WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2001

Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2001 4:49 a.m. EDT Defending animal rights from a 'defender'

By TOM REGAN RALEIGH -- In 1975 the philosopher Peter Singer published "Animal Liberation." The book was (and continues to be) heralded by many as the "bible of the animal rights movement." This is both untrue and unfortunate. It is untrue because Singer denies that animals have rights. It is unfortunate because it creates the impression that when Singer speaks, he speaks for everyone who believes in animal rights. He does not.

The animal rights movement is abolitionist in its aspirations. It seeks to end human tyranny over other animals, not make our tyranny more "humane." It calls for an end to the fur trade, an end to live animal acts, an end to sport hunting, an end to vivisection and an end to commercial animal agriculture. As I have written elsewhere, its goals are empty cages, not larger cages.

People who do not believe in animal rights do not think the world should change in these ways. Sometimes they call animal rightists "extremists," "fanatics," "zealots" and worse. But everyone knows that name-calling never settles anything; it is the cogency of ideas that must be addressed. At the heart of the animal rights movement is the belief in fundamental moral rights. What matters most is whether humans and other animals are treated with respect, not what good consequences flow from failing to do so.

"The end does not justify the means" is a moral truth that applies beyond the boundaries of our species. Mistaken or not, this is what those committed to animal rights believe. All this Peter Singer denies. Neither humans nor animals have rights, in his view. As a utilitarian, he believes that right and wrong depend on how much satisfaction results from our actions, an outlook that leads him to accept many practices that advocates of animal rights reject.

For example, given his utilitarianism, there is nothing wrong in principle if animals are raised to be eaten. If farm animals live a good life, are killed "humanely," and are replaced by new animals who will be treated in the same way, satisfaction is optimized, so no wrong is done. No animal rights advocate believes this.

Some people think the difference between animal rights and Singer's ideas is just a matter of words. This is not true. Singer's ideas sanction behaviors that both those who believe in animal rights and those who do not must find appalling.

Any doubts about this vanish when one reads Singer's recent review of a book by Midas Dekkers called "Dearest Pet." The review appeared last month in the online sex magazine Nerve.com, whose mission statement celebrates the belief in "sexual freedom." In his review, Singer explains why, to his way of thinking, having sex with animals need not be a bad thing. Granted, sex involving cruelty to animals is wrong. But, Singer notes, "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty." In fact, when done "in private," "mutually satisfying [sexual] activities" involving animals and humans "may develop." In these cases, consistent with his utilitarian philosophy, when satisfaction is optimized, Singer can find no wrong. No serious advocate of animal rights believes this. And none believes this because none uses Singer's utilitarian standard as their moral standard. As already noted, for animal rights advocates, more than consequences matter. Consider sex with infants.

Animal rightists do not say that, when done "in private," there is nothing wrong with "mutually satisfying [sexual] activities" involving adults and infants. Rather, we say there is something wrong in engaging in such activities in the first place. A baby cannot give informed consent. A baby cannot say "yes." Or "no." In the nature of the case, engaging in sexual activities with infants must be coercive, must display a lack of respect, thus must be wrong. Bestiality is no different.

Animal rightists do not say that, when done "in private," there is nothing wrong with "mutually satisfying [sexual] activities" involving humans and animals. Rather, we say there is something wrong in engaging in such activities in the first place. An animal cannot give informed consent. An animal cannot say "yes." Or "no."

In the nature of the case, engaging in sexual activities with animals must be coercive, must display a lack of respect, thus must be wrong. Animal rights advocates are not here paying irrational homage to outdated sexual taboos or parading their sexual prudishness. Engaging in "mutually satisfying activities" is one of life's finest pleasures. By all means, then, the more such activities, the better ... provided that those who participate are able to give or withhold their informed consent.

The end of mutual satisfaction never justifies the means of sexual coercion. Public condemnation of Singer's views on sex with animals, ranging from "Dr. Laura" to The New Republic, animal rights chat groups and newspaper opinion pages already is being voiced. Every indication is that the chorus of condemnation will continue, as well it should. Still, one must hope that truth will not be among the casualties. Belief in animal rights can be challenged in many ways, but let no one say it must be wrong because it approves of sex with animals. Manifestly, categorically, it does not. Tom Regan teaches philosophy at N.C. State University. His latest book is "Defending Animal Rights."

Copyright 2001, The News & Observer.
--A.W.
04/05

==========================

PRESS RELEASE: MARCH 28, 2001

==========================

Professor Gary Francione today called for Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer to step down as President of The Great Ape Project International.

Francione, who is Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law and author of several books on animal rights, called for Singer's resignation in the wake of Singer's essay on bestiality, available in the March/April edition of Nerve Magazine,

http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/

In the essay, Singer maintains that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships. Singer describes an encounter between a human woman and a male orangutan living at Camp Leakey in Borneo. According to Singer, the orangutan saw the human woman "as an object of sexual interest." This is no cause for shock or horror, writes Singer, because "we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes." Thus, Singer concludes, the idea of sex between humans and non-humans "ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

In a letter to Singer dated March 28, Francione asked Singer to resign, stating that in light of Singer's position in GAP, his support for bestiality could be used to justify the sexual abuse of great apes and other non-human animals. Francione stated: "It is a shame that Singer's desire to be in the public spotlight is so intense that he would promote sex with animals--a position that deserves nothing less than outright absolute condemnation."

Last year, Singer received international attention when he argued that it was morally acceptable in certain circumstances to kill haemophiliac and other disabled infants.

Francione was one of the original signers of the Declaration on the Rights of Great Apes contained in the book "The Great Ape Project," published in 1993 and edited by Paola Cavalieri and Singer. Francione also wrote a chapter in the book entitled "Personhood, Property, and Legal Competence." He presented a discussion of the property status of great apes, and was the first legal theorist to call for legal rights for great apes and other animals.

Tony Smith, who works at a Canadian sanctuary which provides shelter and psychological enrichment for 15 non-human great apes, also expressed concerns about Singer's position on bestiality. "Peter Singer misses the significance of the incident's occurrence in a rehabilitation camp for apes trying to cope with what we have imposed on them. As a person who lives daily with the psychological problems of non-human victims of human interference and manipulation, I can tell you that such individuals are by no means sexually well-adjusted. Many of their behaviors are heartbreaking symptoms of human domination. Such acts should not be taken as moral guidance or justification."

Lee Hall, of the international legal group Great Ape Standing & Personhood, said, "Whether the idea of sex between humans and non-humans offends our status is beside the point. The point is that non-human animals cannot consent to sexual contact with us. Singer's request that we drop our sense of disgust at the creation of the quintessential sex object is shocking and disappointing."

==========================

Enquiries: probonobo@sprynet.com
GREAT APE STANDING & PERSONHOOD (GRASP), Inc.
U.S./CANADA
--
03/29

"How to" Guides:
Index to Alternative Sex Guides at White Shadow
How to k9- f/k9 - by f, 4 f. I recommend this one for women.
Sex Guide- f/K9 - the American approach..comprehensive, straightforward..
Sex Guide- f&m/k9 - Very comprehensive, the section for women, by a woman, is last 2/3
Sex Guide- f/K9 - 2 - Doing it! for f.
Sex Guide- m/k9 - Nevyn's Guide
Sex Guide- m/k9 - procedural, for m.
The index has guides for interests other than K9, including equine and feline.

Fantasies, text, a sampling:
White Shadow's Pet Lovers Stories <---------------------------Stories index
White Shadow's Zoophilia Story Room <-----------------------------------INDEX to Stories
Guidelines for Authors <-- tired of telling your story to guys getting off? Publish.
The Kristen Archives is closed until a server upgrade in January, 2001 :`( <-- its a tear.. Sorry!
All Extreme Sex Stories - NonHuman from www.literotica.com/stories/index.php <--INDEXES
Mia's Index of Anthro' Stories - Keyword Bestiality <-----------------------INDEX
Storydatabase Bestiality index from Erotic Adult Sex Stories
Sample stories:
Nan's Stories - from a woman's perspective
Concrete BlondStories -
Victor (Richly detailed m/d story)
Firsts (f/f/k9 seduction)
Awakening my Beast
Sisters
A Lesson in Humility D/s/K9 (FURY's note: I am not Dom, and do not condone the use of K9 in D/s)
Horse Story
Bobo f/f/k9 from Kristens (illustrated). Thanks to Licinfast2
Actaeon's Zoo Limericks
Other People's Zoo Limericks

Gateways:
Yahoo! Search Results for bestiality
Yahoo! Society and Culture > Sexuality > Activities and Practices > Bestiality
Yahoo! Business and Economy > Shopping & Services > Sex > Online Clubs & Galleries > Bestiality
Bestiality: Animal Love. Discussions and resources
Ian's Zoo Links - Free Zoophile and Bestiality Links - Resources, Chat, Galleries...
--
03/28

Unsurprisingly, then, soon after Princeton University's Center for Human Values announced it had hired Dr. Singer as its Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in 1998—a position he still holds—the campus was besieged by protesters. The university trustees and president Harold T. Shapiro all vociferously defended Singer's appointment on grounds of academic freedom. Since then, articles on Singer have been appearing steadily, some pro, some con, and some quite simply puzzled about why the Australian, Oxford-trained philosopher has kicked up such a fuss. Recently, Singer's name has appeared in the news again, this time in the online magazine Nerve. As usual, he's piqued the righteous and profane alike by questioning the bestiality taboo. In a review of Dearest Pet: On Bestiality by Midas Dekkers, Singer writes, "This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings." He stops short, however, of endorsing bestiality outright. Still, the clear implication of the review seems to be that so long as the animals in question are not harmed in the process, sex with them should not be considered unethical.

There is, however, still the matter of consent, which brings us again into close proximity with homophobia. The commonly propagated myth about homosexuals is that they're all child molesters. Most reasonable people, however, have seen this for the lie it is, and agreed that sexual acts between consenting adults should be beyond the prurient reach of the state.

But when it comes to sex with animals, this argument is not so easily dismissed. When someone has sex with an animal, he foists himself on a creature that has the mental and emotional capacity of a child. Thus, it is no more capable than a child of giving meaningful consent. So when Singer argues that there is such a thing as cruelty-free bestiality—when, for example, the animal either initiates sexual contact, or is not killed or physically injured receiving it—he does so by ignoring the obvious truth that if you have had sex with someone who is constitutionally incapable of giving anything that might constitute meaningful consent, you have committed rape. At the very least you have taken advantage of a creature over which you exercise considerable power.

It's hard to see how Singer, who so admirably champions the rights of animals, could fail to see that sexualizing them is immoral, not because it offends human dignity, but because it degrades and assaults the animals in question.
--JR
03/27

Aside from humans, some primates, and whales/dolphins, female mammals do not actively seek sexual partners except for specific times in their reproductive cycle and then it is for procreation not for pleasure. That is not to say that there is not some amount of pleasure in the copulation but the driving force is hormonal (ie the need to reproduce NOT for pleasure or the sharing of affections). And in some species the act of copulation is unpleasant for the female -- in particular the feline species. Feline males have spines on the penis which abrade the vaginal mucosa of their sexual partners in order to stimulate ovulation. Felines being a solitary group as a whole developed this as a way to insure that a male was present when the female ovulated to maximize chances of successful reproduction.

Unfortunately, this adaptation is very painful to the female which is why feline sex is very short (usually less than 30 seconds), occurs many times, and why the female vocalizes intensely during and after the act (as well as often trying to attack the male). Even when it is not unpleasant, sexual intercourse is not the pleasurable event for most mammals that humans consider it to be. Most female mammals do not experience orgasms or any such event during sexual intercourse. Thus, at best for most female mammals sex is either unpleasant or tolerable not something that brings pleasure. SEX IS NOT A FORM OF AFFECTION! Grooming, food-sharing, licking, etc are all forms of affection but sex IS NOT.

In addition, except for the specific times in the female cycle that she will allow herself to be bred (estrus), the reproductive tract of most female mammals is not ready for sexual intercourse. The lining is too soft, the immune safeguards to protect against infection are too weak, etc. Thus, a female mammal being bred "out of season" carries a very, very high risk of traumatic injury to the vulva and vagina as well as a high risk of vaginitis and uterine infection which can be fatal. The urinary tract (bladder to kidneys) is also susceptible to the introduction of infection via inappropriate sexual intercourse.

Behaviorally, a female mammal not in estrus will resist being bred even to the point of kicking, biting, scratching, and running away. Try putting a mare not in estrus around a stallion and watch what happens -- she tries to kick him, bite him, and drive him off. Bitches not in estrus will sit down and/or bite a male dog that tries to mount them sexually (this is not discussing mounting as a dominance behavior).

Female mammals in particular dogs may come to tolerate this action but that is in no way liking or finding pleasure in it. It is physiologically impossible for female mammals (with noted exceptions) to want sex except when in estrus - period. To suggest otherwise is to deny the inherent uniqueness of the animal and to mistakenly force human physiology onto the animal.

Having sexual intercourse with a female mammal not in estrus can lead to very significant and critical health problems. And even when in estrus, sex is NOT a pleasurable event but is merely a means to achieve procreation. In summary, a female mammal not in estrus actively avoids being bred; if bred during this time she has a very high risk of subsequent disease that can be serious or even fatal; and even when in the breeding part of her reproductive cycle gains no pleasure from the breeding and may even experience some discomfort.

Thus, any argument that sexual intercourse with a female mammal of the non-human variety is desired by the female mammal, does the female mammal no harm and even brings her some pleasure, and that having sex is the female mammal's way of showing affection is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! I think I have covered their basic arguments and countered them with scientific facts to the contrary. --- End forwarded message ---
--DVM
03/27

By, and courtesy of Piers Beirne Department of Criminology, University of Southern Maine. Reposted in excerpts due to length

To ASAIRS; You are quite welcome to reprint all or part of my article! Just please let me what you decide to do. I've sent it as an attachment to this. Good luck. Piers Beirne

This paper was published in Theoretical Criminology, 1997, vol.1, no.3, pp.317-340. PIERS BEIRNE is Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine and the founding editor of the journal; Theoretical Criminology.

His recent books include; Inventing Criminology (1993) and Criminology (1999, 3rd ed., forthcoming, with Jim Messerschmidt). i Abstract This paper seeks to introduce a view of bestiality which differs radically from both the anthropocentrism enshrined in the dogma of Judaeo-Christianity and also from the pseudo-liberal tolerance fashionable today. I argue that bestiality should be understood as 'interspecies sexual assault' because;

(1) human-animal sexual relations almost always involve coercion;
(2) such practices often cause animals pain and even death; and
(3) animals are unable either to communicate consent to us in a form that we can readily understand or to speak out about their abuse.
The paper offers a typology of interspecies sexual assault, including sexual fixation, commodification, adolescent sexual experimentation and aggravated cruelty.

None of my students would have much trouble, I thought, in identifying as animal abuse the case of one unfortunate hen who was literally fucked to death, which for her was doubtless a terrifying consequence of enforced sexual intercourse with a human male.Yet, in the case of large quadrupeds, such as the horses and cows depicted in the film, their reaction seemed closer to boredom or perhaps indifference than it did to pain or to bliss eating, urinating and defecating as they were during intercourse or while their genitalia were being manipulated. Indeed, it was unclear whether these larger animals were even aware of the prolonged sexual relations which humans had foisted on them In their case, however, what I saw as animals' indifference might actually have been calculated detachment on their part and, despite the fact that we can probably never know it with much certainty, a coping strategy for numbing the pain inflicted on them by yet another of the myriad way s in which their lives are routinely invaded, inspected and disposed of by humans.

NOTE from web site author; Perhaps this 'indifference coping' is the same method animals use to cope with the annoyances of flys, and various insects which they can consciously shut out.

In what follows I seek to introduce a view of bestiality which differs radically from both the anthropocentrism enshrined in the dogma of Judaeo-Christianity and also from the pseudo-liberal stance of tolerance fashionable today. I suggest, specifically, that bestiality should be understood as 'interspecies sexual assault' (since we should not be in the business of policing nonhuman interspecies sexual relations, my argument is limited to the sexual abuse of nonhuman animals by humans).3

In principle, the attempt to understand bestiality as a form of animal abuse might profitably draw on the perspectives and insight of the three major tendencies that lie at the philosophical and theoretical heart of the animal protection community, namely, utilitarianism (e.g. Singer, 19 90) liberal rights theory (e.g. Regan, 1983; Francione, 1996) and feminism (for a comprehensive bibliography, see Donovan and Adams, 1995:353-61). We might insist, following liberal-rights theory for example, that if bestiality is engaged in with a mammal, then it is a harm inflicted on a moral patient entitled to the fundamental right of respectful treatment. But discursive support for this specific task is very difficult to find either in the writings of the animal protection community or in its daytody activities. Moreover, though in the last decade some of the most important contributions to the understanding of animal abuse have been made by feminism, except for very brief statements by Carol Adams (1995a, 1995b: 65-69) and Barbara Noske (1993), feminists have altogether ignored the harmful effects of bestiality on animals.

Departing from this curious silence, Adams (1995a) insists that we should understand bestiality as forced sex with animals because sexual relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In making this argument, and in asserting that all forms of m asculinist oppression are linked, Adams thereby begins to claim the persp ective of animals as a central concern of feminism. I agree with Adams that, in seeking to replace anthropocentrism with an acknowledgement of the sentience of animals, we must start with the fa ct that in almost every situation humans and animals exist in a relation of potential or actual coercion. Whether as domestic pets or as livestock , where they are throughly dependent on humans for food, shelter and affection, or as feral creatures, where humans have the capacity to ensnare them and subject them to their will, animals' interaction with humans is a lways infused with the possibility of coercion. So it is with sex. In the same way that sexual assault against women differs from normal sex becau se the former is sex obtained by physical, economic, psychological or emotional coercion any of which implies the impossibility of genuine conse nt so, too, Adams' assertion that bestiality is always sexual coercion ('forced sex') is surely a correct description of most, if not all, human animal sexual relations.

If unequal power is the definitive criterion, then sexual coercion would be an essential characteristic no t only of intercourse between human adults and infants or children but of most adult heterosexual and even homosexual intercourse as well. Sexual coercion is not sex that occurs always and only in a context of unequal power, though on occasion, of course, situations of inequality imply coercion because for a variety of reasons the party with less power cannot fre ely dissent from participation. Ultimately, sexual coercion occurs whenever one party does not genuinely consent to sexual relations or does not h ave the ability to communicate consent to the other. Sometimes, one parti cipant in a sexual encounter may appear to be consenting because she does not overtly resist, but that does not of course mean that genuine consent is present. For genuine consent to sexual relations to be present somewhat to modify Box's (1983: 124) original formulation both participant s must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires . If genuine consent defined in this way is a necessary condition of sex between one human and another, then there is no good reason to sup pose that it may be dispensed with in the case of sex between humans and other sentient animals.

Bestiality involves sexual coercion because animals are incapable of genuinely saying 'yes' or 'no' to humans in forms that we can readily understand. A different way of putting this is to suggest that if it is true that we can never know what it is like to be a nonhuman animal, as the philosopher Thomas Nagel (1974) has implied, then presumably we will never know if animals are able to assent in their terms to human suggestions for sexual intimacy. Indeed, if we cannot know whether animals consent to our sexual overtures, then we are as much at fault when we tolerate interspecies sexual relations as when we fail to condemn adults who have sexual relations with infants or with children or with other 'moral patients' to use Tom Regan's (1983) term who, for whatever reason, are unable to refuse participation.

If it is right to regard unwanted sexual advances to women, to infants and to children as sexual a ssault, then I suggest sexual advances to animals should be viewed likewise. Moreover, like infants, young children and other 'moral patients' (Regan, 1983), animals are beings without an effective voice. Some animals, such as the cows and other farmyard animals including those I viewed in the film Barnyard Love (supra, pp. ) are not equipped to resist human sexual advances in any meaningful way owing to their docile and often humanbred natures. Other animals, in trying to resist human sexual advances, can certainly scratch, bite, growl, howl, hiss and otherwise communicate protest about unwanted advances.

But in most one on one situations an animal is incapable of enforcing her will to resist sexual assault, especially when a human is determined to effect his purpose. Moreover, animals are disadvantaged in yet another way, for when they are subjected to sexual coercion and to sexual assault, it is impossible for them to communicate the facts of their abuse to those who might give them aid. In short, because bestiality is in certain key respects so similar to the sexual assault of women, children and infants, I suggest that it should be named interspecies sexual assault. For many of the same reasons that, as it applies to humans, the conce pt of sexual assault is more widely applicable than that of rape so, too, interspecies sexual assault comprises a wider range of actions than tho se found in dictionary definitions of bestiality or in notions embedded in popular culture, both of which tend to focus narrowly on penetration of the vagina, anus or cloaca of an animal by a human penis.

On the contrary, sexism and speciesism operate not in opposition to each other but in tandem. Inter species sexual assault is the product of a masculinity that sees women, animals and nature as objects that can be controlled, manipulated and exploited. Listen only to some of the sexist language that prepares the way for bodily sexual assault (and see Dunayer, 1995). Much of this is voiced in speciesist terms. When a man describes women as 'cows', 'bitches', '(dumb) bunnies', 'birds', 'chicks', 'foxes', 'fresh meat', and their genitalia as 'beavers' or 'pussys', he uses derogatory language to distance himself emotionally from, and to elevate himself above, his prey by relegat ing them to a maleconstructed category of 'less than human' or, more imp ortantly, 'less than me'. Reduced to this inferior status, both women and nonhuman animals are thereby denied subjectivity by male predators who c an then proceed to exploit and abuse them without guilt. Unchallenged, sexist and speciesist terms operate in concert to legitimate sexual assault s on women and animals.

In what follows I try to identify some key categories of a typology of interspecies sexual assault, including: (i) sexual fixation; (ii) commo dification; (iii) adolescent sexual experimentation; and (iv) aggravated cruelty. These four categories are structured in terms of both differing humananimal social relationships and also the degree of harm that is su ffered by abused animals. Sexual Fixation (or 'zoophilia'). This is the form of interspecies sexual assault that occurs when animals are the preferred sexual partners of hu mans. It is hard to believe that this was not the case when, for example , in colonial New England in 1642, Thomas Granger was indicted for buggery with "a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey" (Bradford, 1650: 320).

Rare descriptions of sexual fixation with animals ar e provided by Kree (1974) and by KrafftEbing (1886:3767), who designates it as 'impulsive sodomy': A. was convicted of having committed masturbation and sodomy on dogs and rabbits. When twelve years old he saw how boys masturbated a dog. He imitated it, and thereafter he could not keep from abusing dogs, cats and rabbits in this vile manner. Much more frequently, however, he committed sodomy on female rabbits the only animals that had a charm for him. At dusk he was accustomed to repair to his master's rabbit pen in order to gratify his vile desire. Rabbits with torn rectums were repeatedly found...At the height of the attack there were sounds of bells, cold perspiration, trembling of the knees, and, fin ally, loss of resistive power, and impulsive performance of the perverse act...A. stated that if called upon to choose between a woman and a female rabbit, he could make choice only of the latter Sexual fixation with animals is probably the least common form of interspecies sexual assault; one author (Dekkers, 1994:149) estimates that the percentage of humans who have sex exclusively with animals is far below 1%, though this figure lacks suitable evidence.

The psychological lite rature contains no adequate accounts of it, yet Adams (1995a:30) asserts that there is a similarity in the respective worldviews of the zoophiliac , the rapist and the child sexual abuser. 'They all view the sex they have with their victims as consensual,' she claims, 'and they believe it benefits their sexual "partners" as well as themselves' (ibid.). It is possible that Adams' claim is correct. But it will remain unsupported until a significant number of methodologically sensitive life histories have been completed on zoophiliacs. It is just as likely that 'fixated humans' assault animals sexually not because they believe it benefits their sexual ' partners' but because they enjoy inflicting pain on other creatures who, in this particular case, just happen to be animals because animals are more available to them than humans.

Do they often not start with animals and eventually 'graduate' to humans? Commodification. This is the predominant element in interspecies sexual assaults that are packaged as commodities for sale in a market.

It often involves a twofold assault one by a man on a woman who is assaulted and humiliated by being forced to have sex with an animal, the other on the animal who is coerced, without the possibility of giving genuine consent, into having sex with a human. Examples include live shows of women copulating with animals in bars and sex clubs or depictions of interspecies sexual assaults in pornographic films such as Barnyard Love and Deep Throat In the latter, for example, Linda Marchiano ('Linda Lovelace') is filmed having intercourse with a large dog resembling a German shepherd. During this act and for a long time after it, Marchiano herself 'felt nothing but acute revulsion' (1980:10714; and see Hollander, 1972:35), and she agreed to be filmed in this two hour episode only because her boyfriend and batterer threatened to kill her.

Specifically, bestiality should be understood as interspecies sexual assault because

( 1) humananimal sexual relations almost always involve coercion;

(2) such practices often cause animals pain and even death; and

(3) animals are unable either to communicate consent to us in a form that we can readily understand or to speak out about their abuse. Though space does not permit it here, this concept of interspecies sexual assault can doubtless be s trengthened with the discursive support of utilitarianism and of liberal rightstheory. As I have proposed it, the concept of interspecies sexual assault clearly needs further elaboration. Key problems remain. For example, given the lack of studies of interspecies sexual assault, my fourfold typology i s quite provisional. Between the categories of aggravated cruelty and adolescent sexual experimentation, especially, there is obvious overlap. References

Adams, Carol J.(1990) 'Deena the World's Only Stripping Chimp', Animal s' Voice Magazine 3(1):72.

Adams, Carol J. (1995a) 'Bestiality: the Unmentioned Abuse', The Animals' Agenda 15(6):2931. Adams, Carol J. (1995b) 'WomanBattering and Harm to Animals', in Josephine Donovan and Adams (eds) Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretic al Explorations, pp.5584. Durham: Duke University Press.

Felthouse, Alan R. (1981). "Childhood Cruelty to Cats, Dogs and Other Animals,' Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 9:4853. Fleismann, Sigmund (1968)

Bestiality: Sexual Intercourse Between Men and Women and Animals. Translated by Robert Harris. Baltimore: Medical Knowledge Press.

Fletcher, George P. (1978) Rethinking Criminal Law. Boston: Little, Brown Francione, Gary L. (1995) Animals, Property and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Anthony J. Urquiza and Robert L. Beilke (1986) 'Behavior Problems in Sexually Abused Young Children,' Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11(1):47-57.

Holmes, Ronald M. (1991) Sex Crimes. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hunter, Mic (1990) Abused Boys: The Neglected Victims of Sexual Abuse. New York: Lexington.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B.Pomeroy and Clyde E.Martin (1948) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B.Pomeroy, Clyde E.Martin and Paul H.Gebhard (1953) Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders.

KrafftEbing, Richard von (1886) (1978) Psychopathia Sexualis. Translated by Franklin S.Klaf. New York: Stein and Day.

'Is A Duck An Animal? An Exploration of Bestiality as a Crime', Criminal Justice History, 7:95-109. Posner, Richard A. And Katherine B. Silbaugh (1996) A Guide to America's Sex Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
--
03/25

A repeat offender has been charged with sexually assaulting a horse in Waupaca county, Wisconsin (Vol.15, No. 61 pp. 29- 32). Sterling Rachwal, 32, is jailed in lieu of S10,000 cash bond and has been charged with one count of cruefty to animals, a Class E felony, in addition to burglary and bail-jumping charges.
On June 2, when John and Kandi Bever went to feed their pregnant Arabian mare, Kyss, they discovered the horse laying on her side in distress. Nearby was a pack of cigarettes and bootprints that later turned out to match Rachwal's. A veterinarian determined that Kyss was in shock from severe penetration injuries to the anal and vaginal areas. Hours after the Bevers contacted the authorites, deputes arrested Rachwal after serving a search warrant on his home. Rachwal, who lives within walking distance of the Bevers' farm, had a history of animal abuse convictons since 1982.

He has been convicted and sentenced three times, with the latest convicton in 1993 resulting in a 14-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting three horses, who were euthanized because of their injuries. Rachwal's conviction was overturned on a technicality, and he was awaiting a new trial in September when the incident at the Bever farm occurred.

Kandi Bever reports that although Kyss' injuries are healing and she is doing wonderfully, the mare was clearly affected psychologically by the assault. The foal appears to be in good health but whether or not Kyss will be able to give birth normally is still unknown.

Rachwal's trial is scheduled for September, he has entered a plea tantamount to not guilty by reason of insanity. As a repeat offender, Rachwal faces a maximum prison sentence of 65 years. To ensure that Rachwal is denied the opportunfty to hurt animals again, the presiding judge should be encouraged to invoke the maximum penalty.
--
03/25

Curtesy of and reprinted with permission:

The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number 6, pp 29-31 November/December 1995

The Animals' Agenda is a publication of The Animal Rights Network Inc, a non-profit organization. Offices are located at:

In addition to exploiting animals for food, clothing, entertainment, product testing, and biomedical research, some people put animals to a use so heinous that its name is seldom mentioned. That name is bestiality. Author Carol J. Adams explores its frequency and varietiesand its implications for our society.

Four years ago someone broke into the Buttonwood Zoo in New Bedford, Massachusetts, sexually assaulted a whitetailed deer, then bludgeoned her unmercifully. The deer, a two-year old female named Rachel, died two days later at the Tufts University-New England Veterinary Medical Center in Grafton. Authorities said she had been raped and beaten with a blunt object. "This is the saddest story I can remember," said Dana Souza, New Bedford's parks superintendent, to the Associated Press. "There's just a tremendous about of outrage that an individual could beat and sexually assault an animal."

The term bestiality actually tells us much more about cultural attitudes toward animals than it does about sex with animals. Concern about bestiality generally focuses on human beings; thus experts tell us it is usually harmless while debating its frequency. If we call it forced sex with animals, we reclaim the animal's perspective as a central concern. It is more prevalent than we can measure and is not harmless; it is always animal abuse.

The American Heritage Dictionary, to cite just one example, defines bestiality as "the quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal; conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality; or sexual relations between a human being and an animal." sex with an animal is the last definition of bestiality, while the first two definitions remind us of our culture's general low regard for animals. The multiple meanings for bestiality are part of the problem, implying that bestiality itself is animal behaviour. It keeps the "beast" in bestiality. (See sidebar "Acting Like an Animal.") Animals do not have a distinction between public versus private.
Often, people read animals' sexuality as shamless (and inviting) because animals act sexually in "public." They are then viewed as accessible because they have acted in a public manner. Acting like an Animal For many centuries negative attitudes toward sexuality have been registered by viewing sex as something that resulted from one's base instincts, that is, as something that reduced a human being to an animal. During the Middle Ages-- when capital punishment was prescribed for both the animals and the human involved in bestiality-- many people thought that the serpent in the Garden of Eden had introduced Eve to sex. This belief led to a debate about whether Eve and the serpent had actually had intercourse, and left the strong impression that sexual intercourse itself was bestial. Acting sexually was thus considered acting like an animal.

This attitude is evident today when aggessive sexual behaviour is referred to as "bringing out the beast in one" or "wolfish behaviour" or "animal passions." Indeed, it appears that one reason the missionary position was upheld as the position for intercourse was because it was accomplished face to face rather than face to back, as most animals did it. C.J.A. In its narrowest sense, bestiality involves intercourse, either vaginal or anal, with an animal; but bestiality can also include oral-genital contact of any kind between humans and animals.

The animals who people have access to are the animals who will be sexually used: cats, dogs, sheep, cows, hens, rabbits, goats, ducks, horses, bulls, fishes. Proximity allows for sexual access. This is the primary reason gorillas, chimpanzees, and others are not prevalent sex objects: they are not animals to whom humans have regular access. Many forms of sexual contact between humans and animals are physically destructive to the animals. Few vaginas, especially those of young animals, are large enough to accommodate the penis of a male Homo sapiens. Furthermore, small animals often experience torn rectums and internal bleeding after being sexually assaulted; chickens and rabbits are often killed by the act itself. Sadistic sexual behavior against animals also occurs. Chickens are frequently decapitated because this intensifies the convulsions of the sphincter, thereby increasing the sexual pleasure of the man. Even when it does not involve sadism, bestiality is animal abuse because it is forced sex.

Silence is a major problem. Unlike most forms of sexual contact, in which either partner can report the experience, only one of the participants in bestiality can talk; and because of the stigma surrounding bestiality, that party usually remains silent. Since bestiality is most often something that occurs in private, no one need ever learn about it. So we do not know how widespread it is. Several attempts have been made to uncover an accurate rate of human attempts to have forced sex with animals: by the German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in the 1880s, in the U.S. bu Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues in the late 1940s and, more recently, by sociologists at the University of Chicago in 1994.

These studies have variously estimated that the percentage of males who engage in bestiality is between one and 65 percent. This wide range probably reflects less about how often bestiality occurs than it does about how bestiality is defined and measured as well as different levels of confidence in answers given by respondants when interviewed either in person or in anonymous questionnaires. In short, we can say almost nothing about the percentage of the population that engages in bestiality.

There are three kinds of sex that humans impose on animals:

Opportunistic or safety-valve sex, fixated sex, and domineering sex. (See sidebar "Types of sex with Animals".) Types of sex with Animals

1.Opportunistic or Safety-Valve sex "I need a sexual release ... they're available ... there are no human partners around ... I'll get it with an animal."
2.Fixated *ex Animals become love objects and are the exclusive sexual "partners" for a human. 3.Domineering sex When batterers, rapists and pornographers force sex between a human and an animal for purposes of humiliation, sexual exploitation, dominance and control. C.J.A. Safety-valve sex is often seen as a casual act of the curious young, as sexual exploration rather than deviancy.

The notion of bestiality as a safety valve that operates until the (usually young) men are ready for women leads one to ask whether the women to whom these young men graduate are not safety valves, too. Moreover, this form of bestiality is not a harmless aberration. Animals are harmed in safety-valve bestiality, and humans learn that it is okay to treat others as safety valves. In the second kind of bestiality, fixated sex, an animal becomes the exclusive focus of a human's sexual desires. Although many medical terms have been applied to a fixation on sex with animals, those who engage in this kind of sex prefer to be known as "zoophiles," a word borrowed, ironically, from the animal protection community. The zoophile's worldview is similar to the rapist's and child sexual abuser's. They all view the sex they have with their victims as consensual, and they believe it benefits their sexual "partners" as well as themselves.

Just as pedophiles differentiate between those who abuse children and those who love children--placing themselves, of course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal sexual abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications.

Whatever the frequency of bestiality, it has its own newsgroup on the Internet (alt.sex.bestiality), which provides chilling examples of the bestialist's world. One person described having sex with stray dogs and then dropping them off at animal shelters. Another reported episodes of bestiality that occurred while dog sitting for a friend. A third described having sex with his half-Percheron horse.

One cannot talk very long about sex with animals without noticing the gender issues: Men are more likely to do it. Women are more likely to be depicted--or to be forced into--doing it. This type of bestiality, domineering sex, has long been used by batterers to degrade their partners. Battered women's shelters around the country receive reports from women who were forced to have sex with animals. One woman reported that her husband would tie her up and force her to have intercourse with their family dog. Then he would try to have intercourse with the dog while he forced the dog inside his wife. Forced sex with trained dogs was a form of torturing Jewish women in Nazi Germany; it was recently used against female political prisoners in Chile. Bestiality involving women occupies an entire genre in pornography.

Bears, snakes, dogs, and insects--to name just a few species of animals--have been photographed or videotaped in a variety of sexual and sexualized positions with women. sex "clubs" around the globe offer live scenes of sex between women and animals. Some towns along the U.S./Mexican border feature shows "starring" women and donkeys. Women of color are often depicted with animals as a way of enforcing the racist notion that women of color are insatiable. Through pornography, dogs, snakes, and other animals, help a man picture himself in the scene. What the pornography consumer claims to be fantasy, we must regard as documentation of harm: a real woman must have a real snake inside her for a photograph of a snake inside her to exist, a real woman must give oral sex to a real bear in order for a photograph of a woman giving oral sex to a bear to exist.

In addition to being used as a means of degrading women, bestiality figures in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and of course, attitudes toward animals. The imputation of bestilaity has been used to protray a specific group of people as "others," to distance them from those making the charges. Sometimes miscegenation (the mixing of races) is referred to as bestiality. One group of American white supremacists believes that Jews are descended from Cain, himself the offspring of Eve's coupling with the snake, while Christians are descended from Abel, the child of Eve and Adam. European colonizers and American slave owners believed that African women enjoyed intercourse with apes. European women charged with being witches were accused of sexual congress with animals, and they--and their animal companions--were killed.

During the Middle Ages, Christians viewed intercourse with Jews as a form of bestiality. Earlier this year, an Israeli judicial official compared homosexuality to bestiality. This comparison occurred, most probably, because homosexuality and bestiality are listed together in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16. Like masurbation, homosexuality and bestiality are forms of nonprocreative sex. During a time when childbearing was central to a people's survival, all forms of nonprocreative sex would be condemned. Bestiality also violated the order of creation by mixing categories--human and animal--that were meant to be separate and distinct.

Recent views of bestiality as fairly benign have replaced these earlier reactions, but no matter what the prevailing view of bestiality, it does not consider the animals' perspectives at all. It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the aspects of an animals' well being. sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent should be possible.

Consent is when one can say no, and that no is accepted. Clearly animals cannot do that. Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the other. Despite the omnipresence of animals in pornographic pictures and videos, the animal protection community has yet to identify bestiality as an animal abuse issue.
Bestiality has been studiously avoided by those who should be discussing it--animal rights activists, veterinarians, anti-cruelty law enforcement agents, and feminists.

It is time to put away our circumspection.

Carol J. Adams Carol J. Adams, author of The sexual Politics of Meat , is the co-editor with Josephine Donovan of Beyond Animals Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals (Continuum 1996) and Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Duke 1995). Copyright ©1995 by Carol J. Adams The Animals' Agenda INVESTIGATIVE Reporting Fund

Reader's contributions to The Animals' Agenda Investigative Reporting Fund helped to make this exclusive article possible.

Your Agenda
1. Help educate your veterinarian and local animal care agencies (animal control, humane society, SPCA, shelters, etc.) to recognize bestiality by providing them with copies of this article.
2. Read Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin (Dutton) and The Pornography of Representation by Susanne Kappeler (Minnesota).

In the spring of 1998, the Jerry Springer freak show filmed three zoophiles. Springer had planned to air this show on national television offering bestiality as just another sexual orientation like being gay. Immediately upon the tape's release to affiliates, 'extra' reported that over 72% of the stations they polled- said they would not air this tape.

Before the show could air, CT. Senator Lieberman, and Bill Bennett- Education Director under former President Reagan, protested this show by contacting Universal studios. Universal studios yanked the show on Thursday, the day before it's scheduled airing on Friday. As an aside, one of the acceptance promoting zoophiles appearing on the show died 8/28/99

PeTA has a blurb on their web site about this show, as does the group Morality in Media

Zoophile applies for a job at a stable

Example:

While I still tried to combine my affection for horses with a job, I applied for a position as a groom in a thoroughbred operation (one beautiful breeding stallion, about 30-40 mares, box-stalls, breeding season).

The first time I was there, the owner did not have much time, so I had to show up again.

I did notice the breeding stallion looking out of his box-stall though and went over to him and let him sniff my hand and petted his head.

SNIP

This does not stop here, because zoophiles have only begun coming 'out of the closet' in the past year or two in greater numbers. The late zoophile from the Springer show had authored an autobiographical book, which is being promoted on Amazon.com and Barnes and Nobles' web sites. He has previously appeared on a radio talk show promoting it. In the spring of 1999 they were trying to get on the animal forum radio show where Professor Piers Beirne and I spoke against bestiality, but failed.

Zoophiles are on IRC and ICQ chats, usenet newsgroups, numerous web sites, live multiple user chats where children go, ftp sites for porn trading, recreational pets forums and many others promoting an agenda that consists of;

1. Convincing the rest of society that zoophiles are really just misunderstood, and that the 28 states that have laws against this should rescind these 'outdated' sodomy laws.
   Should this occur in other states as it did in Georgia, it would give them free reign to abuse animals at will, with no protections for the animals since such a move would remove bestiality from the sodomy laws currently in place. All you need to do is read their recruiting and promotional literature and web sites, and you can see this is their goal.

2. Recruiting new 'members' into their cult, converting and subversion of impressionable, lonely and disturbed teens. I have a number of their personal 'coming out' stories and new postings in which a common thread seems to be loneliness, isolation, trouble at home, problems relating to the opposite sex, divorce, physical, sexual and mental abuse at home. Many of the stories relate to how the authors 'found out' they were a zoophile by talking to zoophiles on the internet for long periods of time who made them feel welcome!! Another got the idea from a TV talk show.
   Maybe we should be thankful they didn't run into a pedophile or axe murderer's support group first!
   Others said they thought they were the only one till they found a Zoophile's web site
   All of these resources are a subversive form of promotion and recruiting.

3. Attempting to gain public acceptance for their activities so they can become another minority orientation group, this has already been shown to us by their email claims that our web site is 'harassing zoos', and that we are 'just another hate group' because we don't approve of bestiality.
   We must draw the line at zoophilia, or pedophilia (and dare I say one day- an axe murderer's support group??) is next in line for 'rights and acceptance'-in fact, pedophiles already have their support and promotion group- it's called; NAMBLA.

What is the background of a zoophile? fortunately they provide ample evidences on their web sites, newsposts, bulletin boards and confessionals, here are a few paraphrased quotes and lines from a multitude of typical stories and sources that show a lot of the psychology of these people, none of which have spelling corrections;

...As many of you may or may not know, ive been depressed almost all my life. Ive been up and down more times than i thought possable, its a never ending roller coster. Most reasontly I was suisidle, ive never gone that far before...
...so I must find the cause for it. The cause i belive is where its always been, in my past. Picked on, abused, and metalay shaterd.

...Why write this story? Cause it's true and I don't care what things other people will or do think of me, I have never cared.

...I was teased and harassed because of my weight...

...I was born on Nov 8.1974. ...the doctors said that if I lived, my mother would die, and that I would be born retarded,

..(I'm 19, just graduated! :) I am at this moment keeping my being a zoo a secret from my parents...

... the old neighbours and surprisngly our aunts, told the Humane Society of our dogs and 'Claimed' we were not taking care of them...

I started to hang around alot of stray dogs and playing with them, my first (deleted) encounter with a dog was

... I had one equine experience... Strictly gay with humans and animals.

My teen years were horrible. It all started during my childhood. I had two older brothers that hated me...

...tried to kill me...

...oldest brother, he was stealing from our home, as well as cars, his job, and his friends for women, sex, and drugs.

My mother thought that by keeping me from women, and not learning about sex that I would not become like them.

... was informed that my oldest brother was found dead in his apartment with a gunshot wound to the mouth...

... the humane society went into the house and took our dogs...

...I was molested by my male cousin...

... brothers would steal my mother's Avon products, jewelry, clothing, and bedding materials...

Dobbin (ED. NOTE: another zoophile) and I had similar problems as far as relationships that became sour...

...moved in with Chris when I was 22, his roomate had a dog at the time..another male shepard mixed with rottweiler. It was neutered, but Chris showed me how to.. (graphic description deleted)

...was sexually abused by my dad from the age of eight...

...I was never popular in high scholl and girls avoided me. But when i was 16 i gave my virginity to my parents2 year old female german...

...I became an open prey to many forms of deception by mostly women...

Can you see any abuse patterns here? The first individual was probably brain damaged as the doctors said from a premature birth, then he was molested by a cousin, and started acting that abuse out on animals, helped along by another individual who 'showed him' how. So classic anyone can see the psychology at work here. The second one has a similar background of abuse, again orientation related, but including other forms of mental abuse, and he was taught to dislike or even hate women.

This is exactly how psychologists say pedophiles get their start- from being molested themselves. Pedophiles, like zoophiles convinced themselves this is all about love, and when these people on line socialize almost exclusively with others of their kind for hours daily, the rest of society begins to look like outsiders. I have logs showing many of these people remaining logged into their telnet chats often for hours at a stretch, with four to six hours a day being common.

Here is another one, and if you were the seller of this un-neutered Rottweiler puppy, the buyer was one of 'them', the dog was removed from the home after mauling someone who attempted to break in, or at least this is what we are told here in this paraphrase, and may in fact be distorted, spelling has not been corrected;

..she said that her Rottweilers had mated without her knowing it and that she had only two of their pups left: you and your brother...Finally, she was convinced that I would...

On January 2nd, 1995, I recieved a Summons to appear in Civil District Court in reference to the matter of my Dog having severly mauled a Human Being who...

...inform me that my Dog had been evaluated by a 'professional handler' and had proven to be 'incouragible, unrehabilitatible and unsiutable as a Human companion'...be confiscated and remanded to the Custody of the State...

My aggressive German Shepherd attacked a child, and the child needed stitches in his leg...

Courtesy of; 'The Horseman, obsessions of a zoophile' Promethius books ISBN 0-87975-902-X Pen name: Mark Mathews

The copyright notice on page 4 states that the text may not be reprinted except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Therefore we are abiding by that and only including a few brief quotations from selected pages for our critical article.

The few lines in this book review shows IV drug use, societal and spousal rejections, sneaking over to other people's property to access their animals, the fetish of creating a 'sex outfit', rejecting women, secretly 'testing' animals at seller's homes to see which can be trained, bringing horses inside his trailer, and an injury most likely caused by a mare's dirty hoof kicking him where it hurts! My guess is that he was careless or made a mistake this time because such an animal can be restrained- which is how it was when livestock owners polled cattle, castrated bulls and stallions, branded them with a hot iron, and pull teeth without anesthesia!

This has changed in later years.

Many activists are now sending complaints and letting groups and others know that Amazon.com sells this book on their web site.

Send feedback@amazon.com an email and let them know you don't approve of their selling this book which promotes animal abuse- on their web site. Refuse to buy from this seller until this book is removed, or the on-line customer book reviews placed by zoophiles are removed.

p50; James took advantage of the opportunity to shoot up again..

p51; The idea of raping a horse...standing naked behind an animal with powerful legs and hard sharp hooves, (omitted) swinging free and vulnerable, trying to do something the animal didn't like.

p52; ..James felt hungry. He shifted his 350 pounds plus in the truck..

p110; I'd sneak down there after dark... One thing I learned: you have to be careful in choosing your sex partner- it's difficult and dangerous to rape a horse!

..my special winter sex outfit; a pair of jeans with the zipper and fly cut out..

..it was one thing to 'outsmart the system' by getting my rocks off without women..

(Reviewer's note:) Trying to buy a mare from someone, he asked for vaccination records to get the owner out of the barn for a few minutes to 'examine' the two mares for sale to see which could be 'trained', while the owner was away he tested them to see which would submit;

p114; ..mare whickered, stamped a hindfoot and clamped her tail down hard, trying to cover her vulva... repeated the operation on the sorrel. She shied some too.. James was in a quandary. Neither one seemed to give definite signs of being trainable in the way he wished.

p200; Sheila and I were divorced in the spring of..

..Sitting in my easy chair with two cats in my lap and Dottie (a mare) standing alongside watching television..

..while climbing over a solid oak gate... my foot slip and I landed astride the gate... it took about a week for the internal injuries to manifest as a massive, infected abcess in the groin. It destroyed enough blood vessels and nerves to remove all sexual function: no erections, no orgasms,no ejaculations.

Six months later I received a prosthetic inflatable penile implant.. however, I still have no erections, no orgasms, and virtually no sensation in the penis.

In a newsgroup posting from his sofnet.com account in March 1999, he admitted the injury happened but still tried to convince readers it was a fall on a gate. His post also linked his sofnet.com account to his book The Horseman. Other posts he made previously included his name, address and phone in Missouri, and statement that he started 'Z.O.O.', the Zoophile outreach in order to recruit and train others into their sex cult.

On March 24 1999, George used his sofnet account to post a veiled threat towards us, curses and belligerent language on a public newsgroup trying to counter our anti bestiality efforts;

Message-ID: 36F80E4F.56D1@sofnet.com
Organization: Z.O.O.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.16.194.16
X-Trace: news3.ispnews.com 922304862 209.16.194.16 (Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:47:42 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:47:42 EST

hossie

The matter was reported to sofnet which issued George a warning about criminal prosecution, and they suggested we file a police report. I forwarded his post along with my complaint to sofnet- to the MO. State police, and the Joplin city police dept.

The solution I'm suggesting is that paedophiles become much more positive. They should directly attack the concept, the image, the picture of the paedophile as an evil, wicked, and reprehensible exploiter of children...

I was in the courtroom for the case that Holly just cited and I actually heard the prosecutor say, 'No man should ever be permitted to claim as an excuse that he was just being affectionate when a child says they were uncomfortable.
The URL is at Pedophiles

Another animal sexual abuse case, this time concerning cats and an 8 month old female Shepherd mix puppy

Other female dogs, a Husky, and a Lab were also involved. The text is located at; Zoophile Search for Barry Herbeck on the page, and also here; Zoophile

--
03/25

The laws against bestiality come from the Christian religion which is itself a perversion. Peter Singer is right. Cruelty should be prosicuted, but bestiality is not

Most people don't care how laws originated, most all moral and decency laws originated or had a basis in religion, and fear of a higher power's punishment. Most everyone who is normal realizes sex is mostly to produce offspring, animals mate to produce offspring. Humans do this and for recreation. Most normal people realize each species is seperate and that humans have sex with humans, dogs mates with dogs, lions with lions and so forth.

Normal people realize bestiality is both abnormal, a sign of some serious sexual and social problems and is a cop-out for engaging in human relationships.

The only benefit in bestiality is for the human to get his rocks off, there is virtually NO benefit to the animals involved in this abuse, not one! In fact, if you read the veterinary journals regarding spay-neuter of pets, you will find there are numerous benefits to it. Since zoophiles prefer intact animals they willingly allow their animals the additional risk of testicular cancers, prostate enlargement/infections, breast cancers, pyometra and a host of other problems, including marking indoors and behavior problems. All so the human can get his rocks off.

HOW SELFISH!

--MR
03/25

Dr Singer's views on killing the disabled jives beautifully with advocating sex with animals, all we need to do now is get his quotes on pedophilia and if his opinions are positive on that then we will be delighted to hand Dr Singer over pronto to the zoophiles as their newest zoo spokesman!

The zoos couldn't have picked a better person to advocate for them!

On second thought maybe this is a good thing for our side, since he has created so much controversy now that animal activists and groups are starting to look into bestiality even more seriously. I wonder if perhaps Peter's intent was just taht, to create so much controversy it becomes a wake-up call to start doing something baout bestiality with legislation.

His original intent or not it doesn't matter, because that will be the end result thankfully.

Here's the links, enjoy!

http://www.disabledinaction.org/activist.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/2900/psai.html

http://www.ppl.org/TSMemo_Sept99_Princeton.html

http://www.moceans.org/DoctorSinger.htm

http://www.euthanasia.com/prince.html

http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/drn/drn092099singer.htm http://icarus.uic.edu/~strian1/singeropponents.htm

http://icarus.uic.edu/~strian1/forbesletter.htm

http://www.christianity.com/CC/article/1,1183,PTID2546|CHID|CIID136906,00.html

Disabled In Action joined Not Dead Yet in Princeton on September 21 to protest Peter Singer's tenure there. Here's an article about that action.

NOT DEAD YET STORMS PRINCETON IN PROTEST
by Cal Montgomery

On the day Peter Singer, new Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, took up his teaching duties, Not Dead Yet (NDY) was in attendance. Protesters appeared September 21 on the university grounds demanding that Princeton either enforce its 'Commitment to Community' policy, which bars hate speech against members of minority groups including people with disabilities, or amend that policy to acknowledge that hate speech against people with disabilities is permissible.

"Once again, we're seeing unequal enforcement," said NDY president Diane Coleman."They recruited someone to teach bias against people with disabilities, in violation of their own hate speech policy. They wouldn't do that with any other minority group."

Singer advocates letting doctors and family members authorize the killing of infants with significant disabilities and also of some older people with cognitive disabilities. Nadina LaSpina, who teaches a course, "Celebrating Differences: Disability Culture" at the New School for Social Research, told me "Disability is just part of being human, and our lives are something to celebrate.  Singer, from a background of willful ignorance about disability, is putting a stamp of academic approval on these ideas that, throughout history, have proven to be deadly for us."

Princeton spokesman Justin Harmon argues that the Singer affair is about academic freedom, but Coleman disagrees. "They recruited someone with a long record of hate speech. They asked him to teach a class in the area of his hate speech. You can debate whether or not Princeton should have a hate speech policy, but the fact is, they do have one. So what we have to look at now is why they enforce it differently depending upon the target of the hate."

09/21/99
Do us a favor and die!

Disability Activists to Protest New Princeton Professor

Like all good teachers, Dr. Peter Singer has several methods of accommodating students with disabilities or other special needs.

His first choice would be death.

Bioethicist/Philosopher/Professor Peter Singer will be welcomed to his new position at Princeton by Not Dead Yet, a disabilities rights group which is protesting the appointment of the controversial Singer to the University's Center for Human Values. Singer is expected to begin his tenure by reiterating his contention that it is sometimes morally right, and should be legal, to directly and deliberately kill disabled infants, as well as children and adults with severe cognitive disabilities.

Students Protest Princeton Professor Who Advocates Infanticide

PRINCETON, N.J. -- April 1999 -- More than 100 protesters denounced Princeton University on Saturday for hiring a philosopher whose extreme views include allowing parents to end the lives of their severely disabled infants.

"Nazi Germany did the same thing to the disabled, judging their lives not worth living. We object to that," said John Scaturro, 49, who protested near the Ivy League school along with his wife and young daughter.

University officials stood by the appointment of Peter Singer, a professor whose academic work they say will contribute to scholarship and ethics debates at Princeton.

Appeal by United Parents Protesting Singer

To all concerned parents and professionals in the disability community:

This is an open invitation to you, fellow parents and caring professionals, to join with us in a cross-disability, grassroots protest against the hiring of Peter Singer by Princeton University.

We are a group of parents of children with disabilities and serious health care needs, and we are concerned that Singer's teachings are going to negatively influence the future for our children. His philosophy of "non-personhood" is a dangerous threat to newborn babies with serious disabilities

SNIP

Letter from Steve Forbes withdrawing financial support of the University after they hired Peter!

Though I fondly remember my days as a student at Princeton, and though I am a Trustee of this University, I have given no money to Princeton since Peter Singer was appointed to be a professor of bioethics, and I pledge to you today that so long as Peter Singer remains a tenured professor there, I will not financially contribute to Princeton University.

    Thank you for doing your part. I shall do mine.

Sincerely,
Steve Forbes

Princeton's 'Professor Death' CBN.com -

By Paul Strand
October 6, 1999

-- Disabled people and pro-life advocates have been gathering by the hundreds at Princeton University in recent months to protest against a philosopher they've dubbed "Professor Death." They're worried the prestigious Ivy League school is giving this man such a high profile that it will lead to wider acceptance of his radical views on infanticide and mercy-killing.

At a rally in the rain this September, dozens of physically and mentally disabled people chanted, "We love our crippled lives. We want to live...not to be euthanized!" and "Princeton promotes murder!" The object of their ire is Princeton University's hiring of professor Peter Singer, a noted bioethicist from Australia who espouses a philosophy many people consider radical -- and some think is downright dangerous. But Singer goes on from there to argue that parents should have the right to euthanize their newborns who suffer from even such non-lethal disabilities as Downs syndrome, even hemophilia.

That's why anti-Singer protestors have gathered at Princeton's main gate at least three times now --even in pouring rain -- brandishing signs such as "Singer Cannot Judge Our Lives", "What Ethic Would Kill a Disabled Infant?", and "A First for Princeton: Genocide 101."

Carol Cleigh, an official with the disabled rights group Not Dead Yet, told CBN News, "Singer is the most dangerous man in the world today for people with disabilities." Meanwhile, the controversy over Singer certainly isn't going to just go away. The September protest against him was twice as large as the one before, and more are planned in the future.

--M.R.
03/24

Quote from the page;

The Problem:

The difficulty with Princeton University's hiring of Peter Singer is that Dr. Singer’s views promote the killing of certain disabled newborns up to 28 days after birth. Thus, by hiring Dr. Singer, Princeton University has broken its own Commitment to the Community policy. Discussion on this issue was silenced by the University when University President Harold Shapiro wrote a page long article in the Daily Princetonian defending the appointment on grounds of academic freedom. In the meantime PSAI was being founded by the various student leaders of each sister school.

And from:
Statements

W e the undersigned protest the hiring of Dr. Peter Singer as the Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values. We protest his hiring because Dr. Singer denies the intrinsic moral worth of an entire class of human beings –newborn children – and promotes policies that would deprive many infants with disabilities of their basic human right to legal protection against homicide.

Furthermore, Dr. Singer defines certain disabled persons as individuals who are living “a life not worth living.”5 His views permit the killing of certain newborn infants with disabilities up to 28 days after birth.6 Dr. Singer states that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often, it is not wrong at all.”7 Dr. Singer’s message threatens individuals with disabilities and contributes to the erosion of the public’s regard for the fundamental human rights of disabled people. Finally, Dr. Singer suggests that the regulated killing of babies with spina bifida be permitted.8 He would extend to parents the authority to “replace” a Down’s syndrome or hemophiliac infant (i.e. kill the child and conceive another) if adequate family or societal resources were not forthcoming. 9 Even though Dr. Singer concentrates on disabled infants, the ethical arguments and metaphors that he provisionally adopts10 leave open the potential empowerment of parents to kill a non-disabled newborn whose 'replacement' would ameliorate their prospects for a happy life.11

The Statement on the Hiring of Peter Singer is brought to you by Princeton Students Against Infanticide (PSAI). Questions? Comments? Want to sign the Petition Against the Hiring of Peter Singer? Want to help? Please contact PSAI by phone or fax: (609) 688-1490 or by email: princetonsai@hotmail.com

Thank you PSAI for telling it like it is about Dr Singer and hope you rec'd the materials regarding 'heavy petting' and the controversy surrounding him and Peta over this and some newspaper articles on this where Peta is quoted
--M.R.
03/24

Sounds like a farce to me being this "national" magazine wasn't even named, but even so it helps underscore the extent of the problem and that shelters and rescue groups need to be sure all dogs leaving shelters and rescue facilities are spayed and neutered.

The problem with these "surveys" is that many take the things as a joke, and there is no way to prevent multiple submissions by the same people, especially in a College dorm situation.

One can safely dismiss that kind of tabloid trash. Most such teens who experiment with animals briefly mature and grow up, they don't get on the internet and promote bestiality as something good or normal.

--M.R.
03/24

http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Serrano/historyOfSex/viewimage.asp?num=8

I am sure once they have a chance to read the federal obscenity laws and Miller test they can see it is illegal porn depicting a woman having sex with a horse and liable for legal action should someone send the url to the appropriate agency :)
--
03/24

There is the link to read about Phil and his crusade for bestiality rights.

Excerpts from the article showing why his father is in jail for attempted murder;

The younger Buble also had asked the court to allow his dog, a 36-pound, shorthaired mixed breed, which he also has referred to as his “significant other” and his “wife,” to be present during the sentencing. That request was denied Tuesday by Justice Mead.

Day said that in September 1999, the relationship between father and son had deteriorated and that Frank Buble hadn’t slept well during that period.

Frank Buble, retired from the aerospace industry and a pilot, had been paying all the household expenses on his fixed income, Day said. The elderly man was tired of his son’s being on the computer each night and of his son’s attempt to get his father to advocate zoophilia to the parents of young children with whom Phillip Buble was conferring over the Internet and via telephone calls.

Phillip Buble also made it a point to tell Frank Buble’s pilot friends about his sexual preference and that disturbed the elder Buble greatly, Day said.

The attorney said Frank Buble tried to be tolerant, but Phillip Buble would threaten legal action when things didn’t go his way. To support that statement, Day produced a two-page letter written by Phillip Buble to his father in which he was critical of his father’s lack of upkeep and improvements to the house.

In the written letter, Phillip Buble, who is unemployed, had advised his father that he no longer intended to spend time arguing with him about repairing damaged light switches, watering the damaged lawn or repairing damaged ceiling fans.

Instead, he wrote, “I’m just going to haul your sorry ass into court each time you do this until you learn your lesson.”

Day said Phillip Buble’s attitude, the elderly man’s lack of sleep and the fact Frank Buble came home one day to find his son French-kissing the pet dog were too much to bear. And he made a mistake, the defense attorney said.

Damn he made a mistake alright!, damn Frank's weak muscles and choice of crowbar instead of something more effective.

Poor man was facing life in jail at age 71, no whe has to pay $10,000 to and spend 9 months in jail and the son says his DAD needs psychiatric help???

Is sex with a 36 pound female dog consentual Peter?
--M.R.
03/24

ZSOS Newsletter. Vol. 1 Issue 1 Feb. 2001 By Phil Buble

Contents 1) Zoo Civil Rights Campaign update. This issue: The legalities

2) Essay: Respecting Diversity.

3) Monthly Columns.

4) Profiles in Courage.

5) Humor.

Final Words.

1) Zoo Civil Rights Campaign update.

Progress report first: To Baybeau:

I've included the 3 speeches I've written so far. proceeding one by design. Both Andrea Beetz and Dr. Weinberg have already called me and both definitely want copies of all 3 speeches asap so by all means BayBeau please email them when you get a chance. Eliza at KFI Radio, also wants to post them on their website and I've already sent her copies via. snail-mail. (By now she should have contacted you via email directly to get some Jpegs of Lady, Duke and myself, if not please let me know) Personally I feel "To_Maine.txt" is the definitive work and cannot be successfully shot down by Zoobuster or any animal-rights group but I see no reason to make life easier for them to try and do this. I request you don't post that file where any anti-zoos can get to it yet. I've got a FIRM promise from Eliza that she won't make "To_Maine.txt" public until after I've given the speech to the Maine State Legislature. After that it won't matter where it's posted and it can be posted with Lady's and my name on it. Andrea is going to call Eliza to get a tape of the KFI show and she has sent me one. It's also posted on the KFI website in Real- Audio format so disseminating that show is already very easy for us. Seth Grossman from New York also read the BDN article and contacted me. He's a documentary film producer (probably a independent producer but I'm not sure) and he and his film crew want to come up here to do a documentary on the attack and my sexual orientation. Unlike the KFI show they will take a neutral stance much like Hossie's Ch. 4 UK show did and it sounds like this will be the American equivalent to that show. They have not yet called me back to set a filming date at this time.

The last I heard Ronald Feintech (after doing a bit of background research) will be willing to do radio and tv shows with us I've also already contacted the following three Maine State representatives: Paul Davis, Sharon L. Jones at (state house) and xxx xxxxx. xxx has already heard the final versions of my speeches and his reaction was simply one word, "incredible." Sharon heard a early rough draft of my sentencing speech but not my Legislature speech yet. Sharon is very liberal and pro gay-rights and after talking with her about zoosexuality there is little doubt in my mind she will also be on our side. Paul Davis is republican and a fundy Christian so likely will not be but one never knows. Dr. Peter Rees Ed. D., is the critical contact name to the Maine State Psychiatric Board since he's a major spokesperson on that committee and is very much on our side and feels the way we do about keeping these kind of stupid laws off the books. Peter is going to petition the board and do the best he can to make sure the Maine Psychiatric Association officially comes down against this bill. Very likely they will when next the board meets. (they meet every 2 months) I give you these names, not just to keep you and the zoo community up-to-date but just in case something very nasty happens to me necessitating someone else carry on with this work. (yeah it sounds melodramatic but sorry to say it's also very possible. Being a student of history has taught me that big time)

Thanks Phil ********************************************************************** SPEECHES ******KFI RADIO SPEECH******* Something special for all zoos listening. You know who you are. You know deep down that your not separate from your lover's being but a single union with them, a single existence. You know what you would sacrifice to help them if they were hurting just as they help you to live every single hour and day. You know that no power on earth, in heaven or hell could make you deny your love for them, make you stop loving them or stop them from loving you in return. A ignorant society may threaten to jail you, drug you into conformity, castrate you, even kill you but you know your love and respect for them will last for all eternity, transcending everything. You know what it means to be zoo.

SNIP

Anyone still question our morals? Some claim what we are and what we do is immoral and they vilify us but our society continues to glorify war and violence. American society is a melting pot of many different cultures, including ours and others that have a very ancient and proud tradition of sexual activity with animals, yet look how mainstream America has treated its minority cultures over the past 200 years. Not much has changed. Many, if not most Americans welcome conspicuous consumption and a throw-away lifestyle that rapes far away lands and planetary resourses. This destroys more wildlife habitat and kills more animals every single day than you can possibly imagine, but after all they're only animals right? Then these same people turn around and claim we, are immoral when we, harm no one by our activities but instead give and receive kindness and enjoy mutually pleasuring other adult beings. On judgement day, I will gladly have my morality compared in the eyes of God, to what is so typical in others. God is love, one is indistinguishable from the other, and I have learned to accept love in whatever form it presents itself to me. America is a wonderful country and I know first hand, a tolerant one, but we have to get our priorities straight, not our citizens.

For all zoos listening to this broadcast, please don't let the bigotry get to you. Please don't internalize their hate and make it your own. That will kill you, as surely as a cancer and like a cancer, it eats away at you from the inside, until there's nothing left but a empty shell. Be proud of who you are and of your love for animals. You have every reason to be proud. Always remember your not alone in how you feel. You are NEVER alone, and really, never were. Above all please don't loose hope for a better future, for all of us. The anti-zoos, will attempt to push their morality on zoos, in the guise of animal-abuse legislation. This is the most destructive part of the zoo-haters campaign, against us. It is through this campaign, that they try to strip away all our hope for a more compassionate tomorrow. Don't let them do this, always hold hope near to your heart. Believe in yourself....Believe in your special love..... and they will surely fail in thier efforts.

********SPEECH AT FATHERS HEARING********

******This speech to be givin at my fathers Attempted murder Sentencing trial******

Chris Almy mentioned to the press this was an "unusual case" and indeed due to the relative rareness of my sexual orientation this is, yet the subject I'm about to address is not rare or unusual at all...unfortunately. It's all about hate and ignorance, misunderstandings and bigotry. And a great deal of understandable anger. For people nationwide this misunderstanding and ignorance of what we are goes back four centuries, at the very least, even before this country existed. The exact dynamics of this hurt and anger are easy for me to describe and address, the town of Parkman went through all this well over a year ago and after all this time to heal the wounds between us the resulting level of understanding and compassion now shown Lady and myself is truly remarkable, a model to follow. Now it's time for the rest of Maine and the country to deal with the anger. To start the healing process between us is what my statement today is all about.

BIG snip of 4 pages of text of Phil's zoophilia not concern for his father's facing life in jail after being driven to madness...

**********************************************************************

Zoo Civil Rights Campaign: Outline

Here are the legalities of the first half of our civil rights campaign digitized for you to disseminate as you will and as David E. Gray, Esq. and myself went over in that long talk. This is now all contingent on the success we have keeping Maine zoo-legal, if Maine goes anti-zoo not a single thing David and myself talked about can be done in Maine...Nothing. In that case the only smart thing (and safe thing for all stateside zoos) Lady and myself can do is to leave for a zoo-legal country in Europe, set up the legal entity there and fight the stateside battle from there. Assuming stateside zoos show enough indication they want the fight to continue that is. Considering how fantastic and positive the KFI show went I personally don't feel need to wait for any more indication that American society is ready enough for this fight to start. The time is right, right now. We also have to keep in mind it's possible at least some radio and tv station managers are closeted zoos themselves and these managers will fight to air and want to carry pro-zoo shows more than just once for the curiosity factor. If this theory turns out to be true then we *may* be able to get regular pro-zoo programming into a few stateside markets. I'm already trying to create this programming with LadyLupis who runs the email listbot "Bestiality." She approached me wanting to produce some pro-zoo documentaries and we just may now have a market for them in L.A. (to be followed 25 years from now by our televised Designer Fashion Shows for zoo couples! lol) The problem is the phone # Ladyraper gave me doesn't seem to be working, she's not responding to it at all as yet and this makes getting in touch with her nearly impossible for me to do. Bummer but I'll keep trying.

Our Zoo Civil Rights Campaign: The Legalities.

All this is based on a 3 hour talk with a local very zoo-friendly lawyer. Free of charge too! Thank you David! Many of the legal details of the first half of our civil rights fight were discussed. In fact we can quickly get organized for our benefit in half this country, all the zoo-legal states first, starting in Maine.

Step one, create a legal organization.

A legal entity designed to provide and disseminate suicide prevention advice amongst zoos, provide free legal advice to zoo couples in trouble and legally fight for our civil rights in this country can be set up in any one of 5 different ways in Maine. In order with the worst method first, best last:

1) Sole Proprietorship.
2) Voluntary Association.
3) Partnership.
4) Standard corporation.
5) Non-profit Corporation.

The details:

Sole proprietorship was mentioned only in passing as one of the 5 different ways we can organize in Maine. According to David it offers no advantage to us over a corporation or non-profit corporation so we spent only a few minutes talking about it.

Voluntary Association is what we're doing right now and it's really not a legal entity since nothing legally must be done to create it. It's equivalent to passing the plate around in a church but with the great disadvantage that zoosexuality is not a religion. (it sure would change things if it could be declared that. Perhaps it's a good idea to investigate if it could since David and I didn't talk about this) It provides no solid way to legally fight back once Zoobuster and Co. start applying counter-pressure in an attempt to destroy it since the real life and online work we're considering doing would not fall under freedom-of-religion protection as far as I know. The most powerful legal weapon, by a wide margin, our entity can use in its defense is the restraint-of-trade argument but it's very questionable how legally effective this argument would be given a Voluntary Association of zoos, nearly all of which are anonymous. Basically this would be legally equivalent to one single person (me) attempting to fight back against Zoobuster and all the very real organizations that back him. Not a prospect I relish trying to do.

A partnership comes in two flavors, full and limited and there's no reason at all why there can't be 200,000 partners. Setting up for thousands of full partners is out-of-the-question, that would require real-life names plus ALL full partners would be libel for damages in lawsuits. Very, very few zoos would sign up to participate in such a venture so this idea would be still-born from the start at this time. Anonymous "names" would be perfectly ok in a limited partnership and none would be libel for damages, that risk would legally fall on me as the decision-maker for the partnership. This idea has potential for us but due to tax reasons David and I didn't spend much time talking about this, concentrating instead on corporations, especially non-profit corporations. Partnerships have to pay taxes, a big expense that would be best to avoid if we can.

Standard Corporation.

This legal entity can be set up in Maine for $500 dollars. Because one cannot set up a corporation to do something illegal David advises earmarking an additional $500 or so for legal research just to be sure talking about sex with animals in our pamphlets or on our website doesn't run afoul of Maine State anti-obscenity laws. He's already nearly certain we would not, Maine is rather liberal this way. So a standard corporation to do what we want can be set up quick and cheaply. Once it's set up any attempt by Zoobuster and Co. to attack it or even harass our website and we can instantly sue him on restraint-of-trade grounds. Our trade? Providing psychological counseling plus a suicide prevention service. Anonymous donations would be fine but as with a Partnership the downside of this quick and cheap approach is we would have to pay taxes on all donations.

Before I move on to discuss the non-profit corporation the following problem must be mentioned. It applies equally to both types of corporations.

There's an additional legal problem because our pamphlets and website may run afoul of federal anti-obscenity law. (Actually much of the talk I had with David was specifically how to keep me out of federal prison on anti-obscenity charges!) This due to our pamphlets and website crossing state lines. Should the federal anti-obscenity statutes be interpreted very broadly just to accurately define zoosexuality in a text only pamphlet that crosses state lines can land me in jail for a long time in this country! Crazy. Fortunately there's a perfect legal way around this problem. It's called a "disclaimer" and it would be placed on the bottom of the website/pamphlets. Just as you see in some tv commercials "offer not valid in xx, xx, xx states." Because we would be sure our corporation is legal in Maine, and Maine only, at first the disclaimer on our website would contain 49 states. In fact all states except Maine. With this done the crossing-state-lines problem is eliminated and no federal laws would be broken. This is a quick and completely legal way to start. Zoobuster can rant and rave all he wants but he won't be able to touch our website no matter what server it's placed on within Maine without getting the pants sued off him. Then, in each zoo-legal state in turn, our lawyers will have to complete anti-obscenity research in preparation to registering our corporation in said state. Once it's determined it's ok for us to proceed and our corporation is recognized in that state it can be removed from the disclaimer list at the bottom of the webpage/pamphlet. The very same day that first state is removed from the disclaimer list we must have what is called a legal "test case" ready to go. This "test case" would have to be prepared by a first- class lawyer ahead of time and it would likely be a somewhat modified "how-to have sex with a canine (or equine)" guide. That lawyer-prepared how-to guide would then be placed on the website and it would be used to DELIBERATELY CHALLENGE FEDERAL ANTI-OBSCENITY LAW as states are removed from the disclaimer list and information provide by our Maine headquarters begins to cross state lines to sister corporations located in other states. We legally challenge it and win, even if we need to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The fight for our civil rights in this country will have begun in earnest.

Non-Profit Corporation.

Setting up a non-profit corporation is much more complex and the bulk of our talk was spent on this. A standard corporation is cheap and quick to set up but you pay out big bucks over the long run in taxes. Setting up a non-profit to help zoos is exactly the opposite, the up-front costs are high. This is because a non-profit corporation must comply with all federal laws as well, not just Maine state law. So right off the bat, even before we can create the organization, we must shell out to make sure our corporation doesn't run afoul of federal anti-obscenity law, that we can, at least on the very simplest level, talk about zoosexuality. The legal research to do this must be done and done VERY carefully BEFORE hand. Fail to do so and our non-profit corporation could be declared illegal some months or years down the road and dissolved. If that happens all funds donated to the organization would be lost, tied up in legal limbo forever since they could not be returned to anonymous donors. David estimates the cost to do this research and set up the non- profit in Maine (if we can) to be about $5,000. Keep in mind that 5 grand expenditure does not at all guarantee we will end up with a non- profit when it's all over, most of that is just for the detailed research. If the research indicates we can't legally set up a non- profit we end up with just a standard corporation after all that expense. Still it's worth the risk for a reason besides all the money saved in taxes. Once our non-profit corporation is set up in Maine it cost only $100 to register it in each state, a huge savings in money compared to doing the same with a standard corporation state by state! Plus I double-checked, a non-profit corporation would be allowed to provide free legal advice to zoos in trouble, a critically important part of our work.

Now for the rest of this lets assume we've got our non-profit corporation. Right away we can go in two different directions that have vastly different legal hurdles to overcome. In both cases we would stress suicide prevention and provide suicide prevention resources along with legal help but one path also pushes hard for our civil rights right from the start while the other direction is to place the civil rights fight on the back burner and concentrate on suicide prevention at first.

Lets discuss the path in which we start our civil rights fight right away.

David is rather sure that if we start pushing hard for our civil rights immediately after forming the corporation we will just as quickly have to battle the federal government for our right to Freedom of Speech all the way to the Supreme Court. In fact we may want to do this and get it out of the way up front but this will be up to the zoo-community to decide, it won't be up to me. Additionally if we do this we have the problem of individual conservative states suing us because our online data is passing through their state and breaking their state laws in the process. States like Oklahoma and Utah and probably a few others could sue us just to make life as difficult for us as possible and many judges would side with them. Of course we can go in this direction to start with but it's recommended we have a big war chest saved up before doing so and I agree.

Now for the direction in which we downplay the civil rights fight at first and concentrate only on providing suicide prevention services.

Doing it this way first changes the whole legal dynamic. We would now fight for our freedom of speech on SUICIDE PREVENTION GROUNDS ONLY where we run afoul of state and/or federal law. In this case David feels the vast, vast majority of judges would side with us if anyone even bothers to sue us at all. In this way we can quickly register our non-profit corporation in most, if not all the states, certainly in all the zoo-legal states nearly instantly and at low cost. Additionally now a specific federal law works WITH us to prevent individual conservative states from suing us because our data passes through them. Providing suicide prevention services for zoosexuals is a perfectly legal business, certainly in all states where sex with animals is legal, and must be treated just as any corporation that conducts business across state lines. As long as it's legal in the originating and terminus state if the business is illegal in the states in-between there's not a thing they can do about it if the service, data or product passes through them on the way to the terminus state. Federal law prohibits them from interfering in interstate business as long as the business is legal in the originating and terminus state! Once and for all we'll finally be able to get things done on our behalf in a organized way. Then the fight for our civil rights. I say "go for it!" 2) Essay: Respecting Diversity.

Some months ago, while researching gay issues and history, I ran into a essay highlighting a little known form of discrimination against gays. It was about gays discriminating against other gays due to their public dress and mannerisms. It'll probably come as no BIG SNIP

This is a world that deeply respects diversity.

3) Monthly Columns.

I'm taking submissions for this now. For a idea of what I'm looking for please have a look at I'd like to see the zoo equivalent versions of same for this Newsletter. Regular monthly submissions by zoos of any age are very welcome though, just as with oasismag.com, submissions by zoos in the 15 to 17 year age bracket are especially sought after.

4) Profiles in Courage.

I'm also taking submissions for this too. Just as above if you want some idea of what I'm looking for please have a look at oasismag.com

To the Zoo Community

Z.oophile S.uicide prevention O.utreach S.ociety (ZSOS)

Thanks for taking an interest. This newsletter is to give you the some information, about what Phil has been working on. It is the ground work that is so important to all of this. I truly believe we can make a difference, and change things, if we are able to get organized. As you can see it takes money, and the right people, and following the system, to make it work. Please, if anyone has some suggestions, please write Phil or myself. Zsos is what the zoo community needs. We all need an organization that we can turn to for help in emotional matters, legal matters, and with some backing, lobby to change the laws that have ruined so many lives, and keeps us in the closet, and fearful. We can change things.... we can make it happen. We all just have to be united in this effort !! As you can see Phil has talked to many influential people, who are willing to help us, and give thier endorcement. That presents a credibility that we need as an organization, for anyone to listen to us.

Contributions are needed. Even $1. or $2. sent to phil will help keep him out there working on our behalf. A $1.00 is nothing to loose individually, but it all adds up. Certainly Contributions of any size will be held in trust, by a third party, to start the organization.

Thanks again for your help!!

baybeau

Please contact Phil at P.O.Box 666

--M.R.
03/24

1. State Laws HSUS site
   
2. Introduction to sex abuse HSUS site
   
3. Statements from professionals regarding zoophilia HSUS site
   
4. IGHA horse rescue page on zoophilia
   
5. Theoretical criminology Article by Piers Beirne, professor of criminology
   
6. Violence starts with animal abuse Portland Humane Society page
   
7. Human sexuality survey results
   
8. Medical page Medical risks to animals
   
9. Bestiality: the unmentioned abuse
   Used with permission from: The animals agenda

Main site Site devoted to this issue, with more files and information.

Inter-species sex is as old as life on earth. In all great cultures bestiality was at least accepted, even performed in public. The Chinese knew it - Jin Ping Mei describes it. So did the Egytians, the Indians, the Greek, the Romans. Attila had several hundred mares as company for his warriors.

I should inform you but this is the year 2001 not ancient Rome! The Romans are long gone so are the Egyptians and Atila's army along with Sodom and Gemmorah.

Get help sickos
--T.R
03/24

The elderly man was tired of his son’s being on the computer each night and of his son’s attempt to get his father to advocate zoophilia to the parents of young children with whom Phillip Buble was conferring over the Internet and via telephone calls.

Phillip Buble also made it a point to tell Frank Buble’s pilot friends about his sexual preference and that disturbed the elder Buble greatly, Day said.

Anyone who has to go to that extreme about telling the entire town and his father's friends about his bestiality is obviously seriously ill.

Mike Rolland
ASAIRS in founder

To learn more about sexual abuse of animals and how to stop it;

http://www.asairs.com
--M.R.
03/09