Much more common is Aspergers. But the greater majority have no trouble relating to other humans and usually begin relationships with non-humans before sexual maturity.

    Look at it the other way ’round. When you are young and beginning your explorations into things sexual, who could be better as a partner than someone you trust, that lives with you, and is absolutely guaranteed to keep a secret?

    Bernard

    Link to this
  11. 11. Star-Fire 8:32 pm 05/1/2010

    "Fausty at 09:01 PM on 03/28/10
    Fausty | http://www.fausty.org&quot;

    Hmm, you must be that same "fausty" the convicted drug smuggler that was in all the papers recently, having been arrested now for running a beastiality farm!

    Drug smuggler arrested in bestiality case in Wash.

    By GENE JOHNSON (AP) Apr 16, 2010

    SEATTLE A convicted cocaine smuggler has been arrested for running what authorities say appears to be a bestiality farm in Washington state in which visitors could engage in all sorts of twisted sex acts with animals.

    Douglas Spink was arrested at his ramshackle, heavily wooded compound near the Canadian border in Whatcom County along with a 51-year-old tourist from Great Britain who is accused of having sex with three dogs.

    Dozens of dogs, horses and pet mice were seized, along with what investigators described as thousands of images of bestiality and apparent child pornography. The mice were euthanized, said Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo, whose office assisted federal agents in the case.

    "This stuff is just truly bizarre," he said. "These were mice that had their tails cut off, they were smothered in Vaseline and they had string tied around them."

    Under Washington law, it’s illegal to assist others in engaging in bestiality and breaking any state law would be a violation of Spink’s release, punishable by up to five years in prison.

    Authorities searched his farm Wednesday after prosecutors received a tip from a public defender’s office in Tennessee. The office reported that Spink had been calling them incessantly about a jailed defendant in a bestiality case in Tennessee.

    That man, James Michael Tait, had previously admitted filming a man having sex with a horse in Enumclaw, Wash., in 2005. The man Tait filmed died of internal injuries suffered during the incident. He received a minor sentence in the case because Washington had relatively weak bestiality laws at the time.
    When agents searched Spink’s home, they found a video of a man sexually abusing dogs and that man, Clarke, was still on the property, wearing the same clothes as in the video, Elfo said. He was charged with animal cruelty and made an initial appearance in Whatcom County Superior Court on Thursday.

    Roe said Friday that Clarke had admitted his involvement to investigators.

    Link to this
  12. 12. Star-Fire 8:42 pm 05/1/2010

    33Rev at 10:53 PM on 04/18/10

    Well said, Matt M. I agree.
    However, I’ve read all the comments thus far and have to give most credit to Fausty"

    You’ll have to give this convicted drug smugler "credit" in his jail cell, that’s where he is sitting right now after his farm was raided by the police, beastiality porn and animals seized, it’s already in several hundred news sources, blogs, and forums if you search for the name douglas spink in the "news" tab and the "web" tab.
    It looks like he was a spokesman for the beasty community and ran several web sites that are mysteriously vamooshed now that he is in jail
    if this is representative of zoophiles, and what kind of spokesman you look up to, its no wonder laws are being passed!
    Drug smuggling, apparent child porn, and now running a beastiality farm where visitors from around the world can stop over for a drink, dinner and sex with an animal

    Link to this
  13. 13. Coloradozoo 9:52 pm 05/1/2010

    Stripes at 01:42 PM on 03/25/10
    "I first would like to complement the author on the very well written (and somewhat unbiased) article on this rather taboo subject.

    I am a zoosexual myself, and I do consider this to be a legitimate sexual orientation. "
    ——-

    oh? whats your opinion after bragging to others that you were the one that got that anti bestiality bill passed in Colorado.

    after you and another dude did this gal and she screamed rape and told the cops about that and your bestiality confession. they law couldn’t prosecute because there was no law on the books at that time. So using this as an example of why Colorado needed such a law. they created and passed the law against bestiality which now affects zoos, the REAL ones in Colorado.
    its "Zoos" like you that mess up what zoo means to the public and how we are perceived, thanks to YOU Stripes.

    Link to this
  14. 14. -Bernard- 12:39 am 05/3/2010

    @ Star-Fire You are completely correct about Fausty. In fact he has done more damage and violence within the Zoo community than what you see outside of it. But that does not change the facts that he is intelligent, articulate, and Zoo.

    His status as a representative of the Zoo community is self appointed. The likelihood of these exact circumstances coming to pass has been much debated and feared. All it really proves though is that Zoos are found in literally every walk of life.

    Given that he has chosen me to be one his greatest enemies, I can’t testify in a legal sense to anything that happened on his property. BUT I can say as one whose sexual preferences also run to male equines that children are the polar opposite of sexy to me. I therefore strongly doubt the paedophilia charges.

    I am completely clueless re the mice. Check out "felching" with Snopes. It’s a myth. Even if it wasn’t, anyone with Stallion experience would know that Vasoline is not a useful sexual lube.

    By all means condemn Fausty for his drug smuggling, vindictive tempered, con artist ways. He’s earned that. But how has having consensual sex with healthy animals in the privacy of his own home harmed anyone?

    Bernard

    Link to this
  15. 15. Star-Fire 2:45 am 05/3/2010

    "His status as a representative of the Zoo community is self appointed. The likelihood of these exact circumstances coming to pass has been much debated and feared"

    No doubt the cops have his computer with all the stuff on it, including contact lists, passwords and more, better hope they don’t start cruising down the list and passing it along

    "I am completely clueless re the mice. Check out "felching" with Snopes. It’s a myth. Even if it wasn’t, anyone with Stallion experience would know that Vasoline is not a useful sexual lube."

    its no myth, and the reports say Vasoline but that doesn’t mean it was Vasoline, it could easily be some other sex lube the reporter thought was Vasoline. they did find mice with tails cut off and string on them, coated with some kind of glop and neither you nor me are party to the rest of the details.

    he was selling sex services to people like Clark and taping it, y’all claim all this love and that’s nothing but pimping his animals out and he is one of you, completely disgusting! more so that you allow someone like this around you just because he is "articulate" and whatever

    Link to this
  16. 16. Star-Fire 2:53 am 05/3/2010

    But how has having consensual sex with healthy animals in the privacy of his own home harmed anyone?

    Bernard

    Im not even going to bother addressing that other than to state that he has harmed both people and animals, he and Clark are in jail, Clark’s family in the UK is affected as is any employer he had
    the animals are now uprooted from home a second time as they were seized, whose fault was that? who put them in that predicament? who chose to rent his animals to some moron from the UK and film it?
    Douglas Spink did and now his animals are paying the price of it, hardly "harmless"

    Link to this
  17. 17. -Bernard- 8:04 am 05/3/2010

    Fausty was selling nothing. In fact, he has made many enemies among the porn sellers by distributing their works for free. He believes strongly in free access to info/art for all.

    Please accept this as an expert opinion. "Felching" is a stupid myth. It was started as a gay joke years ago and has haunted both communities since. Besides, once you’ve had a Stallion, mice (or gerbils) are very pointless.

    I tend to accept the Vasoline reference because I first saw it in a quote from the Sheriff on the scene. Law Enforcement professionals are trained and habituated to exact use of words. If he said "Vasoline", he wasn’t thinking of anything else. J-Lube, preferred by horse handlers of all sorts, is completely different even in color from Vasoline.

    The UK guy wasn’t paying for anything besides his transportation to the site. He was visiting for the purpose of having a new experience. Period. So he had sex on vacation. Please tell me how this is deviant? (think Love Boat)

    Bernard

    Link to this
  18. 18. -Bernard- 8:26 am 05/3/2010

    This where point of view really matters.

    Even if the animals were "rented", how does that harm them or anyone else. Millions of stables worldwide rent horses for riding and keep their animals in good shape.

    Fausty did post frequent "family photos" on his website. People who have visited have verified that the image of healthy happy animals portrayed on his website is accurate.

    All of the harms flowed from the arrests. No arrest equals no harm. So you suggest the repeal of the laws that caused the harm?

    Bernard

    Link to this
  19. 19. kategorienfehler 10:34 am 05/3/2010

    The fact that Fausty has been arrested may cast a shadow on *him*. But the points he made still contain valid arguments.
    In a meaningful discussion, one should differentiate between the person that makes the argument and the argument itself.

    Link to this
  20. 20. Star-Fire 9:10 pm 05/3/2010

    -Bernard- at 08:04 AM on 05/03/10

    Fausty was selling nothing. In fact, he has made many enemies among the porn sellers by distributing their works for free. He believes strongly in free access to info/art for all."

    Sure, that’s how he was living a lavish lifestyle with no job and all those animals. Photos can be staged easy.

    "Even if the animals were "rented", how does that harm them or anyone else. "

    I thought you zoo freaks claim all this great love, wife-husband relationship and yada yada, and here this freak is letting total strangers screw his dogs, yeah that sure makes your case!
    I hope he goes away for years and that every animal the cops took away are neutered. spayed and put into new homes far and away from this freak.

    Link to this
  21. 21. Star-Fire 9:15 pm 05/3/2010

    All of the harms flowed from the arrests. No arrest equals no harm. So you suggest the repeal of the laws that caused the harm?

    Bernard"

    Wrongo, he alone is responsible for what happened, he violated the law and his probation rules, now he has to pay the piper.
    The law is a good one, it should be enacted in all 50 states and the world-wide media exposure of this case should help towards that end.
    I’m going to ensure that PeTA, HSUS and all the rest are totally aware of every news report around and will ask them to push for full prosecution, this is totally sick.
    Let us not forget that Mr Drug dealer was responsible to bringing in hundreds of pounds of coke that had it been distributed as planned would have caused deaths and more besides. Seems he got a real slap on the wrist there, now maybe he will serve the term he shoulda had to begin with.

    Link to this
  22. 22. -Bernard- 10:27 pm 05/3/2010

    @ kategorienfehler, thank you.

    @Star-Fire, this will be my last reply to you. When you grow up, you will discover Google skills to be a great aid in your life. Today they would have saved you much embarrassment.

    Bernard

    Link to this
  23. 23. Star-Fire 1:31 pm 05/4/2010

    Oh I know how to Google quite well, and Mr Spink’s name is feature on almost five hundred news, blog and forums now as a result of his arrest
    The arrest included another "zoophile" from the UK, thousands of pictures of bestiality porn and child porn.
    All that and his priors with the drugs proves he is a skumbag who needs to be locked up for the full term he qualifies for and thereby kept away from people and animals

    Link to this
  24. 24. kategorienfehler 3:10 pm 05/5/2010

    I remember a guy once told me this is a free country. What business of yours is it, what I do in the privacy of my bedroom or barn?

    Whenever sexual contacts involve animal cruelty, generic animal cruelty laws apply. Where child pornography is involved, other laws apply, accordingly. Same for trespassing.

    Freedom is meaningless and shallow, if it’s not the freedom to do something others may regard as "perverse" or "disgusting", too.

    Link to this
  25. 25. KEEPINITREAL 2:43 pm 05/15/2010

    YOU SICK FUCK!!!!!

    Link to this
  26. 26. Pony 5:14 am 05/21/2010

    Recently in The Netherlands a law passed banning animal pornography and also the act. The Dutch realize how pointless this is because not only were we just a few votes short getting the law thrown in a fire, but also on the Internet discussions came to existence that it’s pure symbolical and based on morality rather then the interest of the animal’s wellbeing.
    Concessions were made to protect certain people from this law as well, all for "economical benefit". The documents confirming this are actually available to read on the Dutch government websites, which raises even more eyebrows.
    It’s absolutely no problem for breeders who do AI on pigs to use a vibrator for stimulation during said procedure. Just to name one notable example.
    The government shouldn’t have anything to say on what happens in my bedroom or stable and should be focusing their resources on the REAL problems when it comes to animal abuse.
    Personally, I only have gotten a little bit more careful since I always have been very open about being a zoophile.
    Family, friends and all my former girlfriends know about it. Heck, even my work knows about it these days. That was an accident waiting to happen though. Took my colleagues a bit of time to deal with it and on how to approach me, but for some weird reason we are now better friends then ever and my manager gave me extra respect during my yearly review on how I handled it when it got out at first.
    I am one of the lucky ones of course, but it just shows that even though people go "ewww" they realize zoophiles are persons too, and then I am still the same person as they knew before acquiring this specific bit of knowledge.
    When I have my own animal one day, then of course I will be a lot more discreet out of protection for my lover and myself.
    But I know a guy in The Netherlands who shrugs at the law and didn’t make any changes in his life. He still lives happily together (and married) with his mare and no one bothers him despite this new law despite the fact the entirely village knows about his situation.
    Live and let live is what I say. I am not expecting or even dreaming of world wide acceptation. Heck, even the gay people are still wading their battles and acceptance is superficial at best since there is still plenty violence going around against them.
    At the same time, I am happy that some research is being done on the subject regardless. It was a pleasure to read this article, even although it’s not entirely accurate here and there. It beats the usually negative biased articles. Thanks for writing this!

    Link to this
  27. 27. SomeGuyInABurb 10:12 pm 05/29/2010

    I am a zoophile. I have been such since I was aware of my sexuality, and now that I’m getting on in years I don’t really care as much about the sex of course, but totally enjoy spending "quality time" with my partners (and that’s not intended any dirtier than someone saying they enjoy quality time with a spouse — ya, maybe sex is in there, but I’m not sure it matters now).

    I live in a ‘burb, I have a family, I am not typical but am also not notably atypical either visibly, socially, economically, whatever. I am fairly well educated, and have actually determined early on that this "zoo stuff" was going to be a problem, so I worked VERY HARD at reprogramming myself into normalcy, but have given up on that, thankfully.

    I have also have attempted a long running "low level format" of my brain using chemicals (mostly beer) but that just made me a fuzzier version of the same guy. Not a surprise, but it seemed a good idea at the time. :) The parallels with "fixing" homosexuality are not lost on me, and it’s rather astounding that many of "us" who are smart enough to get through to the other side with any sort of self acceptance have not been able to get better uptake on the "it’s how we’re wired" thing. After years of study of myself and others, it is clear that it really is.

    Now, on the morality side, I think it’s clear to those who are able to throw emotions to the side for just a moment, that sexually mature, and atomically compatible creatures can and do consent. They can also clearly say no, which is a bother if you live with someone who you love but who doesn’t love you, but that’s no different a problem as that shared with humans. In a recent "abuse" case in the USA, evidence of "abuse" has been a male dog eagerly and obviously ecstatically mounting a human. This is frankly devaluing the term "abuse" such that it will need to be thrown away if this keeps up, as the next time someone really abuses a dog by kicking it the term will be meaningless.

    I actually am now beginning to believe not only that there is some genetic predisposition to this (was my father’s obsession with dogs random?) but that there may be some evolutionary REASON. Possibly, as with an ant colony, humans were specializing in community tasks, and there is some value in selecting for the "likes to get the fingers in the soil and harvest grains for the tribe" and the "likes to work with domestic animals and gather milk for the tribe."??

    I just otherwise cannot explain the large numbers I am seeing in this group.

    Thanks so much for thinking deeply,
    W

    Link to this
  28. 28. kategorienfehler 5:53 am 05/30/2010

    "In a recent "abuse" case in the USA, evidence of "abuse" has been a male dog eagerly and obviously ecstatically mounting a human."

    Yeah, that strikes me as an orwellian use of words, too. Unfortunalety, it seems lots of people have already drawn the conclusion before the argument.

    Thanks for sharing!

    Link to this
  29. 29. Coltydog 2:33 am 06/25/2010

    Well finally it seems that there are a few people who are willing to question the idea that zoophiles actually exists. Almost all of the cases I have found follow the scenario that the person was "abusing" the animal, even if he wiped olive oil all over his body and then rolled in oats so he could enjoy horses licking him off! ( a case in California I found while surfing the net)… Abuse seems to have taken on a whole new meaning with respect to law enforcement. It is nuts how those who have no clue about what it is like to find themselves attracted to other animals, can somehow justify lumping those who would go bankrupt to save the life of their beloved pet/lover into the same group as those who would rip open the vaginas of horses, then go on to abuse kids! It does not make any logical sense at all. Where are those "studies" that the FBI allegedly did, apparently showing that most pedophiles start out by abusing animals? Again the word ‘abuse’ is loosely defined in that, from what I have gathered, they found that those in the study group had mutilated and tortured the animal victims. There is a difference between rape, mutilation, and acts of violence towards an innocent pet and befriending one with the idea that you find him/her to be genuinely attractive…which, with some luck may bloom into a real affair with mutual feelings. There is something magical about feeling that burst of adrenalin and your heart skip at the sight of a really sexy mare or dog, et.al., when you know that you might actually get to experience the moment when you get to be together intimately sometime in the future. The "studies" seem to have been swept away and the only thing that took root was the idea that anyone who would dare even think seriously about having sex with a different animal is very sick and needs to be reprogrammed by the Church.

    I say Church because of the knee-jerk ability to arrive at conclusions in the complete absence of any empirical reasoning. That is not to say that those who jump to conclusions lack the ability of pragmatic thinking; rather that, without any further thought, they simply reach the conclusion that it is wrong because they are not that way, and God says it is wrong. The problem with this fact is the inherent lack of true understanding required to see that there is actually a REAL difference between raw bestiality and zoophilia. Unfortunately, the stark differences between bestialists and zoophiles doesnt matter to those lawmakers who choose to blindly follow the flock.

    Link to this
  30. 30. laffy 7:49 pm 07/15/2010

    I agree. I would think part of the interest in animals is that they can’t talk back and the perpetrator can attribute whatever feelings they want to the animal.

    It’s wrong.

    Link to this
  31. 31. Wild-Wolf 2:58 am 07/16/2010

    I like dogs because I like dogs, I have like them since I have memory, I wouldn’t care if they talk human words or not, I don’t understand what you mean by attributing feelings to animals. You believe the don’t have feelings?

    Link to this
  32. 32. Zoe 2:27 pm 08/22/2010
    Link to this
  33. 33. Zoe 2:41 pm 08/22/2010

    Firstly I would like to congratulate the author for this well written unbiased article but I think its missing a paragraph on STD’s. My opinion is that really MOST animals do not have the ability to consent to such acts so unless they can find a valid way of communication where there is no misunderstanding between the human and animal it should not be ok or legal for a human to have any sexual contact with the animal. It is very shocking to know that such a thing exists bestiality, zoophilia, whatever it is labeled I really do not understand or comprehend how these kind of people live I would love to see a documentary on the lives of such people must be hard living as a zoophile in this world

    Link to this
  34. 34. Zoe 3:00 pm 08/22/2010

    First of all I would like to congratulate the author on such a well written article and him not leaning on any side of the story. For me personally its very shocking to me that such a group of people exist in this world. We are barely capable of dealing with pedophiles and incest now this? Whats next inserting a snakes tail in your vagina? I mean i’m a huge believer in keeping an open mind and not being judgmental…I believe that each person is different etc but then again zoophilia? Do we really want to accept that and let that get in to the mainstream? So more kids experiment with that? Do we really want that? Not to mention the many diseases that would be the result of those acts…I would love to know more about this though how do people with those thoughts and urges deal with that? I’d love to watch a documentary about that

    Link to this
  35. 35. reg_fat_head 10:29 pm 09/6/2010

    @zoe, you have the gamut of typical arguments so I’ll see if I can summarize some of what is in the 100+ previous posts that you missed, to answer some of your points quickly:
    (1) "missing a paragraph on STD’s." – What’s there to miss? There are far, far FEWER STDs is cross-species contact, but if you’re worried about it, feel free to wear protection when you’re with your partner. Done! :)
    (2) "MOST animals do not have the ability to consent to such acts so unless they can find a valid way of communication" – OK, you have no idea what a dog or horse is like, I’m assuming? Let me fill you in. As an example, a happy dog does tail wags and prancing, etc. That is a YES, however, cowering or general lack of interest, looking away, nervous yawn, etc. is NO (I get those when clipping toenails, but I go on clipping without consent, BTW ;) ). (Yes, I could have told zoe about more prominent displays of consent like erections and such that are hard to fake as a YES, but I kept it simple, assuming some people don’t think animals have "those parts". :) )
    (3) "So more kids experiment with that?" – Did you experiment with homosexuality or heterosexuality? OR did you just do what you thought was WHAT YOU WERE after already forming a bit of an opinion as you grew. Most hetero boys don’t just randomly decide to seduce a guy as an experiment. But even if they did it all works out anyway as they will realize, "hey, that was NOT what I was expecting. Ick.". That might even prevent the cases of those of us who get married and then say "oh, crap. I gotta thing for policemen in uniforms" after 10 years with a police woman.

    I think your fundamental fear is that you believe that doing something once will stick your brain on that orientation, thus ensuring ‘those people’ are in the closet keeps the kids safer. I suspect that it’s more complex than that, and the kids are already who they are far before they know about ‘all that’. And we need to accept those kids for who they are.

    So…. Basically, it does not affect you unless you want it to, sort of like gay marriage not actually wreaking havoc up here in Canada as it was predicted to, so don’t worry about it at all — unless you want to join in. ;)

    Link to this
  36. 36. Kobidobidog 4:10 pm 12/27/2010

    To condone it or not does not matter. Sex between species occurs anyway, and for you to even think about judging another is to judge your lightless body by the same measure you judge another,Matthew 7:2 KJV,

    you are aware we are on a on a planet of sex,right
    I have seen a video of a cat flagging her tail for a male dog to mount her.Dogs will see a calm submissive human in a good position, and go for it. That happens all the time,and when a loving human offers it to the dog the dog will go to that human like we go to get a cool drink of water.The non human animals we use for food do not say I consent see my signature, and my willing neck on the block, Now do they? Had they that ability wouldn’t you think sex would be preferable to them than to be eaten?I can see them picketing the slaughter houses if they had that ability. Just leave the zoo alone,and work out your own salvation being right with man,and at the same time God.

    Link to this
  37. 37. Kobidobidog 4:17 pm 12/27/2010

    bestiality shouldn’t be made into a dart board to throw darts at humans ,Right? A dart is the same as a stone, correct? did Jesus who is supposed to be in us to save us ever throw a dart or stone?

    Link to this
  38. 38. Kobidobidog 4:29 pm 12/27/2010

    I have seen a panda refuse the one who won a fight because the one she wanted lost the fight.

    Link to this
  39. 39. Eezliaz 3:13 pm 01/1/2011

    Being a Zoophilie I could not be further from the stereotype. – Have been a vegan for nearly 5 years, vegetarian for three times that, and have a Ph.D in Physics as well as being a member of PETA. And it angers me greatly when people say that Zoos want to only ‘hurt’ the animal, and they don’t care for their welfare – I care for the animal! I’d do anything I could to prevent cruelty. I give my companions the best life I can possible give them…

    Link to this
  40. 40. Kobidobidog 4:22 pm 01/1/2011

    zoosexuality should have never have been illegal. Hate, and persecution is not what Jesus gives,and goes diametrically against what Jesus wants us to be,and that is one in love.I have a thousand reasons why zoosexuality should be legal, and these are two of them.2 Timothy 3,12, Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.zoosexuals have suffered persecution.
    KJB John 4 ,12,
    If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Give that perfect love to the zoosexual,and whoever else for that matter,and prepare for eternity where there will be peace forever more.

    Link to this
  41. 41. Kobidobidog 1:55 am 01/27/2011

    The assault is on the zoosexual. The assailant is ungodly. Jesus who is the Lord God assaults no one. Thomas who was a doubter exclaimed my Lord and my God.1 Corinthians 11:31 ;King James Bible
    For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. Humans are chronically wanting to judge the sexualities.
    Humans what to cry sex with another species is a crime against nature ,and have the human decimate 905 species to extinction? ,and say they have not done a crime against nature?Come on folks. Humans can shamelessly alter non human animals ,and say that is not a crime against nature?Humans inject mercury,and an embalming fluid called formaldehyde into non human animals and not say that is a crime against nature? The zoo is appalled at both of those things. The zoo is being persecuted because that is what the devil does,and did to Jesus who is the Lord God.
    Jesus is in the zoo and that is why the zoo is getting treated the way they are.

    The sex is a choice,and a choice is a choice. Some humans say yuck to one kind of food,and therefore don’t eat it, simple.
    Consent thing is meant to give guilt,and Jesus does not give guilt. Judge yourself, and God will not Judge you when the living, and the dead are Judged. Stop playing with Satan or he will kill your soul.

    The religious viewpoints against zoo,are not loving like Jesus who is the Lord God, even as doubting Thomas exclaimed. Therefore the real being against the zoo is the devil himself working through humans.

    The God of eternity which Man did not Make judges, KJV, Romans 14,10-13:10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
    11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
    12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
    13Let us not therefore judge one another any more:
    Stop condemning the zoo.

    Link to this
  42. 42. alicehester11 3:32 am 02/2/2011

    I’m so shocked and in awe reading this article. These people are insane. How on earth that a human being will have sex to an animal!<a href="http://www.activelibido.net">Penis Enlargement Techniques</a>

    Link to this
  43. 43. Kobidobidog 12:52 pm 02/2/2011

    Whoever uses the word perverted referring to sex is telling a lie. I read over, and over that perverted is what comes out of the lip. What comes out of the lips are a false witness, whisperings,lying,and hateful words, deceiving words, accusing, and condemning words giving guilt. Words wishing humans ill will comes out of the lips,and that is not sex of any kind.

    1, Proverbs 14 :2He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the LORD: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him. To be upright is to be truthful,and Satan is not truthful.

    2, Proverbs 4 24,Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. Perverse lips will lie.

    3, Proverbs 17 :23A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment.
    Again sex of whatever kind is not perverse.

    4, Proverbs 19 :1Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool.
    The once against the zoo is a fool according to God, and Gods love has to be in us to love all, and save our soul.

    They that lie have perverse lips. Perverse again is not zoo sex or any kind of sex.

    5, Proverbs 15, 4A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.
    Satan has told lies,and those lies must be revealed to end persecution of the zoosexual,and other sexual orientations as well. and save souls at the same time.

    Link to this
  44. 44. Kobidobidog 1:12 pm 02/2/2011

    The argument about consent is nothing. Have Jesus in you,and live,or don’t, and have the soul be killed. why are humans seeking a vain thing?Satan wants to condemn,and the once bringing up the consent issue want to condemn too,and to want to condemn will get whoever condemned themselves. So why don’t we put this consent thing to rest. What we have with you,and others like you is a human not behaving like the Lord God Jesus Christ. What we have is a human acting like the accusing human finding fault with another human. This is mimicking what humans did to Jesus. Just leave the zoo alone for your own Salvation sake,and do this.1 Corinthians 11:31 ;King James Bible
    For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
    King James Bible That means judge yourself,and not another.
    And do not be a hypocrite.Proverbs 11,9An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

    Do you hear what I am saying?

    Link to this
  45. 45. Rebel Of The Sacred Heart 6:24 pm 05/25/2011

    This article greatly intrigued me. I’m always looking for papers, articles, etc. about Zoophilia… I am a Zoo.

    I’m greatly intrested in the scientific reasonings of human behavior. Me ,being of this particuler misunderstood group, try to figure out the "why" of why we are who we are. i personaly believe it IS a minority orientation. I’ve been attracted to horses (mares) for as long as I can remember. As a matter of fact, I can’t explain when or how I became the Zoo I am. I’ve always been this way. And this particular article caught my because of the man with the plain caring upbringing sounds alot like me. There are alot more of us than you know or even care to accknowlage. Yes there are "thoughs" who "use" animals (technically known as "Beastialitist"), and I don’t at all support them or what they do. You need a SIGNIFICANT and POWERFUL Emotional attachment to be a TRUE Zoophile. Not all have Romantic relationships, but love their animal partners still as much as anyone does a Soul Mate. We are quite diverse in our beliefs as well. Some Zoos may not agree with some comments or ways others do believe, including my own. We are not sick. What’s considered "WRONG" is only in one’s mind, not in real fact, and many of the hateful comments and Anti-Zoo "propaganda" used is created by Un-rational thinking people who can’t see clearly the truth or use the same remarks over and over against something they can’t understand or have. They just say and rely on what others say and can’t think on their own. I know a great many Zoos are even religious, yet see their life, as nothing wrong, but as a form of true Unconditional Love. Many ,if not most, human relationships never stay strong and they drift apart forever. Tell me, is there any True love in that? Zoos truly love their animals until the day they die and beyond. We Zoos are also human and our love will not change because of others. Especially not mine. I personaly don’t judge others lives or ways out of Irrational thought and what others say. Humans ARE ANIMALS ans are going to do what they do. And if you can’t see eye to eye or at least the facts, that’s fine, just don’t put down and absolutly hate something you don’t understand.

    Link to this
  46. 46. Kobidobidog 11:54 am 05/26/2011

    Jesus also says John 3:5:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    Matthew 18:3:King James Bible
    And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Luke 18:17Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
    This means have sex with a saved adult is like having sex with a child. That puts the humans in quite a quandary wanting to persecute the ones they call pedofiles. The longer the conflict continues the more the persecutor-of whatever sexuality is wrong for persecuting.

    Link to this
  47. 47. Rebel Of The Sacred Heart 6:07 pm 05/26/2011

    As I read these comments, I notice out all the the ones that make any sense are Kobidobidog’s.It takes a true human being to see the Bible of any writing dosn’t discriminate neccisarily on sexual orientation of any type. Just Lust, not True Love within the soul.

    11:31 ;King James Bible
    For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
    Proverbs 11,9An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

    This passage is one I greatly and truly believe in. No one should judge another because the one judging is a hypocrite and knows it. He only tries to hide his own self behind his own hateful comments and refuses to see his own flaws.

    "Whoever uses the word perverted referring to sex is telling a lie. What comes out of the lips are a false witness, whisperings,lying,and hateful words."
    Another thing I believe. Perverted is the un-factual lies people use to hate and discriminate thoughs who are different than themselves who tell and create these lies. If they don’t understand something, they develope in their mind that what they don’t understand is "perverted", when realy their misinformed thoughts about the matter are.

    And the argument that "zoos are as sick as pedophiles" makes me hate the only thing I do: People that don’t know what in hell their talking about! It makes my blood boil! One cannot compare us to pedophiles in any way! Yes "pedophile" has the Greek "Phile" on the end same as Zoophile. Big woop! You can’t compare the two factualy from one end of the universe to the other. Zoophilia is an Orientation which deals with Biologicaly Mature animals, while pedophilia is a proven mental issue which deals with children. Animals know when they want that kind of attention or not! I’ve experienced both willing and loving partners, and ones who have nothing to do with me. A horse or dog who dosn’t want that attention knows it can greatly harm you if you continue. Ones that do show obvious signs, just as a human partner would.
    They’re not intellectulay inferior as people believe. Animals may lack Complex thinking, but they still think and know differences, including who or what is "Courting" with them. I know from experience. I’ve had a few horses kick and bite me when not in the mood ,and you stop and say sorry. But are loving the next day. They have emotions just as we do, though many people who have never been around animals all their life can’t see or understand them. Which is where their minds say, "I don’t understand it, so it must be wrong." Well your wrong.

    Link to this
  48. 48. Kobidobidog 5:24 pm 05/27/2011

    The consenting thing is flawed because Satan is the originator of that concept wanting to give guilt to humans, and incite prosecution, persecution of humans. A non human animal is well equipped to walk away if they do not want the sex. The one thing humans are doing is doing a thing Jess would never do, and that is stand in judgment with a stone in his hand with a glare in his eye, and throw a stone. He is against that,and had he not been against it would not have written in the sand, sending the stone throwers leave one by one.

    The abuser is the stone thrower of which Jesus is not, that has to be clear.

    I saw a program where two pandas were fighting for a female,and one of the male pandas won, but the female was already rooting for one of the pandas to win, but he did not win,and as a result refused the advances of the wining male. She did not consent to him having sex with her,and did not have sex with him.Judge yourself,and be like Jesus for the one who is not will nitpick pecking at other humans like a chicken sometimes does to the head of another chicken. I say we should love all,and be like Jesus,and leave it that way.

    Link to this
  49. 49. Kobidobidog 5:36 pm 05/27/2011

    The logic of consent is flawed because hate from the devil who is death is behind it, and all should turn their backs to him. Jesus is not a stone thrower,and nether should we be stone thrower. We should judge ourselves,and be Godly for those that do not will end up pecking the heads of otherwise like a nitpicking chicken.

    Link to this
  50. 50. Kobidobidog 5:41 pm 05/27/2011

    The logic of consent is flawed because hate from the devil who is death is behind it, and all should turn their backs to him. Jesus is not a stone thrower,and nether should we be stone thrower. We should judge ourselves,and be Godly for those that do not will end up pecking the heads of otherwise like a nitpicking chicken.

    Link to this
  51. 51. DeepJustice 3:43 pm 04/1/2013

    Hey Bernard, what’s up with this? Are you and Randy “Zoobuster” Pepe buddies, or what…

    http://www.cultureghost.net/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=244#p629

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get Total Access to our Digital Anthology

1,200 Articles

Order Now - Just $39! >

X

Email this Article

X