Zoophilia wiki - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2026-07-22T16:14:48Z

Wiki: Protected "Main Page" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Zoophilia Wiki had to undergo a rebuild. Fortunately, someone did provide an import from May of 2026.

The wiki is still undergoing some work, and is for now an open wiki, but with the option of having accounts. The Zoophilia wiki is a free resources for everyone reading about Zoophilia, or anyone that is interested in providing more information about any related entries.

== Getting started ==
* [[ZETA Principles]]
* [[Zeta -ζ- (Greek Letter)]]
* [[Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia]]
* [[Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible]]
* [[Zoophilia and Health]]

Main Page

2026-07-22T03:42:58Z

Wiki:

Canine Penis

2026-07-22T00:18:08Z

Wiki: Reverted edit by 185.220.100.242 (talk) to last revision by Wiki

==Canine Penis==
{{stub}}
The canine penis is shaped very differently from that of other animals, having a pointed tip, shaft which is usually long and rather thin, and then a large bulbous [[knot]] at the base (also known as the [[Bulbus Glandis|bulbus glandis]]). This knot helps the dog to sometimes become attached to his [[mate]] in what is known as the copulatory tie. Their entire penis is inside of a penile sheath.

In the center of the dog’s penis is a bone known as the baculum, os penis, or simply ‘os’. This enables him to achieve penetration before his penis is erect so that he is able to penetrate prior to his knot enlarging in size.

At the tip of the dog’s penis, there is a small opening for the urethra, where sperm and urine exit the body. There is also a separate indentation at the end of the dog’s penis, caused by his baculum interrupting the connective tissue. Some dogs enjoy light pressure applied to this area with the tongue or a wet finger.

{{Infobox_GeneralImages |

color = #B0C4DE |


image_name = dogpenis.jpg|
image_caption = Dog Penis Diagram|
}}The entire time the dog’s penis is erect, he will be shooting a clear watery fluid in fits and stops. His precum and actual ejaculate look very similar and will not be as thick or as opaque as a human or horse’s cum. Pressure behind the knot or gentle tugging on the knot will prolong his orgasm and cause him to ejaculate more.

Behind the knot, the penis is very flexible in the horizontal plane, even when erect, which enables the male to get off while hanging.

Comparatively anatomically, the entire part of the dog's penis visible during erection corresponds to the glans (Latin glans ) of the man, which in dogs is, however, divided into two parts: Behind the shaft (Latin pars longa glandis ) lies the "[[knot]]" (Latin bulb glandis ). This only swells up during intercourse and ensures that the male dog remains connected to the bitch for some time (between 15 and 30 minutes) ("hanging"). This increases the chances of fertilization and prevents, at least in the short term, other pack members from being able to [[mate]] with the bitch.

In contrast to humans, the foreskin ligament (Latin: frenulum ), which connects the glans and foreskin, tears in dogs before they reach sexual maturity. The former connection point remains visible as a "seam" (lat. Raphe ) down the entire length of the shaft. In individual cases, however, the frenulum can persist into sexually mature age and then prevent the dog from digging it out. This condition is rare and can easily be treated by a veterinarian.[[File:Canine Penis.png|thumb]]The penis size and the knot diameter depend on the breed of dog, but can also vary greatly within a breed.

=== Other Terms: ===
[[Dog Penis]]

{{Terms}}

How to have Sex with a Sow

2026-07-21T23:31:46Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

==How to have Sex with a Sow==
===Preparation===
You will need some things in order to have sex with a sow. First of all, you will need something to protect your knees, as the sow's rear is only about 1-1.5 feet above the ground. She will NOT let you pick her up and place her on a table for easy access, like a bitch would, so you'll have to mount her on the ground, on your knees. Secondly, you'll need some lubricant. You will not have to use a lot of it, as the sow will produce her own very quickly. As always, KY will do just fine. In order to fool the sow into thinking she's about to be mounted by a boar, (and this will make her really [[horny]]) you will need the following: A tape with sounds of a boar. Play it and she will be a lot more willing. The scent of a boar. This can actually be bought in spray cans (these are common in the pig breeding industry).
Action

Spray a little boar-smell on yourself. Then stay around the sow for a while, let her get used to you. Play the tape. You should see the reaction as the will come to check it out. This is the right time to lube her and yourself up, and to get ready. Now here comes the big secret. When you place your hands on her back (like a boar's paws while mounting) her instincts will tell her to stand still, and you will be able to gently mount her. Give her time to produce her own lubricational fluids, and enter her slowly, as a boar's penis is a lot thinner than a man's.
I wish you good luck, and many happy hours with your sow!

How long until the taboo on Bestiality is broken?

2026-07-21T23:31:46Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Essay}}

==An Editorial on Bestiality.==
--By Daniel Grant Wilks--
This editorial was grabbed from ZV when it was posted as a PDF to show the taboo of Bestiality. More sections were added from phantasypublishing<ref>https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2014/04/zoosexuality-should-it-be-considered.html</ref>. Some sections were not added to lessen length and avoid repeativeness. Some link references may no longer be active, such as Beastforum. Some links may be found using the Wayback machine.
About as long as speciesism and denial of humans being in the animal kingdom or being animals and therefor [[zoosexual]] by nature because of your attraction to a human animal.

[[Zoosexuality]] is a [[sexual orientation]] in which humans are sexually attracted to animals. Although people have been having sex with animals for centuries, it has largely been condemned, ignored, and marginalized by [[society]]. The reason for this negative attitude towards [[sexuality]] is due to ignorance and
bigotry, which has led to zoosexuality being stigmatized by society and made a taboo subject.
But what exactly does it mean for something to be “taboo”?

Taboo is a word which means “[being] proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable”; it is also defined as “exclusion from use or practice, to ignore or ridicule”. Compare this with the definition of “controversial”, which is “subject to controversy; debatable”. Taboo subjects and
controversial subjects often overlap.

Because of this, some subjects in society are publicly debatable, controversial, and easy to bring
up (such as abortion or health care reform) – nobody is ashamed of bring up their point-of-view.
However, taboo subjects (such as [[bestiality]], nudity, and subjects which have to do with sex and
death) are considered unacceptable by society, stigmatized, and ignored as thoroughly as
possible. They are irrationally censored. I refer to this as “social erasure”; the collective artificial
amnesia created by a society to attempt to eradicate a way of thinking. This has been common
throughout [[history]]; for example, blacks prior to key moments (such as the Civil Rights
movement) were often ignored.

Another group of people that have suffered from “social erasure” are gays. In the 1950s, for example, being gay wasn’t even debated; it was “brushed under the table”, ignored, stigmatized and considered taboo. However, through the 1960s and onward, gay rights eventually became more mainstream and began to become OK to talk about; in the year 2000, there were zero U.S. states that allowed gay marriage; there are now 7 (and DC) — and that number is growing. The social attitude towards the taboo of homosexuality has changed over the years; in a sense, it has gone from being “taboo” to not being a big deal.

However the same cannot be said for zoosexuality; it is a group which have not made the progress that gay rights has made; it has remained in the darkness, locked up by society; this is largely due to the fact that our culture is based on certain moral values derived from Christianity and other religious sources.

Whenever the “hidden” subject of zoosexuality is brought up by someone, no matter how articulate and rational the argument may be, the chances are high that the resulting reaction will involve social stigma, disgust, or a non-rational knee-jerk response.

Why are certain things considered taboo? And why is zoosexuality so taboo? Surely, one could not pick a more taboo subject. It is so taboo that it could almost be considered analogous to homosexuality in the 1950s. In my 15 years (and counting) of education, I have only heard the subject mentioned once or twice, and in those cases, it was only mentioned briefly and negatively. I have never seen a television show about it. It is apparently even too taboo for National Geographic’s “Taboo” series to show.
===SECTION 2: ADDRESSING ZOOSEXUALITY===
According to the Internet, zoosexuality (also known as [[zoophilia]]) is defined as a human sexual attraction to a non-human animal; this has been viewed as being its own unique sexual orientation known as “zoosexuality”.

Meanwhile, the term “bestiality” refers only to actual sex
acts with animals, whereas “zoophilia” and “zoosexuality” refer to the broader sexual attraction
to animals. Because the term “bestiality” has negative connotations and is associated with antizoosexual bigotry, the politically correct term for bestiality is “zoosexual act”.

A zoosexual act is an act in which a human has inter-species sex with a being who happens to be non-human (including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse, oral sex, etc.) Here is a quote by a [[zoophile]] describing it [[further]]:
“Zoophilia is best described as a [[love]] of animals so intimate that the person (and the animal) involved have no objections to expressing their affection for each other in the sexual fashion. This is not to be confused with bestiality, where a person forcefully [[mates]] an animal, without their consent, and with no mutual feelings whatsoever. This is something that I would never do to [an animal], since I love them dearly, and treat them with the same respect that an honest husband would have for his wife and children.” — Anonymous,http://www.zoophile.net/dolphins...

The group of people who have sex with animals can be divided into two categories:
--> Category #1: The majority (people who love animals romantically and would never harm them — they are known as “zoosexuals”)

--> Category #2: The minority (people who only use animals as objects in order to have sex with them — they are known as “bestialists” — people who are “bestialists” [aka "[[Zoosadism|zoosadists]]"] don’t care about the animal’s welfare).
Most people who have sex with animals are not in category #2. Most people who have sex with animals are called [[Zoosexual|zoosexuals]] (they are the people who love animals, would never harm animals, and treat animals as sentient beings with their own rights). Sometimes [[zoosexual]] people are called “zoos” (an abbreviation).

Unfortunately, the media tends to disproportionately report cases involving “bestialists”, and this harms the reputation of innocent [[Zoosexual|zoosexuals]] , as well as the public’s perception of zoosexuality. When people see these media reports, they come to the erroneous conclusion that all people who have sex with animals are “bestialists”, which isn’t true.

The Internet seems to be the only source providing information about zoosexuality; due to its taboo and stigmatized nature and its “social erasure”, you would never learn this type of information in school or on TV (I didn’t, and you probably didn’t either).

If something is stigmatized and ignored, it leads to a mass ignorance. For example, normal sex between humans is generally considered taboo in most cultures (it is censored on TV and only done in private); because of these restrictions, people end up becoming more reckless because they have less knowledge. This has led to the widespread transfer of the HIV virus from one person to another.

Why was the virus spread? Because people weren’t informed; they weren’t educated properly. Why weren’t they educated properly? Because the issue was ignored. The result is a massive pandemic. The general sexual stigma brought on by centuries of religious dogma has inadvertently resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.

It is mass ignorance which has caused zoophilia to become taboo. Because it is loathed, feared and poorly understood by people, it is not included in school curriculum. It is also excluded from religion, excluded from popular culture (except for humorous remarks), and often condemned by the law. This is based on long held irrational traditions and beliefs that date back many, many years.

Fear seems to be a driving force behind the condemnation of zoosexuality. As Bertran Russel said, “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd”. If a person stands out for any reason, there is apparently something wrong with you. If you face the wrong way on the elevator, for example, there is apparently something wrong with you. And it is this conformity, which is responsible for the persecution of smaller, minority groups such as zoosexuals; because their ways are not similar to the majority, they are condemned. This was (and to a degree, still is) true of homosexuals, bisexuals and people of other orientation, but hasn’t caught on with [[Zoosexual|zoosexuals]]. An article on Science News, Articles, and Information(see link at bottom of Blog) says thefollowing:
“This individual, who shall go unnamed unless he wishes to identify himself in the comments section, was a self-professed “zoophile” (Greek for “animal lover”) with a particular romantic affinity for horses, and he was hoping that I might devote one of my column pieces to this neglected, much-maligned topic of forbidden [[interspecies]] love. “The politics of acknowledging zoophilia as a ‘legitimate’ sexual orientation,” wrote this reader, “often mean that [[zoophiles]] are either ignored as a class or subject to what can only be described as the most vicious, sustained, and hateful attacks by mainstream society.” I have my own viscerally based, unreasoned biases and—I confess—on first reading this email I promptly mentally filed it away in the untouchable “Eww…” category. But [a story], combined with my sympathy for human underdogs, inspired me to go back and reread it, and I saw a rather intriguing scientific question lurking there. Is it really possible for an otherwise normal, healthy person to develop a genuine sexual preference for a nonhuman species?”–http://www.scientificamerican.co...)
This is an example of how even “normal” people are beginning to question at a basic level what
it means to be zoosexual.
===SECTION 3: PEOPLE’S IRRATIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS ZOOSEXUALITY===
Although there may be social reasons for ignoring and/or condemning zoosexuality, one reason for the taboo of zoophilia may be evolutionary; from a biological point of view, having sex with animals makes no sense because it doesn’t result in any offspring; consequently, the only humans that survived were humans that had sex with other humans, and because of this it became hard-wired into the DNA of their descendants (ultimately, most humans). This might explain why when someone is approached with the idea of zoosexuality, their initial reaction might be “eww, that’s gross” or “that’s perverted”.

It’s because they’re not used to such “abnormal” ideas because society has told them it’s wrong and they are biologically programmed to do so. However, keep in mind that saying “that’s gross” is not a philosophical argument; it does not rely on any rational reasoning system to determine whether or not zoosexuality is moral. There are rational arguments that could be made for or against zoosexuality; for example, a utilitarian argument for zoosexuality is that it increases happiness so long as both parties are satisfied.

Most people do not react rationally when confronted with the idea of zoosexuality; most react with an irrational, visceral, knee-jerk reaction. This reaction is caused by ignorance and societal conditioning. Luckily, as the following quotes demonstrate, not everyone reacts this way: <blockquote>“According to [articles], the ‘yuck’ or purity factor is a part of all moral systems, being hardwired into us. The logical justifications of morality tend to be rationalizations of what people already believe[...] sex with animals (unless it involves cruelty or abuse) should not be illegal.” — Amos</blockquote>“Disgust doesn’t determine morality. It troubles me that people would even consider throwing logic out the window, simply because it doesn’t jive with their feelings[...] Most people don’t take it to the level I have in the [zoosexual] thought experiment obviously, but I find it unclear exactly where the moral line was suddenly crossed… if there is a line at all. Many farm animals are artificially inseminated, so that requires masturbation of male animals, and artificial insemination of a female, which sometimes require some manual stimulation to make them ovulate. <blockquote>Is that wrong? [...] Again, I’m stunned at the willing dismissal of reason. Essentially in saying that logic is only used to reinforce existing beliefs, you’re saying that it doesn’t matter what my arguments are, you’re simply not going to change your mind, and you essentially don’t even need to consider my arguments, because your mind isn’t going to be changed by reason. How can we be philosophers with such a mindset?” — Wayne Yuen “Now, as for [an enlightened person], who no doubt belongs to PETA and doesn’t eat meat but
loves to curl up with his dog on dark and rainy nights [sexually] … this person would be hard to
condemn.” — Jean Kazez</blockquote>

“OK, in my mind [the 'yuck' factor] seem blown out of proportion. The yuck factor should not play a role in [examining zoosexuality]; look at it logically, ethically, etc. If there is nothing wrong, no one gets hurt, what is wrong with it? There were a lot of things that made us think yuck in the past, but we’ve moved on, and maybe we can move on with as well. People actually find attraction to these animals, don’t ask me how, but they do, and sometimes it escalates to the most intimate thing possible for living beings.” — John Wu Above quotes: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.co...

“‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are purely subjective human constructs based on the cultural morals with
which we are raised. People consider [sex with animals] wrong because that is what they were taught growing up. If they hadn’t been taught [that way], they wouldn’t have that belief of ‘wrongness’, even if they had no desire to engage in such behavior[...] Ethics and morality are simply attempts to define guidelines that will allow us to make the best possible choices.” —Kuve, http://answers.yahoo.com/questio...

===SECTION 4: ZOOSEXUALITY IN NATURE===
Above: Interspecies sex occurs in nature; humans are just like any other species (in terms of sex)

and should not be excluded from the Animal Kingdom Scientific research has explored homosexuality in other animals and found that homosexuality in non-human animals is a trait that “eases up” the gene pool, and has lead scientists to the conclusion that homosexuality in humans is evolutionary good because it eases up the gene pool. If this is the case, then zoosexuality might also be seen as “easing up” the gene pool because it, like homosexuality, does not result in offspring. Additionally, animals from different species have been observed mating with each other.
A National Geographic article said the following:'''“The act of mating with a species other than your own may not be as ill-advised or peculiar as it''' '''seems'''.[...]A growing number of studies have been presented as evidence that two species can combine to produce a third, sexually viable species in a process known as hybrid speciation[...]
Scientists now believe that the behavior [inter-species sex] that has been called animals’ sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution.''' [...] '''
'''‘In the past, people have often''' viewed hybridization as a mistake’ Mallet said. ‘But this is probably not an unnatural phenomenon. And, he said, ‘Sex with another species may occasionally be a very good idea. [...] It might be worth throwing the dice every now and then to trying for something really weird and see if it works out.’ Occasionally, [inter-species sex] produces sexually fertile offspring that may have the opportunity to evolve into a separate species.”''' — http://news.nationalgeographic.c<nowiki/>...'''

If a human and a dolphin have sex, chances are high that there will be no fertile offspring. However, there is a slight chance that a new species (human-dolphin hybrid) could be produced. The above quote comes from the National Geographic article “Interspecies Sex: Evolution’s Hidden Secret?” It suggests that there is nothing wrong with inter-species sex because it is a normal part of nature. The only reason humans do not usually engage in inter-species sex is because irrational ways of thinking (such as religious dogmas) are acting as a strait jacket, preventing people from doing what nature intended. Remember, because humans are animals, they can have inter-species sex just like any other species. Because inter-species sex is a normal part of nature (and a beneficial part of nature), why should humans avoid it? By not having interspecies sex, the human race is actually weakening itself in the long run.

If inter-species sex and zoosexuality do in fact have evolutionary benefits, then it would seem that the only reason zoosexuality is a taboo, stigmatized subject is not necessarily because of biology, but because of social constructs. Just remember, animals in the wild can and do have sex for non-reproductive purposes. For example, they have homosexual sex (i.e. anal sex) and they also masturbate. Because of this (and because of the fact that animals in the wild have interspecies sex), it is illogical to say that bestiality is “unnatural”, and it is illogical to say that an animal’s “instincts” are being violated; on the contrary, when a human has sex with another animal, they are not doing anything “unnatural”; in addition, the instincts of the animal are not being “violated”. One could easily argue that many of the thing’s humans do (like neutering animals and using artificial insemination on animals) are more unnatural than having sex with an animal. Regarding this issue, this is what I said in another post:
“Many socially accepted practices which humans engage in all time are more unnatural than having sex with an animal (zoosexuality). For example, acts such as neutering, artificial insemination, experimentation, zoos/aquariums and factory slaughter are all unnatural activities, yet their “unnatural-ness” is never questioned. Even though zoosexual acts are more natural than neutering/slaughter etc., they are called “unnatural” by antizoosexual people as a “mask” to hide their underlying irrational prejudice and bigotry against zoosexuality.”
[[File:mating1.png|200px|thumb|left|Interspecies mating]]

Left: interspecies sex occurring between a lion and a tiger — this scene may have been in captivity, but there are instances of inter-species mating in the wild. Click the following link to see a short video showing interspecies sex between a variety of animals: [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nsfw-interspecies-animal-lovers_n_1681166 [link to interspecies sex video (Huffington Post)]; it proves that interspecies sex is not uncommon, and that it is part of nature (thus destroying the argument that it is “unnatural” for humans to have sex with other animals).

===SECTION 5: UNJUST HATRED OF ZOOSEXUALITY VIA RELIGION AND CULTURE===
Most cultures today have a deep-seated irrational hatred of zoosexuality which cannot easily be explained. This hatred is often expressed in the form of bigotry and anti-zoosexual discrimination, and it is largely caused by ignorance (an ignorance which exists because of the irrational taboo surrounding zoosexuality).

It is worth noting that in today’s society, zoosexual people are often bullied (due to hatred, fear, ignorance and bigotry) — and because of this bullying, they often become depressed and hide their zoosexual feelings from people (see anti-zoosexual bullying). It is important for zoosexual people to recognize that there is nothing wrong with them, and that compassion for animals and an ethical zoosexual lifestyle can bring them happiness in life. They should realize that there is something wrong with society itself (specifically, society’s fierce intolerance to those who are different).

Earlier, I mentioned “social constructs”. - A social construct is a way in which something is done socially to make definitions easier. For example, the very notion of “sexual orientation” is a social construct; in reality, the neatly defined boundaries of “straight”, “gay” and “bisexual” are blurred.

Zoosexuality has occurred throughout history, and there are even some places that have statues depicting human-animal sexual intercourse. Of course, you’d never know about those statues because you’d never learn about them in school, but it is true that zoosexuality was actually a part of life for many different cultures throughout the ages, such as some Native American tribes, Inuits, and the Maasai people of Africa. However, with the introduction of Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), new irrational and intolerant moral codes were put into place that created strict social constructs in the form of religious texts such as the Bible and Quran that condemned zoosexuality (or simply ignored it). One of the moral codes imposed by these religions was the rather puritanical point-of-view that zoosexuality is “abnormal” and should be punishable by a fine, a prison term, or even death. Some of these archaic moral codes have lasted all the way into the 21st century, with laws in various places prohibiting zoosexual acts. Religious ways of thinking have been so strong that zoosexuality has been essentially eliminated from mainstream thinking.

Thus, over centuries of social constructs being in place, society turned against zoosexuality and made it taboo, even if zoosexuality served a biological purpose. For most of history until the 1960s, homosexuality and zoosexuality were very much alike – stigmatized, ignored sexual orientations. The 1960s is where the two-split apart; [[LGBT]] became more acceptable, while zoosexuality remained in the dark. Because the civil rights movement did not include zoosexuality, this means that zoosexuality is one of the final social issues that society has to confront.

Additionally, keep in mind that until 1990, homosexuality was listed as a “mental illness”. According to “Find The Right Care”, zoophilia is still listed as a mental illness and is regarded as a “disease”. (This is a form of zoosexual discrimination.)

How would a gay person feel if you went up to them and told them that their orientation was a disease? That’s probably the way zoophiles feel. Whereas homosexuality has been accepted by the medical/psychological community and by society in general, zoosexuality has not (even though it should be).

This is an example of how psychological “definitions” really only reflect what society thinks, and don’t necessarily reflect the weather something is actually an illness. Calling zoophilia an “illness” is discrimination.

Ultimately, why would religious people be so determined to eradicate taboo topics such as zoosexuality? Several explanations are possible; firstly, many religious people would say “because God said so”, but this “argument” cannot be taken seriously because there is no rational philosophical argument behind it.

Secondly, many religious people simply conform to what the majority in their religion do, and they may not think about what they’re doing. Even subtle things, for example, are typically done but not questioned, such as religious rituals (like making
monotonous repetitions of familiar phrases in church or bowing down in a mosque). As a result, if those with authority say zoosexuality is immoral, then people are more likely to believe it to be true. And, if everyone in their religious circles believes zoosexuality is immoral, they believe it must be true since the majority believes it. But keep in mind that back in the late 1700s, the majority of people in America believed that slavery was OK. Even George Washington (who was a slave owner) believed slavery was OK. Because of this, the “majority rationale” is discredited. What is considered moral/immoral today might be completely different in the future

Thirdly, religions in the past held superstitions such as the false belief that having sex with an
animal would produce “monster” offspring; this may have something to do with religious
intolerance of taboo subjects such as zoosexuality. Finally, a large part of most religious dogmas
is the idea that humans are “above” non-human animals, and because of this, they claim that God
has made a “separation” between humans and non-human animals because humans are somehow
“better” than non-human animals. This concept is known as “human exceptionalism”, and it is a
delusional and irrational way of thinking. It is also an arrogant and anthropocentric way of
thinking. In reality, humans are not superior to non-human animals (people who believe in
“human exceptionalism” are too delusional to realize this).

'''The following quote discusses the arrogant “human exceptionalism” belief:'''
''“The frame of mind [of our society] is that we humans are the best species, the most advanced,'' the most intelligent, the most superior and have a ‘God-given’ right. So, all other species (despite their ability to feel and have emotions just as we do) are ‘beneath’ us. In fact, [according to our society], non-human animals are not communities or individuals with their own interests, but objects and resources to be exploited. Here in lies the problem: having a sexual partner implies that the two are equals; and if that partner is a non-human animal, that contradicts the paradigm above.” —http://www.createdebate.com/deba...
Another thing to keep in mind is that the “arguments” that extreme religious people use against zoosexuals are the same “arguments” that they use against homosexuals. For example, evangelical Christians often cite specific passages of the Bible to “justify” their hatred of homosexuals. The same is true of those who practice bestiality (zoosexuals) — religious people “pick and choose” specific passages from the Bible which appear to be anti-zoosexual (these passages conform to their '''preconceived prejudices''' against zoosexuals). However, what these people fail to realize is that the Bible as '''a whole''' can be interpreted as being =in favor= of zoosexuality (and the same applies for homosexuality). In other words, a few sentences from Leviticus is '''not enough''' to condemn homosexuality and zoosexuality; it is an excuse used by evangelical Christians to justify their preconceived hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

Many arrogant religious people (those who believe in “human exceptionalism”) make the fallacious and delusional claim that humans are “superior” to non-human animals, and they justify it with passages from the Bible

It is extremely important to remember that humans are '''not''' superior to non-human animals (because humans '''are''' animals). The archaic, religiously derived idea that humans are “above” other animals is '''incorrect''' and a '''falsification of reality.''' Humans are '''equal''' to other animals and are '''not''' superior to them. Thus, when a human has sex with another animal, it is '''not''' immoral.

People say humans are superior because of language, culture, etc; but remember that other species have characteristics which humans lack; for example, dolphins have a complex echolocation system which humans lack, and sharks can sense electromagnetic fields, another characteristic '''humans lack.''' Making the claim that humans are “above” other animals is arrogant, speciesist, and anthropocentric.

In a nutshell, we are all on this planet together: '''no''' species is “better” than another. People need to stop being “human supremacists”.

People already believe certain kinds of sexuality are “immoral”, and then use their religious text as a justification. But as we have seen, these people only choose the sentences which fit their intolerant views. They ignore other parts of the religious text that contradict their beliefs (for example, passages which could be interpreted as being in favor of bestiality and/or zoosexuality). The stuff said about Leviticus is not valid, especially since there are plenty of Leviticus rules which people violate all the time. There are also things said in Leviticus which are pro-slavery — so why is it that people ignore the part about slavery but always choose the parts which appear to be anti-gay and anti-zoosexual? Because it fits their own prejudice and intolerance.<blockquote>

</blockquote>
'''Consider this quote:'''''“[In response to a typical anti-zoosexual Bible-clinging person]: There’s enough people'' bastardizing and twisting the Bible to suit their own meaning and agenda. Do you really have to jump on that bandwagon? If you want to argue against something, study the matter and develop real, logical, rational arguments based on empirical evidence from actual observation and psychological/sociological research studies [and do not use religion]. [Do not try to] reinterpret lines from a book older than the concept of shaving. The bible very explicitly condones slavery and the treatment of wives as property, yet modern society has abandoned those very antiquated ways for something more civilized. You don’t get to pick and choose what ancient mystical babble to attempt to control the private lives of people with.”'' —''Sky,http://answers.yahoo.com/questio...

Ultimately, people need to stop thinking about zoosexuality in religious terms. All forms of zoosexuality (both ethical and unethical) should be thought of in a secular framework. This is because religion is not provable, and thus any arguments for or against zoosexuaity which are based on religious beliefs are not valid. The notion that there is an authoritarian, human-like God who has specific moral beliefs and “watches” over people is utterly ridiculous.
Considering the fact that the Earth (on a cosmic scale) is equal to a grain of sand on beach, it is extremely arrogant and anthropocentric to assume that God is a human-like entity (especially since there are trillions of planets, and humans are just one species on one planet). The following is likely:
<blockquote>
1) Religion is a falsification of reality, over-simplifies things too much, acts like a virus, and primarily exists because of the following: people’s fear, ignorance, laziness, inability to think for themselves, desire to conform to a group, the quixotic desire to know all the answers of the universe without having to think about anything, desire to feel good about themselves, and desire to stroke the over-inflated ego of humanity
</blockquote>
2) Human attempts to define God (via religion) have failed miserably and are contaminated with anthropocentrism
<blockquote>
3) “God” is probably extremely different from the way humans envision it
</blockquote>
4) “God” probably does not have consciousness as we know it
<blockquote>
5) “God” probably does not think like a human and therefore cannot “watch over” people and
cannot make “moral” judgments (humans have to create their own moral compasses); in
addition, God is not “personal”
</blockquote>
6) “God” is inseparable from the natural world
<blockquote>
7) Randomness, entropy and disorder are probably manifestations of “God”
</blockquote>
8) People will never be able to know the true nature of “God”
<blockquote>
9) “God” is an entity beyond human comprehension
</blockquote>
 
The only reason I have brought up these points about religion is because in so many cases, religion is what prevents people from accepting zoosexuality. If people thought about the universe rationally and logically (i.e. by understanding the above 9 points) and stopped believing in a fictional version of reality, maybe they’d be more accepting of zoosexuality. People need to think for themselves, stop assuming that a human-like God is “watching” over them, and stop being slaves of religion. Unfortunately, irrational religious beliefs continue to prevent zoosexuality from being accepted in many societies.

===SECTION 6: ZOOSEXUALITY IS ERRONEOUSLY THOUGHT OF AS “ABUSIVE” AND “IMMORAL”===

But religious followers are not the only ones who have contributed to the social taboo against zoosexuality; bioethicists, delusional animal rights activists, and various law enforcement units have condemned zoosexuality as animal “cruelty”. Because religion has embedded itself so deeply into society, one could make the argument that religion has indirectly influenced these groups, though there’s no way to prove that.

However, many animal rights groups believe zoosexuality is wrong because of non-religious issues; mainly, they claim it is animal “cruelty”.

The truth is that zoosexuality and bestiality do not always involve animal cruelty; in fact, most zoophiles are not cruel to animals. (see animal rights groups should not be against zoosexuality) The president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, is one of the few animal rights activists who supports zoosexuality. She said the following about zoosexuality:<blockquote>

</blockquote>
''“If a girl gets sexual pleasure by riding a [[horse]], does it matter? If not, who cares? If you French'' kiss your dog and he or she thinks it’s great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong.” -Ingrid Newkirk
So, this brings up a fundamental problem – what exactly is animal cruelty? How exactly can we know what is going on in the minds of animals? Humans think they know what is going on in the minds of animals, but do they really know? If non-human animals can feel pain (which they definitely can), then does zoosexuality count as causing pain to the animal? If in fact certain kinds of zoosexuality don’t cause pain to the animal, then is it ethical?

Firstly, let’s look at human-human sexual relationships. Typically, they are considered to be either good or bad. Either the human-human sexual relationship involves mutual consent, or it is rape. In many rape cases, the aggressor injured the victim. Similarly, many reports of zoosexual crimes involve a human injuring or killing an animal while having sex with it. These incidents are definitely crimes, just as human-human rape is definitely a crime. However, if a non-rape, non-injury human-animal relationship is comparable to a non-rape, non-injury human-human relationship, can it still be condemned? In other words, where does one draw the line between [[zoosadism]] (harm to animals) and genuine zoosexuality, in which someone respects for and/or cares for the animal in question? Because only zoosadism events are reported by the media, is that why the social perception of zoosexuality is so negative?

People need to realize that there is a distinction between zoosexuals who have loving relationships with animals, and zoosadists, whose sole purpose is for personal gratification and injury to the animal. Here is a quote from the Scientific American:
“''In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive''
toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles.''"''
(quote source: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scient-2010-03-24]http://www.scientificamerican.co<nowiki/>...)''According to this article, zoosadists have negatively tainted the public perception of'' zoosexuality. From this point, one could then come to the conclusion that animal rights activists have incorrectly put the “good” zoosexuals with the “bad” zoosexuals into the same “bad” category.

Below is a quote which supports the above quote about the (correct) notion that most zoosexuals are not being cruel to animals:
“''[With regard to zoosexual sex involving a dog]: Once again, if the dog is in discomfort or'' doesn’t like it in any way – STOP and leave it be.''” —''
Dirtyfox,http://www.beastforum.com/showto...
''The follow quote highlights some of the complexities regarding specific zoosexual orientations '' (i.e. people who are attracted to a specific species): “[A] man was hooked up to a penile plethysmograph and shown nude photos of all varieties and ages of humans, the man was decidedly flaccid. Nothing happening down there either when he looked at slides of cats, dogs, sheep, chickens, or cows. But he certainly wasn’t impotent, as the researchers clearly observed when the subject was shown images of horses. [He was only aroused by images of horses]. This case and related anecdotal evidence reported by the authors were important at the time because they suggested that zoophilia may be an extraordinarily are—but real—type of minority sexual orientation. That is to say, for some people, having sex with their animal “lovers” may amount to more than just substituting human sex with the next best thing. Rather, for them, sex with nonhuman animals IS the best thing.''” —''[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/03/24/animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scientists-rethink-human-sexuality/]http://blogs.scientificamerican...

The above quote shows that many zoosexual people prefer to have sex with non-human animals, and that in many cases they are sexually attracted to a certain kind of animal (in this case, horses). Some zoosexual people are sexually attracted to multiple animal species (which may also include humans — remember, humans are a species of animal too). A post I made (“[http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/11/the-zoosexual-orientation-wheel]the zoosexual orientation wheel” goes into more detail about this).

Zoosexuality is diverse (as diverse as the Animal Kingdom itself) when it comes to specific attractions: some people are [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/cynosexuality-or-cynophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-dogs/]sexually attracted to dogs (cynosexuals)], some people are [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/equinosexuality-or-equinophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-horses/]sexually attracted to horses (equinosexuals)], some people are [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/delphinic-zoosexuality-or-zoophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-dolphins/]sexually attracted to dolphins] (delphinosexuals or delphinophiles), some people are [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/five-different-zoosexual-attractions-pigs-goats-cows-deer-and-elephants/]sexually attracted to pigs], some people are sexually attracted to lizards, some people are sexually attracted to crocodiles, some people are
sexually attracted to ostriches — the list goes on and on.

As I said before, in many cases the above attractions overlap (so, for example, there are people who are sexually attracted to dogs, humans and horses, but not sexually attracted to pigs).

Below are more quotes about zoosexuality which attempt to destroy commonly-held misconceptions and stereotypes about zoosexual people:
“''Bestiality, or zoophilia as they prefer it to be called, has been around since the beginning of ''time. Sheep herders and farmers have often had sex with animals, but it’s usually joked about or regarded as something done out of necessity when no women were available. Now, instead of just seeing it as a behavior, they want it to be seen as a sexual orientation. Research has been done on these people and is seems that some legitimately prefer animals.'' [...''
<blockquote>
''And for those of you who might be thinking they abuse animals with this behavior (“interspecies ''
sexual assault”), zoophiles adamantly disagree. Because they love animals and care deeply for them, they claim they would never do anything to hurt them.''[...''
</blockquote>

If he prefers to be with horses over humans, should we judge him for this or just let him be?[...] So, these people [zoophiles] prefer animals over humans, they are not particularly distressed about their sex life, and they care about the animals and apparently wouldn’t hurt them. That doesn’t seem so bad, does it? [...] The animals are not hurt, and likely won’t even remember the next day. Are any of YOU getting hurt by this? No, you’re not.” —[http://www.divinecaroline.com/22079/99584-sex-animals-legitimate-sexual-orientation/2]http://www.divinecaroline.com/22...

Also, although there are many anti-zoosexual media reports about animals supposedly being “abused” by zoophiles, even those reports often admit that the animals involved are not actually harmed in any way; for example, read this quote from the Huffington post:
“[Regarding a man who had sex with a dog in NC:] Animal Control director Dr. John Lauby said the examination showed no physical injury to the dog. He said he doubts the attack will leave lasting trauma. ‘With dogs, the dominant animal breeds with the others, so I don’t think there will be psychological damage,’ Lauby told The Huffington Post.” —[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/ray-lynn-mitchum-jr-sex-neighbors-dog_n_1197479.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20..

====== Anti-Zoosexual Media ======
Anti-zoosexual media reports often use biased language to describe zoosexual people in a negative way: for example, they use inaccurate and denigrating words such as “molest”, “abusive”, “heinous”, “perverted”, “rape”, “assault” and “attack”, all adding unjust negativity to reports which should (in theory) be neutral.

Below is an excerpt from a bigoted anti-zoosexual Nigerian news article: <blockquote>
“[Tunde Aramide]: Apart from being barbaric, unnatural, repugnant and unjustifiable, those who practice bestiality are abusers of animals who capitalize on the nature of these animals to take undue advantage of them. Bestiality, if you consider it critically, is synonymous with animal rape and other forms of sexual abuse against them. It is illegal and those who do it should be prosecuted. Those who abuse animals sexually or otherwise are guilty of God’s judgment, because God never wants them exploited.[...] High Chief Yemi Elebuibon described bestiality as
inhuman and barbaric” — [http://www.tribune.com.ng/sun/special-report/8948-bestiality-now-some-nigerians-are-happy-sleeping-with-animals]http://www.tribune.com.ng/sun/sp...</blockquote>

A zoosexual who was offended by the above comments said the following:
“''[The above comments] should anger ANY zoosexual person — it is pure bigotry. For example, ''the use of the word “inhuman” is inaccurate because humans were never “above” other animals to begin with. Also, when a lion has sex with a tiger, does that make a lion “in-lion”? And if a dog has sex with a cat, does that make the dog “in-dog”? Why is it that ONLY when it comes to humans, something is suddenly called “inhuman” if that person has sex with an animal? It’s all such bull****. Bestiality is not “inhuman”, it is not “barbaric” and it is not “repugnant”. Also, bestiality is not “unnatural” because interspecies sex happens in the wild.
''People need to change their moral compasses. They need to realize that when a human has sex ''with a non-human animal it is not “immoral” because humans ARE animals, and all animals (including humans) are sexual beings, many of whom are capable of having sex for pleasure. Zoophiles need to fight against the kind of bigotry seen in the above mentioned article.

''Also, remember this fact: ''<blockquote>''according to Dictionary.com - The world’s favorite online dictionary!, ''the definition of “inhuman” is: “lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal”.

After seeing many threads on this forum, I can say without any hesitation that most zoosexual people ARE compassionate and DO have warmth/sympathy for animals. In fact, it would appear that zoosexuals tend to be MORE compassionate towards animals than the
average person. Thus, one '''cannot''' called zoosexuality “inhuman”, because it directly '''contradicts''' the dictionary definition.''” — Zqwm7,http://www.beastforum.com/showto<nowiki/>...''</blockquote>

== Why the Nigerian Article is flawed ==
In the quote below (from my [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/zoosexuality-should-it-be-considered-acceptable-or-not/vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/zoosexual-discrimination/]zoosexual discrimination post]), I describe why the Nigerian article is flawed, irrational and bigoted:
“''[The above comments in the Nigerian article are] pure bigotry. It is especially disturbing that ''such discriminatory words (such as “inhuman”, “repugnant” and “barbaric”) are used. The use of religion is offensive because it is clear that religion (as an “argument”) is being used as a “mask” or “facade” to hide people’s intolerance and prejudice. It should be clear to everyone that these hateful beliefs are based on a flawed system of morality. I will now explain in detail why bestiality is not what the above quote claims it to be.''[...''
[There is]'' plenty of proof that most zoosexual people are compassionate towards animals (which ''is also why many of them are also vegetarians — they would never harm an animal). Why don’t people call eating an animal’s meat “inhuman”? After all, I doubt most people who eat a hamburger have “compassion” for the animal they’re eating. In addition, most zoosexual people have far more sympathy, pity, warmth and compassion for animals than the average person. And most zoosexual people are not cruel to animals. Thus sexual relations between humans and other animals is not “inhuman”.
This is the Dictionary.com - The world’s favorite online dictionary! definition of “barbaric”: “Without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive”. Bestiality is not barbaric because it is just like regular human-to-human sex, except in this case it is an interspeies relationship. Bestiality is no more “barbaric” than “regular” human-to-human sex. Because humans ARE animals, and because humans have intrinsically the same characteristics as other animals (at least when it comes to sex), it is a fallacy to call such behavior “uncivilized” or “barbaric”.

The slaughter and killing of animals is far more barbaric than having mutually pleasurable sex with them.
This is the Dictionary.com - The world’s favorite online dictionary! definition of “repugnant”: “distasteful, objectionable, or offensive”. The “yuck” factor should never be involved when trying to determine something’s moral worth. Just because someone thinks that anal sex between two men is “disgusting” and “repugnant” doesn’t make it an immoral act.
The bigoted comments made in the above website ARE offensive”; zoosexual acts are NOT. People should not view zoosexual activity as being “distasteful” because there is nothing “distasteful” about a human who has mutually pleasurable sex with another sentient being who happens to be a non-human animal.

Humans have sex with other humans all the time, and since humans ARE animals, then that means that humans have sex with animals all the time (just animals of the same species).
 
Thus, anyone who claims that interspecies sex is “distasteful” should also believe that human-to-human sex is “distasteful”. Personally, I do not understand why people are so disgusted by interspecies sex, since there is nothing “disgusting” or “distasteful” about it. In addition, when
mutually pleasurable sex is occurring between a human and non-human animal, and if that
animal is not being harmed in any way, there should not be anything “offensive” about such an
act.

I also want to take the time to discuss some other factors of discrimination in the Nigerian article:

''Firstly, the overuse of religion. ''<blockquote>''Religion should never be used as an argument for or against ''
something, as it is not provable. And also, as is the case with this Nigerian article, religion is
often used as a “smokescreen” or “red herring” to distract people from the real issues at hand,
and religion is often used as a “mask” to hide people’s underlying prejudice.

Secondly, the use of the terms “animal rape” and “sexual abuse”. If one argues that a human
who has sex with a non-human animal is “rape”, then one must also conclude that a lion who
has sex with another lion is the wild is “raping” that lion, because the submissive lion did not
necessarily agree to have sex with the dominant one.

The “consent” argument is a red herring
used by anti-zoosexuals as an excuse to hide their bigotry; it does not have any validity,
especially since people slaughter and kill animals all the time without asking for their
“consent”, and because consent is not a meaningful concept from the non-human animal’s
point-of-view. “Consent” is not a big deal for non-human animals; it is an anthropocentric
concept. And also, bestiality is not “sexual abuse” because “abuse” implies that something is
immoral, and (as already discussed in this post), bestiality is not immoral; other factors need to
be involved in order for a zooseuxal act to be immoral (such as inflicting injury). Thus, the

premise under which “sexual abuse” lies is flimsy and falls apart.</blockquote>

''Thirdly, there is the fallacious and flawed belief that animals are being “taken advantage of”
and “exploited” when people have sex with them. This is not true, just as a dolphin in the wild
who has sex with another dolphin is not “exploiting” that dolphin. Animals make it clear when
they don’t want to have sex; if a horse doesn’t want to have sex with a person, he/she can kick
him/her. Dogs such as rottweilers can do similar damage — they can theoretically rip out a
person’s throat. Also, if an animal has sex with a human and that animal doesn’t have a problem
with the sex (and is enjoying it), then that animal certainly isn’t being “exploited” — he/she is
being a willing participant (or at the very least, a happy participant). The act of
slaughtering/killing/hunting an animal is exploiting them, whereas having sex with them is far
less likely to involve “exploitation” (and think about this: if a dog wants to have sex with a
human and that dog want’s his/her sexual desires fulfilled, then it is actually the HUMAN who is
being exploited by the dog!)''

''Lastly, zoosexual acts should not be automatically illegal. The only acts that should be
prosecuted are the ones in which zoosadism and cruelty were clearly inflicted on the animal.
Non-cruel zoosexual acts should not be prohibited by the law.
It is also worth noting that the Nigerian article also made the claim that those who engage in
zoosexual acts are “mentally ill”, which is not true (though many of them have become mentally
ill as a result of constant anti-zoosexual bigotry being aimed at them). Zoosexuals are not “mentally ill” in the same way that homosexuals are not “mentally ill”; if a person’s condition
does not cause that person distress, then that person is not suffering from a ''“mental disorder”.” — [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/zoosexual-discrimination/]http://vividrandomexistence.word]...''

''It is important to remember that people with an anti-zoosexual prejudice have been known to
sometimes deliberately harm an animal, so it looked like a zoosexual person did it. For example,
consider this situation: an ethical zoosexual person has ethical sex with his/her dog — this
person is unjustly arrested and their dog is unjustly taken to an animal control facility — once
the dog is there, the veterinarian realizes that the zoosexual person did not harm the dog in any
way, and so he/she (the veterinarian) deliberately injures that dog so that he/she can justify their
anti-zoosexual bigotry and use their false (fabricated) evidence to unjustly condemn a zoosexual
person. There is a Wikipedia article about this kind of situation: see [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence]False Evidence.]
Unfortunately, it is easy for a veterinarian to get away with this kind of deception because most
people are strongly, hatefully and irrationally anti-zoosexual (“zoophobic”).
Another irrational association people make with zoosexuality is its alleged association with
“violence”. Although zoosexual acts can be benign, most people erroneously put zoosexual acts
into the same category as violent acts (even though those same people would never put artificial
insemination into the “violent” category):''

“''In other words, [according to Ms. Butts of the SPCA], letting your male dog have sex with you
is just the same is hitting, kicking, or attacking him [this is absolutely incorrect]. Here’s a
question: if it’s OK for a vet or breeder to masturbate a dog to collect semen, why would it be a
felony for the owner to do that just for fun? [i.e. zoosexuality]. From the dog’s perspective, it’s
the same action either way. A hand job is either an “attack” or it isn’t. Unless what we are
really worried about isn’t the well being of the dog, but what human sexual behavior we find''
“acceptable” or not…” — Tharsis5,http://www.beastforum.com/showto..

''In response to the above quote, dirtbiker2000 said the following:
“Tharsis, the problem is you are thinking about this logically and intelligently, [which are] two
things missing from a lot of peoples brains when thinking of this subject. And you are dead right,
none of these laws are about preventing abuse. That is just a way of spinning it to try and get the
public on the side of the [[anti-zoo]] bigots. [The laws are really about enforcing a specific
irrational "moral" view].''” — dirtbiker2000,http://www.beastforum.com/showto...

''However, many animal rights advocates don’t care about whether or not people are “abusive” to
animals; all they care about is whether or not the animal is capable of “consent”. As I will
explain, this is a flawed argument. According to the dictionary, consent means to “permit,
approve, or agree; comply or yield”. Animal rights activists and other groups claim that because
animals cannot verbally communicate to us about how they feel (like a human), they are
incapable of consent. But wait a minute; can you really never tell what your pet dog is thinking?
If your dog has something on its mind, can’t you tell what it wants by observing its behavior? If
your dog was in pain, wouldn’t you notice it? What if your dog comes up to you and humps your
leg? If the animal initiated the interaction, then does it still count as human-initiated''“rape”

== Regarding the issue of consent ==
'''Regarding the issue of “consent”, here is a quote:'''
“''One of the most infuriating arguments used to deride animals is that they can’t speak–which
implies they can’t speak a human language. None of us, of course, can speak a word of an
animal language, but some animals have made serious headway with ours” — Ingrid Newkirk,
The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights,'' p.13

''What this quote suggests is that the term “consent”, which is a human-centric term used between
humans, cannot be applied to non-human animals because they don’t understand our language.
Instead, non-verbal communication and body language would be needed to satisfy the “consent”
issue in people’s minds (an issue that non-human animals probably don’t think about'').

'''Here is are two more quotes regarding the “consent” issue:'''
“''Many animal rights advocates [believe that] bestiality is synonymous with animal abuse. ''
<blockquote>
Animals cannot consent in a meaningful way to sexual contact, they argue, so human-animal sex
is akin to ‘rape’. The problem with this reasoning is that animals cannot consent — under the
legal definition of that term — to anything. We do not describe owning a pet dog as kidnapping,
even when the canine is restricted to the inside of a home, although confining a human being in the same manner would clearly be unethical.''” — [ .opposingviews . com/i/three-reasons-society-shouldn-t-rush-to-condemn-bestiality]http://w w w.opposingviews . com/i/t...''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>

“''If an animal actively seeks out sexual interaction with a human, displays behaviors associated ''
with sexual receptiveness and gives no counter indications when approached sexually by a
human, or permits a human to engage in sexual activity without showing signs of aversion, in the
absence of any physical coercion, the animal can be said to be a consenting party to the act
inasmuch as they are demonstrating active desire, permission or compliance.''” —''

[http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf]http://www.inter-disciplinary.ne...</blockquote>

'''Also, consider the following consent-related quotes:'''
“''My male dog used to tell me that he was interested in sex or wants it. He would beg me until I ''
give in. Am I misreading him? No, he would sniff at my crotch and paw at me. He only does this
when he wants sex. This is Consent, both by me and by him. Any Zoo knows that animals if they
want it, it may ask a human for sex. Zoos know that animals’ consent. There is no question about
it!''” (Source: http://dpsblog.blogspot.com/2006<nowiki/>...'' 
“''I don’t know about other people’s dogs, but mine gets very excited and thrusts back on me, and ''
almost knocks me down if I stop mounting her. Unlike what all the animal rights people want to
think, my dog loves sex [with me], and won’t stop at anything to get it.''” —''
<blockquote>
http://www.beastforum.com/showto.. 
The above quotes involve the [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/cynosexuality-or-cynophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-dogs]sexual attraction to dogs], which (like the [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/delphinic-zoosexuality-or-zoophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-dolphins]sexual attraction to
dolphins]) is one of many sexual orientations on [http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/the-zoosexual-orientation-wheel]thezoosexual orientation wheel.]
</blockquote>

''Perhaps the consent issue is so complicated because humans do not fully understand animal ''
cognition; perhaps, in the future, if humans have a better understanding of it, they would be able
to make better judgments. Remember that the whole idea of consent is a human-centric concept.
As I will discuss with dolphins, animals in the wild have often been seen “raping” each other. However, keep in mind that using the word “rape” is anthropomorphizing''. Consider this quote ''
from a commenter named “jalousface” on Scientific American:
“''There is no moral attachment to sex in the animal kingdom as there is to humans. Nor will the ''
animal be in psychiatric care discussing the time some human had sex with it. Sex isn’t as big a
deal for animals as it is for humans. Feel for the people attracted to the animals, imprisonment
won’t help nor solve the problem''.”''
(quote source: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scient-2010-03-24]http://www.scientificamerican.co...)
This commenter brings up an interesting point: the very idea of sex itself may be completely
different for non-human animals; for humans, sex is stigmatized and heavily controlled, whereas
sex for animals is just as common (and public) as consuming food.

Here is a quote regarding this issue:
“''I wonder if my grandma’s German Shepherd — my first sexual partner — wracked himself with
guilt for years after seducing me because he realized only far too late, after the fact, that I was
probably incapable of making an informed decision whether or not to play around with him
because my sense of smell was nowhere near as highly well developed as his own. You know?
For some odd reason, I seriously doubt it.''” — shinyferret,http://www.beastforum.com/showto...

The above quote emphasizes the fact that “consent” is an anthropocentric (human-centric)
concept, and that non-human animals probably don’t care about issues like “consent” the way
humans do. Compared to humans, non-human animals probably have a laid-back, non�stigmatized perception of sex (a perception which is inclusive of interspecies sex). The above
quote also emphasizes the fact that the differences between humans and other animals (i.e. sense
of smell, perception of sex, “consent”, etc) do not negatively affect animals when they have sex
with humans. In addition, the differences are not enough to justify the prohibition of zoosexual
activity.

Consider dolphins, which are intelligent mammals with large brains. In the wild, the males
regularly force the females to have sex. This could not be considered “rape”, because that is a
term associated with human social conventions and applying it to animals could be
anthropomorphizing. Aspects such as this one support the idea that animals do not have “morals”
the way humans do; what would be considered “immoral” to a human (such as sex with an
animal) would not also be considered “immoral” to a non-human animal because whether or not
something is “moral” or “immoral” is a distinctly human way of thinking. For a non-human
animal, sex is probably just like eating food and is not attached to morality the way it is for
humans.

Ultimately, the act of a human having sex with another animal is not intrinsically “abusive”.
The only way it is “abusive” is if other factors are involved (for example, if the animal is clearly
injured because of the sex, then it is abusive. But if no harm occurs, it is not abusive). I will
discuss this in the next section with the “harm principle”. If a human and an animal have sex
with each other, both enjoy it and neither are harmed by it in any way, it shouldnot be called
“animal abuse”

It is possible that one of the reasons people charge zoophiles with “animal abuse” is because they
are using that term as a “mask” to hide the real reason for prosecuting them: their deep-seated
irrational disgust and bigoted hatred toward zoosexuals.

Here is a quote by a zoosexual person regarding the fallacious and erroneous belief that all zoosexual activity is “abusive”:
“''There are a lot more of us [zoosexuals] than you know or even care to acknowledge. Yes there ''[are a few people] who “use” animals (technically known as “Bestialists”), and I don’t at all
support them or what they do. You need a SIGNIFICANT and POWERFUL emotional
attachment to be a TRUE Zoophile [or zoosexual]. Not all have romantic relationships but love
their animal partners still as much as anyone does a Soul [[Mate]]. We are quite diverse in our
beliefs as well. Some [zoosexual people] may not agree with some comments or ways others do
believe, including my own. We [zoosexuals] are not “sick”. What’s considered “WRONG” is
only in one’s mind, not in real fact, and many of the hateful comments and anti-zoosexual
“propaganda” used is created by irrational people who can’t see clearly the truth — they use
the same [slanderous] remarks over and over against something they don’t understand [and
don't] have. They are ignorant and just say and rely on what others say and can’t think on their
own.
<blockquote>

''I know a great many [zoosexual people] are even religious, and they see their nothing wrong ''
about their life — [to them, their zoosexual life is] a form of true Unconditional Love. Many, if
not most, human relationships never stay strong and they drift apart forever. Tell me, is there
any “True love” in that? [Zoosexual people] truly love their animals until the day they die and
beyond. We [zoosexual people] are also human and our [interspecies] love will not change
because of others. Especially not mine. I personally don’t judge the lives of others (and their
ways) because of the irrational thoughts of others. Humans ARE ANIMALS ans are going to do
what they do. And if you can’t see eye to eye or at least the facts, that’s fine, just don’t put down
and absolutely hate something you don’t understand, [and don't force your delusional view of
"morality" on me by trying to criminalize zoosexual acts].''” — Rebel of the Sacred Heart, ''
[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/03/24/animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scientists-rethink-human-sexuality/]http://blogs.scientificamerican....]</blockquote>

''With regard to the issue of “morality”, this is what I said in another post:''<blockquote>
“[Morality] is only what the majority thinks. For example, the majority of people in the U.S.
South in the early 1800s thought slavery was morally OK. Was it? Of course not! Not only is
morality a societal construct, it is completely relative — what is “immoral” today might not be
“immoral” 10 years from now.

''Saying something is “immoral” is also a bad argument because morality is relative. The term ''
for this is moral relativism; a related term is cultural relativism. In a nutshell, these terms refer
to the fact that what one society thinks is “immoral” may be completely moral and acceptable to
a different society. For example, historically the Maasai people of Africa and some Native
American groups (such as the Hopi Indians and Copper Inuit) were accepting and tolerant of
human-animal sexual activity. They did not have a negative attitude towards it because their
societies had not yet been contaminated with the delusional, hateful, religiously-driven “moral” beliefs of Europeans'' (i.e. Puritans). ''

The fact that there were (and are) societies that accept
zoosexual activity is proof that morality is relative. '''Interspecies zoosexual activity is not '''
objectively “immoral”'''; depending on who one talks to, the response will be negative or positive. '''
Unfortunately, the “negative” culture (i.e. the culture which is hostile towards zoosexuality) is
the dominant culture right now. But that '''does not''' make it a correct culture.

''Also, many zoosexual people will argue that when they have sex with an animal, it is not an ''
“immoral” action because it is non-abusive, does not inflict pain or suffering on the animal, and
because of other factors (i.e. the animal is willing to have sex, the animal enjoys sex with the
human, the animal initiated the sex, etc). In terms of ethics, having sex with an animal can be
seen as morally acceptable according to specific ethical viewpoints (for example, the utilitarian
viewpoint or the harm principle viewpoint). From these viewpoints, it can be argued
that some kinds of zoosexual activity (i.e. those which involve zoosadism) are immoral/cruel, but
that other kinds of zoosexual activity are not immoral. People often fallaciously and erroneously
lump the bad kinds of zoosex into the same category as the good kind.</blockquote>

Typically, when someone says zoosexuality is “immoral”, they’re not really thinking hard about
the issue — they’re simply thinking with their “gut” and using emotional, hateful, knee-jerk
beliefs and their own irrational aversion to it. They’re also probably conforming to what the
dominant culture thinks (in other words, they aren’t thinking for themselves. They are letting the
culture do the thinking for them — brainwashing).” — Common Arguments Against Zoophilia
(and why they fail) post.''''

== '''SECTION 7: REAL LIFE ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS''' ==
There is evidence to support the notion that dolphins are willing to have interspecies sex. For example, according to one website, a person recorded his account of swimming with a dolphin, in which the dolphin was apparently sexually interested in him (see this link.) In similar event caught on video, a dolphin is seen apparently having some kind of sexual interest in a woman: <ref>A video with a Dolphin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE_6n1gp3Vw</ref>

The sexual attraction to dolphins is known as delphinic zoosexuality.<ref>Delphinic Zoosexuality<nowiki/>http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/delphinic-zoosexuality-or-zoophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-dolphins</ref> Scientists have determined that many dolphins are sexually attracted to humans; in this sense, human-dolphin love is reciprocal. If zoosexuality were accepted by society (and if it weren’t taboo), there would probably be many human-dolphin sexual relationships.

Remember that dolphins are known to have sex for '''pleasure''', just like humans. Bonobo primates are also known to have sex for pleasure. Because of this, interspecies sex between a human and a dolphin (or interspecies sex between a human and a bonobo) could be mutually pleasurable for all involved. Just as dolphins have been observed having a sexual interest in humans, bonobos have also been observed having a sexual interest in humans.

Dolphins are not the only animals that seem to have sexual interest in other species; apparently, a man was minding his own business when a goat initiated sexual contact with him; the human wasn’t pleased, but the goat was. It is accounts like these ones (and apparently there are a lot of them) that suggest that perhaps interspecies sex may somehow benefit animals in some way; it also suggests that animals may actually '''enjoy''' interspecies sex.

If an animal makes it clear that it wants a sexual interaction with a human, then it would fall under the definition of consent because it would be “agreeing” or “permitting”. (For example, if a human is down on his/her knees in a doggy-style position and an animal penetrates him/her). Obviously, if a human forces an animal to have sex against the animal’s will, that would be considered rape, just as it would in a human-human interaction. But if an animal forces a human to have sex with it, then is that also considered “rape”?

The concept of an animal deliberately initiating sexual contact with a human is known as '''“reverse bestiality”''', and it is actually more common than one might think. Apparently, to many animals in the Animal Kingdom (such as dolphins), humans are sexy creatures, and animals such as dolphins have an urge to have sex with what they perceive to be sexy creatures (humans). Studies have shown that some dolphins are sexually attracted to humans. The issue of “reverse bestiality” is an issue that is usually ignored by the anti-zoosexuals, because it contradicts many of their arguments. In the case of reverse bestiality and ethical zoosexual activity, there are two principles which come into play: '''utilitarianism''' and the '''harm principle'''.

The term '''utilitarianism''' means:

<blockquote>
''“The ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number of individuals”''

and the harm principle is:

''“A principle that holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals.”''

Based on these principles, it is easy to understand why most zoosexual acts '''are ethical'''. If no one is suffering, and if both parties (the human and the animal) are enjoying the sex, then who is being harmed? No one. And as far as “consent” is concerned, the argument that animals cannot “consent” to sex is a weak argument because non-human animals have sex with each other all the time in the wild without ever uttering a human word. There is also evidence that (at least when it comes to sex) the intrinsic consciousness that non-human animals have is similar to that of humans; in both humans and non-human animals, sex is pleasurable (and remember that there is no moral attachment to sex in non-human animals; for example, dolphins rape each other all the time in the wild).</blockquote>

== '''SECTION 8: MORE ON “CONSENT”: PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL WITH REGARD TO “CONSENT”''' ==
In section 6, I discussed why lack of “consent” cannot be used as a legitimate argument against zoosexuality. In this section, I will address other flaws with the “consent” argument.

There is something very ironic about zoosexuality, especially concerning consent. If a person eats an animal, such as a chicken nugget or a hamburger, then did that animal “consent” for you to eat it? Of course not; yet it is acceptable by society. More that 90% of the world population eats meat, yet it is estimated that the number of zoosexuals is quite small. This brings up an interesting point; does eating a chicken nugget mean you are having non-consensual oral sex with an animal? Why are people criticized for having sex with animals, but not criticized for eating them? I bet that many of the animal rights activists who condemn zoosexuality eat meat regularly without even thinking about it. Having sex with an animal '''can''' involve consent, whereas slaughtering an animal and eating its meat '''does not''' involve the animal’s consent. The same can be said for hunting.

Just remember: when cows are slaughtered and turned into a hamburgers, did those cows '''consent''' to be killed? '''Of course not.'''

Here is a quote which reflects this hypocrisy:
''“At first I went for the obvious ‘the animal can’t give consent’ argument, but in retrospect it is an incredibly weak and absurd argument. We generally don’t '''treat''' animals as conscious beings – we treat them as resources and as such, we almost never delegate human morals and rights onto animals which is why, in the grand majority of cases, we don’t care about consent.''
<blockquote>
''Anything which we use animals for [i.e. animal exploitation] – whether it be food, entertainment or medical tests – we don’t ask for their consent. We don’t care. When we forcefully breed two horses or when we forcefully jam a pipe in into a mare’s womb to forcefully inseminate it – we again don’t care what they think or whether they give consent to it. We treat them as property. A dog [or a pig] has as much say in whether he is eaten or whether he wants to take a walk.''
</blockquote>
''Basically, when someone gives me the consent argument, I honestly doubt he goes home and hopes that the steak he’s about to eat came from a consenting animal.”'' — al4674, www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.386959-In-this-day-and-age-why-is-bestiality-still-illegal-or-even-immoral<ref>Section 8 citation about hypocrisy <nowiki>https://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.386959-In-this-day-and-age-why-is-bestiality-still-illegal-or-even-immoral</nowiki></ref>
It is important to remember that good zoosexual people '''understand''' that an animal has a right to consent or not consent (by using signals and body language). Zoosexuals understand that animals are sentient and conscious beings just like humans. Zoosexuals also have compassion and respect for animals and understand that non-human animals have '''rights''' just like humans.

However, slaughterhouse people '''do not care''' about the animal’s consent and '''do not care''' about the animal’s rights; they slaughter animals to exploit them for financial gains (to them, animals are only objects which can be exploited). While zoosexuals genuinely respect the rights of animals and love animals, people who slaughter animals have '''no respect''' for animals. Ultimately, having sex with an animal can be ethical (and usually is ethical), whereas slaughtering an animal and creating a premature death for an animal is '''never''' ethical. (Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to realize this; they support the slaughterers by eating their meat, and condemn the zoosexuals for no rational reason). Most non-zoosexual people are '''selfish''' and only care about what benefits themselves; they eat meat in order to take nutrients from animals and make themselves stronger, and they condemn bestiality because it doesn’t benefit them or directly impact them (so this enables them to criticize it as much as they want). Also, society has brainwashed them into hating it.
[[File:T1larg.ground-beef.ts.jpg|thumb| ''animals do not consent to be slaughtered and used as meat for selfish human purposes.'']]

I am often amazed at people’s '''failure''' to understand the hypocrisy of eat meat while simultaneously condemning bestiality. Maybe they’re not intelligent enough to understand it. The typical response to the “meat hypocrisy” from the average person generally sounds like this: “you’re supposed to kill and eat animals, and you’re ''not'' supposed to have sex with them” (along with the usual array of ignorant, hateful words like “sick”, “depraved”, “disgusting” etc.) They often argue that eating meat is “natural” while bestiality isn’t (which, as already discussed, is completely incorrect; lions eating meat in the wild in natural, but the way humans slaughter animals on such a massive scale is NOT natural; in addition, don’t forget the fact that interspecies sex is natural). What the ignorant “zoo-haters” fail to realize is that it is '''completely hypocritical''' to condemn bestiality for lack of “consent” while at the same time eating the meat of animals who obviously never consented to be slaughtered. In addition, they fail to realize that the amount of pain and suffering required to create a hamburger is '''far greater''' than the “pain” and “suffering” caused by bestiality (and usually '''there is no''' pain and suffering involved in bestiality). Here is a quote regarding this issue (about a report of a “molested” dog); the following quote is a response to an ignorant anti-zoophile:<blockquote>''You [an anti-zoophile] missed his point, the point was you can’t have it both ways with an abuse/cruelty definition. First of all the dog [which the man had sex with] was uninjured, they found no injuries at all and she was well cared for. Secondly, if you define this act (bestiality) as automatic abuse then you MUST define eating meat, eggs, milk and cheese as exactly the same since all of those items always result in pain, discomfort and death of the animals involved. Those who sit there eating a ham sandwich or eggs with sausage while screaming ‘abuse!!! abuse!!’ [against the zoophile] in the defendant’s case here are blind hypocrites. Any expose’ video on youtube showing what goes on every day in factory farms, slaughterhouses and meat packing plants will prove that tens of thousands of animals a day die horrible deaths after horrible lives jammed into cages due to the want for max profits.[...]''

''Cattle are dehorned and castrated and other surgery done on them with no anesthesia, rodeo horses are beaten, kicked and given electric shocks to make them “buck”, the list goes on and all of that is LEGAL! [And it shouldn't be legal] [...]''

'''''Bestiality PALES in comparison [to slaughter]!''' you should be reserving all this anger, outrage and hate for livestock ranchers and slaughterhouses [instead of aiming it at zoophiles], and put them [the slaughterhouses] all out of business if you '''REALLY''' care about stopping animal abuse as you claim!”'' — Furry2, <nowiki>http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/metairie_man_admitted_to_havin/1952/comments-3.html</nowiki><ref>Furry2 http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/metairie_man_admitted_to_havin/1952/comments-3.html</ref></blockquote>

Here is a quote which relates to the above point:

<blockquote>''“While I figured the consent argument would come up more, people are more subscribed to the position that sex with animals is harmful to animals. First of all, how is it harmful? Is it more harmful that forcefully inseminating a female horse to act as a live breeding machine, which as a practice is ultra common? We’re basically raping them already.''

''But even if I grant you that it is harmful – why should we care? Considering how we systematically kill and torture animals for the sake of our comfort, pleasure and lifestyle – it would be outright hypocritical to utter any condemning remark against zoophiles.''

''Having sex with an animal is detrimental to the animal? So? Being suspended in a factory in a certain position for 6 months to ensure maximum production of meat is '''far more''' detrimental to the animal [than having sex with it]. How about medical tests? How about forcefully training a bear to ride a bike? I mean, of all the things you can object to – you object to the one that is arguably one of the least harmful things that can happen to an animal [having sex with it].''

''All of these things are done to give us and preserve pleasure. We exploit, kill and torture animals anyway and we don’t care. If there’s a meat factory next to our houses, we don’t care about the systematic torture and death that happens there. Why would we then care what some guy and his horse do on his ranch?”'' — al4674, <nowiki>http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.386959-In-this-day-and-age-why-is-bestiality-still-illegal-or-even-immoral</nowiki><ref>al4674 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.386959-In-this-day-and-age-why-is-bestiality-still-illegal-or-even-immoral</ref></blockquote>

And below is a quote by a meat-eater who acknowledges his unethical-ness and hypocrisy:<blockquote>''“Because [sex with sheep] is not OK, is it? And yet eating them is. And what I cannot figure out, try as I might, is why one [eating meat] should be so permissible as to be unremarkable, and the other [sex with animals] not permissible at all.''

''It doesn’t have to be sheep. By the time you read this, many, many animals will have been festively and delightfully consumed. Here and across the world, and many of them by me. From the annual American Thanksgiving turkey genocide (45 million, they say, each November) to the endless roll-call of cows, pigs, chickens and everything else slaughtered thereafter. Gutted, stuffed, dressed, roasted, gnawed, binned. Imagine them all, rising up now, as a farmyard zombie horde, dragging themselves limblessly, or at least meatlessly, out of landfill. Reforming themselves like Ted Hughes’s Iron Man, perhaps, out of a thousand discarded sandwiches. And imagine their bleats, gobbles and moos could coalesce into intelligible noise. What would they be saying? [Would they say] “Aaat leeeast you didn’t shaaag me instead…” — No, [they wouldn't say that].[...]''

''What I would like us to do, though, is be more aware of the generally utilitarian nature of our ethics. We eat them because we want to, and we figure out the morality afterwards as best we can. If indeed we even do. To be honest, increasingly I don’t.[...] Is this dreadful hypocrisy? I think it is. I have killed animals, after all.[...] [I unethically exploit and kill animals] and I suspend any sort of guilt about this, moreover, because I can, and because succumbing to it would just be so damn inconvenient.”'' — H.R., <nowiki>http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/hugo-rifkind/9106232/why-is-eating-sheep-acceptable-and-shagging-them-not/</nowiki><ref>Spectator http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/hugo-rifkind/9106232/why-is-eating-sheep-acceptable-and-shagging-them-not/</ref></blockquote>

The above quote reminds us that people do things that are far worse to animals than having sex with them — and yet those activities (such as killing them and eating them) are legal — why? Ultimately, ethical zoosexual acts should '''not''' be prohibited by law, and acts which '''are''' detrimental to animal’s welfare (such as killing them) should be '''banned'''. Yet the opposite of this is true in many places (which is irrational, unethical and hypocritical). In fact, in Indiana ethically having sex with an animal is a felony, but torturing and killing an animal in a decompression chamber is only a misdemeanor. I think that says something about how completely f**ked up our legal system is.

Anti-zoosexual people will often counter-argue that killing animals and eating their meat is “natural” and “necessary” to human survival. This is '''not true'''; there are plenty of vegetarian people who live healthy lives without ever eating meat — and their lifespans are pretty long. And it is absurd to claim that massive industrialized slaughterhouses are “natural”. Even if eating meat is intrinsically “natural”, that alone does not justify doing it — and it certainly doesn’t make it “better” than having sex with an animal.

The following quote comes from another source addressing this issue:<blockquote>''“If it was legal to have sex with animals, I would choose not to, but as a truth seeker I have to ask: Why aren’t people allowed to have sex with animals? Typically people think it’s illegal because it’s a horrible thing to do or because it harms animals that obviously can’t give consent. If you think that bestiality should be illegal because it’s disgusting, then why would you support free speech or freedom of religion? I could say things that would disgust you or practice a faith that might disgust you, yet most of you would probably not try to forcibly prevent me from speaking or worshiping however I wish. We tolerate speech that disgusts us because we know that we are morally fallible and that it doesn’t hurt anyone[...] Because we recognize that we [humans] are all flawed and all capable of error, we allow people to do and say whatever they want so long as it does not harm others. What makes bestiality any different?''

''The single limitation on freedom – the ‘so long as it does not harm others’ part – leads into the second possible justification for bestiality being illegal: It harms animals, but they can’t consent to it. This statement is inconsistent with United States law and most of our lifestyles. Can animals consent to being owned? Can animals consent to being slaughtered? Do those actions not harm them? If animals deserve protection from the harm of humans, then we would have to make it illegal to consume any animal product or own a pet or go hunting. Animals can’t give consent to these activities, and yet all of them are harmful[...]''

''It’s uncomfortable to be faced with this hypocrisy in the law, but legalizing bestiality shouldn’t be scary. History has shown us that alcohol prohibition didn’t stop people drinking, that censorship doesn’t stop people from speaking out, and that banning prostitution and pornography doesn’t prevent people from finding pornographic material or prostitutes in a black market. Banning things does not prevent them from happening; it only punishes people for their choices. Making bestiality legal probably won’t cause people to suddenly start having sex with animals, because those who feel the urge and need to do that probably already do. So who benefits from keeping it illegal? No one, really. And the amount of benefit animals receive from bestiality being illegal is almost negligible in comparison.''

''Animal husbandry, hunting, slaughterhouse factories, animal pageants and pet shows, dog fighting, bestiality[...] I charge that anyone who would ban [bestiality] without banning [slaughterhouses, hunting, etc.] is being inconsistent and hypocritical. Hypocrisy in the law cannot be tolerated, regardless of how relevant that law is to our lives.”''– Lucas Wachob, <nowiki>http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html</nowiki><ref>Lucas Wachob http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html</ref></blockquote>
[[File:Did you ask permission by zetaliberation-d4p0jgy.jpg|thumb]]

Below is a quote from Debate.com emphasizing the logical fallacies of “consent”:<blockquote>''“I am fully aware that the idea of “informed consent” in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.''

''In practice what is meant by “informed consent” is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement. For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. This is implied consent but cannot be informed consent.''

''The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, and attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities.''

''If in the “eyes of the law” no animal can ever consent, then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape. I consider the above a valid form of '''Reductio ad absurdum'''[...] “Informed consent” is morally and legally inapplicable to [non-human] animals.[...]''

''Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How can observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species be reconciled with [the notion that animals cannot "consent" to sex with beings outside of their species]? [...]''

''The relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. No other moral standard shall be accepted.[...] The fact that law has traditionally defined “consent” in a manner that makes it impossible for animals to demonstrate it in court is irrelevant.[...]''

''Saying X should be legal/moral does not mean everything that belongs in that category is legal/moral; it means that something should not be illegal or immoral because it is X.[...] Therefore the [above] resolution does not mean that every act of bestiality is moral and should be legal, but that an act of bestiality is not immoral and should not be illegal solely because it is an act of bestiality.”'' — ADreamofLiberty,<nowiki>http://www.debate.org/debates/Bestiality-Zoophilia-should-be-legal-and-is-not-inherently-immoral/10/</nowiki></blockquote>Also, consider what Brian Cuttridge has to say about this issue:<blockquote>''“Animals do not have legally recognized rights in our society[...] the manner in which animals are actually treated in our society demonstrates that such rights are not recognized either de facto or de jure. Addressing the purported purposes of anti-zoophilia statutes, Daniel writes, ‘as for only protecting animals because they cannot consent, the truth is that animals, particularly domestic ones, don’t consent to most of the things that happen to them.’ As detailed above, animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than an act of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the ‘right’ of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law.”'' —<nowiki>http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf</nowiki><ref>Brian Cuttridge http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf</ref></blockquote>

So ultimately, consider the fact that many of the things humans do to animals (like slaughtering them for meat, artificially inseminating them, neutering them, experimenting on them, hunting and killing them, etc) do '''not''' involve their consent, and yet they are largely accepted by society. Yet when it comes to sex, all of a sudden people say that consent matters. This is '''extreme hypocrisy''' because many of those same people support activities which do not involve the animal’s consent (neutering, slaughtering, hunting, etc). And remember, the odds of an animal “consenting” to have sex with a human are '''far greater''' than an animal’s “consent” to be artificially inseminated, slaughtered, killed, hunted, physically altered, or experimented on.

As I said earlier, it amazes me that so many people don’t understand their own hypocrisy regarding their position on “consent”; they ignorantly say “eating something doesn’t equal f**king something”. '''But that’s not the point.''' People who disregard an animal’s consent (in terms of slaughter, hunting, neutering, etc) but do NOT disregard an animal’s consent with regard to sex (and demand that an animal “consent” only when sex is involved) are ignorant and hypocritical. They are subscribing to a fallacious double-standard. People should NOT allow things that '''really''' violate an animals’ consent (such as slaughter, hunting etc) and they '''should''' allow zoosexual acts because the probability of an animal consenting to have sex is far higher than the probability of it consenting to be slaughtered/hunted/neutered etc.

In addition to the “consent” issue, people should realize acts which really harm animals (such as slaughter, hunting, vivisection etc) are '''far more unethical''' than zoosexual acts because they cruelly destroy the lives of animals who have a '''right''' to live out their lives — and this destruction of animal’s lives is done in order exploit them for money and selfish human purposes. In contrast, zoosexual people place the animal’s welfare above their own, treat animals as equal (to humans), and have compassion for them. Acts such as slaughter should be banned, and ethical zoosexual acts should '''not''' be banned. Remember, every year '''billions and billions''' of animals ruthlessly killed for arrogant, selfish humans — many of these animals are kept in cruel, hellish, agonizing conditions “behind closed doors” in massive factories before being slaughtered. Instead of prosecuting innocent zoosexual people, people '''should''' be prosecuting slaughterers and hunters (and people who actually harm animals). People should stop eating meat and start becoming '''vegetarian or vegan'''.

It should be pointed out that the term “informed consent” is a '''red herring''' (and a “smokescreen”) used by anti-zoosexual people all the time, even though most of those same anti-zoosexual people eat the meat of animals who never gave “informed consent” to be slaughtered, and keep pets the never gave “informed consent” to be spayed/neutered and kept confined in a home. The “informed consent” argument is illogical and is used as a “mask” by the anti-zoosexuals to hide their underlying prejudice towards bestiality.

Keep in mind that the “consent” argument used by anti-zoosexual people is a fallacy and a falsehood. For example, remember that gorillas can learn sign language — so if a gorilla knew sign language and told a human via sign language that he/she wanted to have sexual intercourse with that human, that would be unquestionable consent.

But this issue goes beyond just sign language. And as I said before, there are many instances in which it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an animal is “consenting” to sex with a human (for example, if a woman is in a doggy-style position and a dog [with its own free will] penetrates her from behind). And also consider the fact that animals in the wild have sex with each other all the time '''without ever speaking a human word'''. When a lion in the wild has sex with another lion, the lions don’t think about “consent” — they just ''have sex''. One lion does not say to the other lion, “can I have sex with you?” Thus, it is too anthropocentric (and irrational) for humans to “apply” and/or “expect” a non-human animal to “consent” to sex. With regard to sexual activity, “consent” is not a meaningful concept for non-human animals.

The quote below was made regarding interspecies sex in nature:<blockquote>''“What most people don’t understand is that animals simply look at it as sex. It’s not “dirty”, it’s not “rape”, it’s just what a male and a female do regardless. We human’s put all our own meanings onto something that to [non-human] animals is just sex. We [humans] have our own reasons for treating sex they way we do, but it only matters to us.”'' — JARM13, zetaliberation.deviantart.com/art/Interspecies-sex-290250406</blockquote>Essentially, consent takes many forms — verbal human communication is just one of method of expressing consent. The notion that a non-human animal must “consent” in a human-centric way is arrogant, speciesist and irrational.

And as already discussed, a non-human animal is far more likely to non-verbally “consent” to sex than it is to “consent” to acts which are far more harmful and detrimental to animals (such as slaughter, hunting, etc.) If a person is trying to have sex with a stallion and the stallion doesn’t like it, the stallion can seriously injure or even kill the human if it wanted to. A pig in a slaughterhouse has no such freedom — it cannot “decide” whether to be slaughtered. A person who slaughters a pig does not ask for the pig’s “consent” or “approval” when slaughtering it. This is one of the reasons why slaughter (and other acts which '''really''' harm animals) should be '''banned''', and acts which do '''not''' harm animals (such as ethical zoosexual acts) should be '''allowed'''.

Before moving on to the next section, read this quote:<blockquote>''“An overly used argument against bestiality is consent, that animals cannot consent to it and therefore it should not be allowed. Well why do we not think of consent when we use animals for laboratory testing, artificial insemination, when we hunt them for sport, castrate and even slaughter them for animal meat? Some of these things are far more barbaric than intercourse. In fact, mere “trivialities” like locking up animals and leashing them — do we really believe animals consent to them? If these things were done to humans it would be labeled murder, kidnap, abuse, cannibalism, but when it comes to animals it’s simply a norm, a so called order of the day. And so don’t you think [applying] this issue of consent only when it comes to zoophilia is plainly hypocritical and solely based on prejudice than on morality?''

''Besides, I am talking about zoophilia and not zoosadism or anything of that sort, my attention drawn specifically to cases in which a human maintains a'''romantic relationship with an animal''', in which he or she forms both '''emotional and intimate attachments''' to the animal and is '''concerned about the animal’s welfare'''. It is no news that animals do enjoy these things. Some even initiate these intimate practices, sometimes signaled by the occasional hump on the human’s back. Moreover, consent means to show '''approval''', and what does willingness to engage in the act signal if not approval? Does it really have to be verbal?''

''I even have a vague recollection of a psychologist who said she had conducted extensive research on the nervous system and found feelings of love and affection to be produced in a very primitive part of the brain, one very much present in animals. Hence it is not unreasonable to conclude that animals experience feelings of love, that they can focus all their intimate energy on one individual. In simpler terms, she claims it is possible for animals to fall in love. And in the case of zoophilia, well, even with a human being. [Humans are animals too]''

''We should also not be quick to forget the golden rule, that '''one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself'''. And so I ask, is it not fair to allow people freely express themselves like we ourselves do? Psychopathy and paraphilic disorders are limited to cases in which “'''distress''' is caused to the individual and harm done to others”. In cases of zoophilia, where nothing of that sort is accounted for, can we still say we have a right to call such people “sick” and stop them from being happy?”'' — “Nobody”, <nowiki>http://www.nairaland.com/1277894/issue-morality-bestiality-athiests-freethinkers</nowiki><ref>Nairaland http://www.nairaland.com/1277894/issue-morality-bestiality-athiests-freethinkers</ref></blockquote>

== '''SECTION 9: IRRATIONAL SPECIESISM''' ==
Earlier, I discussed the flawed belief held by many religions, especially monotheistic religions such as Christianity, which proclaims that humans are set “above” all other non-human animals. The reason this argument is '''irrational''' is because humans '''are''' animals. In fact, we share 98% of our DNA with Apes and we share 75% of our DNA with dogs. Many of the religious dogmas and doctrines were created thousands of years ago, long before the discovery of DNA and the scientific method. Back then, there were many things that were poorly understood and mysterious, but that is today well understood. Because of this, it is irrational for people to base their beliefs on archaic ideas of humans being “superior” to non-human animals. If humans are considered to be animals, then it would rationally follow that there would be nothing wrong with having sex with certain kinds of animals.

The idea that humans are “higher” than other animals is known as '''speciesism'''. Coined by Richard D. Ryder, it is similar to the terms “racism” and “sexism” and refers to a bias among humans towards the homo sapian species over other species. The speciesism barrier may be the last barrier that humanity has yet to break. Speciesism explains why people eat other animals without their consent and yet condemn zoosexuality. It also seems to explain why throughout history humans have arrogantly thought of themselves as being “superior” over non-human animals, and why people focus on the best interests of humans, but not other animals. Perhaps this is why “environmentalism” as we know it has only developed quite recently (historically); for most of history, humans only saw animals for what they could provide for humans. If an ox could carry a load, it was good. If a goat could provide meat, it was good. But zoosexuality did not seem to serve a purpose because it did not result in any offspring.

The concept of “speciesism” is closely related to the “human exceptionalism” belief, and it is also related to '''anthropocentrism''' (also known as “human supremacy”), which is the arrogant belief that humans are the most significant things in the universe (which is completely false; after all, on a cosmic scale the Earth is equivalent to a grain of sand on a beach — a tiny speck of matter lost in the incomprehensibly vast universe. Humans are therefore trivial and insignificant, even though they ''think'' they’re important).

Speciesism, “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism are irrational, visceral, knee-jerk beliefs which are described in the following quote:<blockquote>''“[An argument for banning sex with animals] is that crossing the species barrier has been a sexual taboo in our country, at least publicly, for many years. Opponents of bestiality often describe themselves as advocates of ‘human exceptionalism’ and express the belief that intercourse with animals debases the dignity of human beings by blurring the lines between people and animals. They fail to explain why sex is unique in this matter — why playing Frisbee with a dog, or eating a corned beef sandwich does not also blur such boundaries[...] The burden should be placed upon the prohibitionists to explain why a small minority of individuals with non-mainstream sexual interests pose a threat to our overall societal welfare. [Kinsey's research suggests that] there are a considerable number of zoophiles. Needless to say, public animosity — and criminal statutes — likely keep them in the shadows[...] The test of a truly enlightened civilization is one that lets people alone, to pursue their own predilections, even when the majority of us prefer to live our lives differently.”'' –<nowiki>http://w w w.opposingviews . com/i/three-reasons-society-shouldn-t-rush-to-condemn-bestiality</nowiki></blockquote>People who are '''speciesist''' often erroneously believe that human like is more “valuable” than non-human life. '''This is not true'''. A human’s life is just as “valuable” as a dog’s life; '''ALL''' life is valuable. This concept only applies to “higher-order” creatures (such as humans, dogs, cats, elephants, dolphins, bonobos, gorillas, lions, birds, reptiles, sharks, fish, etc) and not to things like bacteria or viruses. So, in general, the value of a human’s life ought to be considered as the '''same''' value as that of an elephant or dog (this is something that speciesists do not believe in). Speciesists tend to ignore the fact that humans '''are''' animals. Unfortunately, the arrogant beliefs of speciesists have been embedded into the law in many places (and so the punishment for killing a human is far more severe than killing a dog because human life is thought of as more “valuable”, even though it isn’t. The punishment for ''any'' killing, whether it is a human, dog, elephant, etc, should be severe [but this is not reflected in speciesist laws]).

In any case, philosopher Peter Singer is a well-known for criticizing speciesism and has argued that human sexual relations with animals '''can be acceptable''' so long as the animal isn’t harmed; here is a quote by him:<blockquote>''“Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with dogs? Probably not. Sex with animals is definitely still taboo[...] The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. [According to religions], humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals — maintains this separation.[...] The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.[...] Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”'' — Peter Singer, ''Heavy Petting''</blockquote>Of course, due to the taboo nature of zoosexuality and social stigma surrounding it, if anyone seems to advocate it, they are instantly criticized; which is what happened to Peter Singer. However, despite being criticized, Peter Singer does bring up the point that humans should not be so “human-centric”; this concept is part of a greater concept known as the “animal liberation” movement, and zoosexuality has been seen as part of that movement (assuming that the zoosexuality goes along with Peter Singer’s idea of a “mutually beneficial” relationship between humans and animals).

[[File:D2pdrg7-20314b00-5775-438f-9ab8-97880e84d4e7.gif|left|thumb|''animated GIF image; the label of “species” is a human-invented construction (an artificial construct); It only describes and classifies individuals in terms of whether they are different or similar. Beings should not be discriminated against based on what species they belong to'']]

====== Here is an example of speciesism being counteracted: ======
<blockquote>''[Question: "Do you think that having/wanting to have "regular" sex (human to human), or even being attracted to humans as well as animals makes you less of a [zoosexual person]?” — Sweetallis]''

''[Response to question by Zqwm7:] “A person that has zoosexual feelings but also feelings for humans is not “less zoosexual” because humans ARE animals. Thus, anyone who has feelings for humans is technically a zoosexual, though most people don’t think of it this way.''

''If one thinks in a less anthropocentric way, one can see that humans really aren’t that different from other animals. For example, if a person is sexually attracted to horses, dogs, humans, pigs and goats, it is important to understand that (from that person’s perspective) humans are one of the animal species that that person is attracted to. Thus, it does not mean that the person is “less zoo”.''

''The only reason terms like “zoosexuality” have arisen (to specifically refer to non-human animals) is because our society is so hostile and intolerant of any interspecies relations between humans and other species. But ultimately, if one realizes that humans are themselves an animal species, then it should be understood that a person who is attracted to multiple species (which may or may not include humans) is not any more or less “zoo” than a person who happens to be more attracted to horses than dogs.''

''The flawed philosophical platform called “human exceptionalism” is the arrogant, irrational and delusional belief that humans are “superior” to (and separate from) other animals. True zoos [zoosexual people] should despise this belief.”'' — <nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-205589-15.html</nowiki></blockquote>The above quote reminds us that some zoosexual people are attracted only to non-human animals and that some zoosexual people are attracted to non-human animals AND humans — but remember that because humans ARE animals, a person who is attracted to dogs and humans is just as “zoosexual” as a person who is attracted to dogs and elephants (all of them are animals).

== '''SECTION 10: ZOOSEXUALITY, ETHICS, AND THE NONEXISTENT PEDO CONNECTION''' ==
Zoosexuality '''does not''' count as “animal cruelty”. A small minority of zoosexuals are “zoosadists” with the intent to harm the animal, but the rest (the majority) have '''no intention''' of hurting the animal. Also, animal cruelty in the form of butchering animals for human consumption goes unchecked on a massive scale every day and yet it is not condemned (at least in a taboo-ish way) the way zoosexuality is. The important thing to remember is that animals can “consent” to sex by displaying certain non-verbal behaviors.

Those against zoosexuality often argue that sex with animals automatically harms the animal based on physiology. When people make this claim, they are usually referring to all animals; however, they are '''incorrect'''. Certain species '''are capable''' of having sex with humans, and certain species are not (based on their size compatibility). It is logical that forcing an animal physically incapable of having sex with a human to have sex with a human is an act of [[zoosadism]]. However, there is '''nothing unethical''' about humans who have sex with large dogs, horses, goats, dolphins, and other creatures that are large enough to be physically compatible with humans. Because large animals are unlikely to be injured or harmed by having sex with a human, such relations '''are ethical'''.

Zoosexuality has never been officially acceptable anywhere, and thus no rules were ever set in place to determine which species were capable of having sex with humans and which weren’t. According to the Internet, the most common animals involved in zoosexual activity are large dogs, horses, donkeys, goats, and pigs, to name a few. Based solely on this information, it would be rational to conclude that humans '''are capable''' of having sex with a few species, and that such interactions are ethical. Hopefully, society will realize that some forms of zoosexual activity (i.e. with large animals) are ethical and that some forms of zoosexual activity (i.e. with small animals) are not ethical. In any case, the argument that animals are incapable of sexual activity due to physiology is not a good argument because it is validated by certain species, yet doesn’t work with others.

Another argument against zoosexuality is the claim that zoosexuality is linked to pedophilia – a claim that is '''false'''. This claim is made by Rep Nan Rich of Florida, who has tried to make sex with animals illegal in Florida numerous times. Here is a quote from browardpalmbeach.com:<blockquote>''“Senator Rich’s press secretary, when asked to supply the scientific evidence backing her claims in the media about the connections between sex with animals and pedophilia, furnished a list of researchers, including Christopher Hensley, a professor at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga. But like those cited by Unti, Hensley’s studies treat all human sex with animals as rape, based on the assumption that an animal cannot consent. However, his study was confined to prison inmates — an unusually violent demographic. [...]''

''When told of Senator Rich’s remarks about people who commit bestiality being a threat to children, [[Hani Miletski|Miletski]] [a researcher] says, ‘I think it’s real bullshit for people to say that. There’s no connection that we know of. If you said that to Zoos (zoosexuals), they would be so offended.’ That’s because [[Hani Miletski|Milketski]] says nearly all the zoophiles she interviewed expressed moral revulsion towards animals that had not fully matured. In this respect, she says, they recognize the same values that underlie laws against statutory rape. [[Hani Miletski|Miletski]] and a researcher based in Germany, [[Andrea Beetz|Andrea Beetz,]] who conducted a similar large survey, argue that zoophiles are distinguished by their emotional relationship to the animals they love. Because they care for them, they would never consciously inflict pain upon them, even for their own pleasure. ”''–Broward Palm Beach bestiality article (page 2) and Broward Palm Beach bestiality article (page 4))</blockquote>In an article published in 2013 entitled ''“Understanding zoosexuality: Prevalence, Impact, and Links to Criminal Behavior”'', the author of the blatantly anti-zoosexual article denigrates zoosexual people and makes slanderous and unfounded claims that zoosexual people are more “likely” to be violent and abuse children, even though her “sample” disproportionately represents only a few zoosadists — the sample is erroneous and does not reflect the silent majority of zoosexual people (AKA the ethical majority). The author treats her dubious “sample” as “fact” and then makes the erroneous and fallacious claim that there is a “link” between zoosexual people and unrelated crimes (she completely ignores the fact that correlation '''does not''' equal causation).

It is worth noting that the author of the above mentioned article is '''Jenny Edwards''', a known anti-zoosexual bigot with a hateful and intolerant anti-zoosexual agenda. She is the founder of “Chandler Edwards”, an anti-zoosexual organization whose sole purpose is to bully zoosexual people. The Chandler Edwards group is an anti-zoosexual hate group which is masquerading as a legitimate “do-good” group. The organization has the '''appearance''' of being legit, but it is '''not''' (it pretends to be a “do-good” organization, and while doing this it simultaneously has an insidious mission to ruin the lives of zoosexual people and their animal lovers). Also, the Chandler Edwards group manufactures anti-zoosexual propaganda (such as the above-mentioned article) in order to satisfy (and “justify”) the anti-zoosexual prejudices of other anti-zoo haters. Jenny Edwards is on an irrational crusade to condemn zoosexuality through whatever means. Her writings are tainted by her anti-zoosexual bias. She is known in the online zoosexual community as a fear-mongering zoophobic bigot. (See this link” and this link” for information on how she and others have discriminated against zoosexual people). Here are quotes regarding her discriminatory article:<blockquote>''“I find the article appalling and offensive. It is clear that [she] has an anti-zoosexual agenda and had an anti-zoosexual prejudice before she even began writing it. In other words, she is creating academic documents which support the bigoted belief that all zoosexual acts should be criminalized (this is appalling). The author is attempting to slander zoosexuals and denigrate them by associating them with bad things (such as violence, etc.)''

''I am also angered by the fact that this person claims there are “links” between zoosexual acts and unethical unrelated crimes such as violence. They are lies and deceptions created in order to denigrate zoosexuals and justify their hatred and intolerance of them. They don’t really care about the animal’s welfare — all they care about is criminalizing zoosexuality because of their irrational prejudices and speciesism. [If they really cared about animal welfare, they would be vegetarian and stop using animal products, and they don't do that].”'' — Zqwm7

''“[Jenny Edwards] strikes me as another prude who thinks she knows how to run people’s lives better than they do. As long as no one else is getting hurt '''who the hell cares???!!!???''' What happens in my bed or barn is between me and my consenting [non-human] partner. This is the same type of person who pushed for prohibition and the war on drugs. And look how f**king well that turned out.''

''Anti-zoo’s with accredited academic backing pose a stronger threat than Joe Six-Pack purely because more people in power are willing to listen to them based on that academic backing.''

''Also her entire premise is bullshit. Correlation does not equal causation. Any halfway decent '''real''' scientist can tell you that.[...]“'' — 421equinophilo421

''“[The statistic missing from her study] are people [such as ethical zoosexual people]. The man or women who lives in complete peace with the animal mate of their life. The mate who brings them happiness to them and they to them. [These people are not accounted for in her study]. They '''are not'''criminals, they are conscientious objectors to the law.''

''Academics can help to show that some humans throughout history have had an affinity for animals. Where [people such as Jenny Edwards fail] is that having an affection for an animal doesn’t mean they [abuse] children. What they need to understand is someone like me finds [non-human] animals more attractive than my own species, [and finds mature animals attractive].”'' — Beastlover888</blockquote>(above three quotes source: <nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-231984.html</nowiki> )

It is worth noting that the “silent majority” of zoosexual people are people such as those on Beastforum.com who ethically have sex with animals but are too fearful to reveal it to anyone (they hide in the closet to avoid being prosecuted by unjust and discriminatory laws) — because they hide, they remain invisible (while the few [[Zoosadism|zoosadists]] who are caught and exposed leave people with the erroneous and incorrect perception that ALL [[Zoosexual|zoosexuals]] are like that, since those zoosadists are the only one they hear about — this often causes people to create unfair anti-zoosexual laws). Hence, flawed and inaccurate studies such as those of Christopher Hensley and Jenny Edwards (ignorant anti-zoosexual bigots).

Based on this information, it would appear that there is a pre-determined bias by people to automatically consider zoosexuality to be wrong. In sociology, one of the goals is to get a good sampling of people. It is clear that in this case (the first paragraph in the above quote), a good sample was not obtained because the sample was only of prison inmates; a better sample would’ve involved a more diverse sampling of different kinds of people. This is an example of how misconceptions about zoosexuality are spread – people interpret data incorrectly, and then that misinterpretation is repeated on the Internet as fact (even though it isn’t true) and eventually the mainstream public accepts it as fact even though it isn’t.

If an alien from another planet wanted to find out what the human species was like and only observed prisoners and inmates, those aliens would leave Earth with a pretty grim image of humans. Likewise, making the claim that zoosexuals are likely to be child abusers based on prisoner data seems flawed.

After reading the <nowiki>http://www.browardpalmbeach.com</nowiki> article (see link at bottom) and Scientific Article (see link at bottom), I’ve come to the conclusion that '''zoosexuals have no connection with pedophiles'''; the only reason people think people think there is a connection is because of ignorance, rumors, misinterpreted data, and misconceptions spread by the media. (For more information, see this link<ref>http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/zoosexuality-zoophilia-is-not-similiar-to-pedophilia</ref>.) Additionally, as the above quote demonstrates, zoosexuality involves '''mature animals'''. For example, according to onlineconversion.com, a dog that is 10 years old is equivalent to a 53-year-old human. In contrast to this, pedophilia involves immature humans, which is why it should always be illegal.

Read this quote:<blockquote>''“There is a pro-active movement going on among the anti-bestiality crusaders to deliberately confuse bestiality with child abuse. There is also a growing fantasy that zoophiles ‘all know each other’ and form some kind of hidden secret society where we go around raping and molesting each others’ ‘poor innocent animals.’''

''These vigilantes are fond of quoting the flawed studies that purport to show that a majority of sex offenders started out abusing animals. The flaw most often pointed out is that the studies begin with criminals, not a random sampling of the general population. We don’t honestly know what percentage of a random sample of people who have sex with non-human partners would end up becoming sexual predators, but I suspect it wouldn’t be any different than the population at large.”'' — <nowiki>http://blog.wetgoddess.net/?p=659</nowiki><ref>http://blog.wetgoddess.net/?p=659</ref></blockquote>In any case, it is '''not logical''' and '''not rational''' to lump zoosexuals together with people who abuse minors; it is along the same lines as lumping “caring” zoosexuals with zoosadists. Likewise, it isn’t fair to lump respectable married humans into the same category as rapists.

Essentially, the belief that zoosexuals are “linked” to pedophiles is a '''delusional fallacy''' and is '''incorrect'''. Most people who are sexually attracted to animals are attracted to '''mature''' animals (the word “animal” includes both humans and non-humans). In other words, the vast majority of zoosexuals are attracted to '''mature''' animals (animals who have reached adulthood). In this sense, zoosexuals have the same aversion to pedo-oriented sexuality that most people have. When people bring up the (non-existent) pedo “link”, it is highly offensive to most zoosexuals.

Here is a quote regarding the unfair attitudes people have towards zoosexuality:<blockquote>''“Some people can be zoophobic much like some people are homophobic. This attitude is based on subjectivism and emotivism – subjective and emotional feelings – not on rational consideration. Zoophiles, however, maintain that they have loving relationships with their partner animals and do not feel that what they do is immoral. Zoophiles insist that zoosexuality is no different from human-human relationships, can last years and go beyond bare sexuality. They claim that many animals of both sexes can experience pleasure from human-made sexual acts, can solicit sexual pleasure from humans and show their appreciation.''

''Most people would surely agree that it is immoral for self-interested sexual gratification to cause an animal distress or pain, impair a young animal’s development or coerce an adult animal into unwilling acts. But responsible zoophiles would surely care for their animal partners, who must be consenting, and insure the well-being of their animals partners as part of their love.”'' — Animal Rights Encyclopedia, <nowiki>http://www.zoosavvy.com/zoophilia.html</nowiki><ref>http://www.zoosavvy.com/zoophilia.html</ref></blockquote>Some people try to link zoophiles with violence — this is bullsh*t. For example, read this quote:<blockquote>''“Prohibiting zoophilia on the basis that there '''might''' or somehow '''should''' be a casual correlation between zoophilia and interpersonal violence is unjust and violates the zoophiles’ rights to procedural due process. Even if there was a direct casual connection between zoophilia and interpersonal violence, it is extremely unlikely that the relationship would be so straightforward as to state that every zoophile is also an assaulter of humans. Prohibiting zoophilia on this basis amounts to social profiling based on sexual orientation. It assumes that all zoophiles are equally likely to commit violent crimes, and further amounts to mass detention inasmuch as it deprives them of an essential liberty (the right to engage in a private sexual activity) without first proving them guilty of the act (interpersonal violence) for which that liberty has been denied them. Such punishment is a violation of the rights of all zoophiles to due process and is a legally and morally inappropriate imposition of the state in the sphere of private affairs.”'' -–<nowiki>http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf</nowiki></blockquote>There is something that should be mentioned: it is called '''“confirmation bias”'''. Here is a definition of “confirmation bias” from a Wikipedia featured article:<blockquote>''“Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased research, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization, belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series), and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).”'' — Wikipedia: confirmation bias<ref>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/confirmation_bias</ref></blockquote>Earlier, I discussed Nan Rich, Dr. Hensley and Jenny Edwards — all of these people are tainted by '''confirmation bias''' in terms of their attitude towards zoosexuality. In other words, '''before''' they began researching they had already decided that zoosexual acts are “immoral”, and their “research” was done in order to support their pre-conceived (already existing) flawed beliefs — basically, an irrational prejudice. Their works are also tainted by “illusory correlation” in the sense that they attempt to '''falsely''' (erroneously) link and associate zoosexuality with unrelated subjects such as violence — they fail to realize that correlation does not equal causation. Their works also contain misuse of statistics (see Wikipedia article “misuse of statistics<ref>misuse of statistics http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics</ref>”).

Here is an example of a person (Dr. Mark Griffiths) displaying non-neutral confirmation bias while researching zoophilia:<blockquote>''“The author – a self-admitted [zoosexual person], makes observations (ones which I feel duty bound to point out that I don’t personally agree with)[...] As I wrote in a my previous blog on herpetophilia, the animals cannot give “informed consent”, so therefore such sexual activity is “morally wrong””'' — Dr. Mark Griffiths</blockquote>

Remember that “informed consent” is a fallacy and is morally and legally '''inapplicable''' to non-human animals (they cannot give “informed consent” to''anything''); “informed consent” is a highly anthropocentric concept and trying to apply it to non-human animals is ludicrous. “Informed consent” should only be taken into consideration in human-to-human sexual relations. (Even in human-to-human sexual contact, “informed consent” is implied/assumed and not explicitly stated (usually)).

So essentially, Nan Rich, Dr. Hensley, Jenny Edwards (and Dr. Mark Griffiths) had already made up their minds ('''prior''' to doing their research) that zoosexuality is “wrong” and “abhorrent”, and thus their works are tainted by prejudicial confirmation bias — no matter how many rational arguments in favor of zoosexuality are presented to them, and no matter how much evidence is presented to them which proves that zoosexuality is NOT wrong, they will ignore these findings and choose only the “research” which confirms their anti-zoosexual bias. This has happened in courtrooms when zoosexuals have been on trial — even though the zoosexual person’s arguments (that zoosexuality is not intrinsically “wrong” and that he/she had ethical interspecies sex) are presented, the judge and jury had '''already decided before''' he/she entered the courtroom that zoosexuality is “wrong” and “immoral” — and so even the most compelling argument presented by the zoosexual person’s defense will probably be ignored by the judge and jury (source of this irrational attitude: confirmation bias).

Before beginning the next section, I want to briefly discuss spaying and neutering (castration), as it is related to animal sexuality. Spaying and neutering are unethical and should be banned, because they violate an animal’s sexual autonomy (and violate their right to have sex) more than zoosexual acts ever could. Zoosexual acts '''do''' involve non-verbal consent, whereas spaying and neutering '''do not''' involve the animal’s consent whatsoever. People often use the “overpopulation” argument to support spaying and neutering, but if this is the case then when aren’t humans spayed and neutered? After all, humans are excessively overpopulated all over the Earth. The reason humans aren’t spayed and neutered is because people are speciesist and arrogantly and irrationally place humans in a separate “category” from other animals (an artificial construction) — and they erroneously assign different “values” to non-human animals (i.e. speciesism). People also castrate animals purely due to selfish human conveniences. People claim that animals “don’t a have a sexual identity” [a speciesist human-centric way of thinking], and therefore it is OK to castrate them — but '''that’s not the point'''. Even if a dog isn’t ''aware'' of his/her lack of sexual functions, that doesn’t mean it is right to deprive them of it, and that doesn’t mean people should do it anyway. A fish may not be aware that it is swimming in water, but that does not make it any less important to the fish.

With regard to spaying and neutering, remember the golden rule — treat others the way you would want to be treated. If you are a man, you would not want your balls to be cut off, so why is it OK to cut off a cat or dog’s balls? The answer is that it is not OK, and it is unethical; yet many people don’t realize this. In 2005 due to the “Mr. Hands” incident in Washington state, a person died due to a careless accident, but the horses involved were'''not harmed'''. In fact, had the accident not occurred, the zoosexuals would’ve continued to ethically have sex with horse(s) with no problems. But once their activities were revealed to the public, a group of arrogant, bigoted and speciesist people with an anti-zoosexual prejudice seized the horse and'''gelded''' (castrated) it. Their reason for cruelly castrating the horse was to deliberately sabotage the horse so that zoosexual people wouldn’t be able to have sex with him anymore. The people who castrated the horse claimed to be be supporting “animal rights”, but in fact they were doing the opposite: they deprived the horse of his right to have sex and experience sexual pleasure; they also interfered with the lives of good zoosexual people. These so-called “animal rights” people who gelded the horse were really wolf in sheep’s clothing, and had a malicious hatred and intolerance of zoosexual people. To them, sabotaging the lives of zoosexuals was more important than the horse’s well-being. In addition, they ruined a horse’s sexuality in order to satisfy their arrogant self-righteous delusions and anti-zoosexual agenda. Ultimately, the act of a horse having sexual intercourse with a human is '''far more ethical''' than gelding (castrating) a horse, because zoosexual sex is natural and '''within''' the horse’s sexual experiences (and pleasurable for the horse), whereas gelding '''destroys''' the horse’s ability to experience sex (which is wrong).

Laws which force animals in shelters to be spayed/neutered prior to being given to someone are completely unethical and should be repealed. At the very least, a person who wants to adopt an animal should be given a choice of whether they want their animal unaltered. Unfortunately, in some U.S. states, there is no choice (in some states an animal MUST be altered before being adopted, which is unethical and unfair to the animal). Remember that terms like “spaying”, “neutering” and “altering” are also euphemisms for “castration” and “destroying an animal’s sex organs”.

== '''SECTION 11: THE “POOR HEALTH” FALLACY / THE DIFFICULTY OF BEING ZOOSEXUAL''' ==
Another argument against zoosexuality is the argument that zoosexual activity results in poor health, perhaps initially brought on by the myth the bestiality AIDS myth. It is true that some STDs can be transmitted from an animal to a human and vice versa. But keep in mind that humans spread STDs to other humans all the time, and the same protection methods that humans use with each other (i.e. condoms) can also be used in human-animal interactions. It seems a bit unusual to say “human-human STDs should be prevented by wearing contraceptives, but human-animal STDs should be prevented by preventing the sex act altogether”. Sometimes, abstinence is offered as a way to prevent the spread of STDs in human-human contact, but it is not the only way. To summarize, the majority of people believe it is OK for two humans to have a choice of either a) abstaining from sex, b) having protected sex or c) having unprotected sex, but that same majority probably '''also''' believes that abstinence between a human and an animal is always the only option; the fact that options are offered for human-human relations but '''not''' for human-animal relations is an indicator of prejudicial beliefs and speciesism.

Here is a quote from <nowiki>http://www.mindprod.com/humanrights/taboo.html</nowiki> relating to zoosexuality and health:<blockquote>''“Now that the planet is overpopulated, the taboo [of sex with animals] is obsolete. Condoms could prevent disease in the same way as with humans. The issue of informed consent still applies, though the notion of informed consent is a bit silly given that all animals manage to give or refuse it with body language.”'' — <nowiki>http://www.mindprod.com/humanrights/taboo.html</nowiki><ref>mindprod Zoosexuality and health http://www.mindprod.com/humanrights/taboo.html</ref></blockquote>The above website (mindprod.com) also says that there were three reasons why people '''originally''' (centuries ago) did not accept sex with animals: to stop the spread of diseases, to maximize procreation, and to assert human superiority. The above quote argues that now, these reasons are meaningless because of our advanced and technological 21st century society.

In 2011, a study made the claim that having sex with animals increased the chances of penile cancer in males; however, the sample used was flawed. Here is a quote regarding this issue:<blockquote>''“[Sallie Graves], a female member of Equality For All (a pro-zoophilia group), told The Huffington Post that the results of the [penile cancer] study should prompt people to take precautions, like using a condom, when having sex with animals, but she said it likely would not deter diehard zoophiles. ‘Expecting people who truly love animals to give up their sexuality and nature just because of some physical dangers would be as absurd as expecting gays to become straight because of AIDS,’ Sallie Graves wrote in an email. ‘They might become more cautious … but they wouldn’t change their nature. A true zoophile can’t change their attraction and love just because of a higher or lower infection risk.’''

''Graves also emphasized that E.F.A. sees inter-species sex as benign. She also notes that she’s against causing physical pain to animals and that those who insist sex with animals is inherently abusive are wrong. ‘How in the world can I be abusing my dog if I get on my hands and knees and he licks and humps me without me even having to ask for it?’ Graves wrote.”''–<nowiki>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/sex-with-animals-penis-cancer_n_1088874.html</nowiki><ref>huffington post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/sex-with-animals-penis-cancer_n_1088874.html</ref></blockquote>People who have sex with animals or who are thinking about having sex with animals should take the same precautions that “regular” sex participants use (i.e. condoms, safe sex, etc) in order to reduce the spread of diseases. And as I’ve said before, diseases and STDs are actually a larger concern with regard to ''human-to-human'' sex than they are with zoosexual sex. For example, a person cannot get HIV from a dog.

Also, remember that a male human cannot make a female non-human animal pregnant, and a male non-human animal cannot make a female human pregnant (it’s because different species have different numbers of chromosomes). So for example, a male dog cannot make a female human pregnant. The only way to create hybrid animal (such as a human-dog hybrid) is by creating one in a '''laboratory''' using genetic material; a laboratory hybrid could be created, but irrational speciesist people who are “disgusted” by it (and irrationally view humans as “separate” from other animals) have so far prevented it from happening. But luckily, human-animal “merge-ings” are slowly occurring; for example, Chinese scientists have modified cows to produce human breast milk.

Aside from health, perhaps another reason why zoosexuality is considered to be taboo is because of zoophiles themselves. Here is a quote by a zoophile (zoosexual) describing his anguish caused by not being accepted:<blockquote>''“I am one of a group of people (much larger than most people think) all over the world, who are attracted to animals both physically and emotionally. I am a zoosexual. I was born this way, and have had this attraction as far back as I can remember. These last 10 years, the Internet has brought others like me together, that is to know that we are not alone. This has also opened the door for a lot of negative, very bad laws that punish us for just being who and what we are[...] The selective breeding process that is done, (and accepted) is in my opinion closer [to] rape than anything. In some cases, the animals do enjoy the event, but in most cases the female is tied, and shackled, while the male completes the breeding.''

''I have been active with horses, as long as I can remember. I was deeply in-love with a mare for 10 years before her death 6 years ago. I still love her, and feel like I lost a wife. I am attracted to both males and females. I have never abused an animal in my life. The act of being intimate with them, is done with respect and tenderness with the feelings of love for my partner. This is the very same thing that is involved with human to human intimacy. My mate is not tied or held down, and participates freely with consent (by her actions not words). I can’t help my feelings, and when I get around horses, dogs, and cows, I am very much aroused, and that makes them aroused as well. It is not uncommon for these animals to start to give me all the signals, and in some cases initiate the encounter. They are very sensitive to feelings, and pheromones as well, so without any stimulation, they can get quite proactive. I can show affection to a mare, some kisses and closeness, and she can respond with the desire to be intimate on the spot. Quite often it can become embarrassing. But that of course shows that they have no shame or do not think anything is wrong. What we do in our private life in our bedrooms and barns is our business. What I am trying to explain here is that the general person out there regards us as animal abusers, yet we are quite the opposite. We come from all walks of life, we are all normal people with a different sexual orientation that’s all! It hurts me deeply to be an honest, law abiding, respectful, caring person, and be thought of as a criminal just for being a little different[...]''

''If no harm is done, and both are happy, then they should leave us alone. I have to ask… why is it OK to kill an animal, and sell its parts to the public for food, but if we make that animal feel good sexually, then we are put in jail for ‘animal abuse’. [People] talk about consent… where is the consent from the animal to say ‘yeah, it’s OK to brutally slaughter me after a few months of my life.’ It is clearly a double standard. I hope this changes in my lifetime[...] we [zoosexuals] are still thought of as sick perverts, and criminals. It hurts.”'' — Brian Stevens, <nowiki>http://mwillett.org/mind/animal-sex-comment.htm</nowiki></blockquote>Facebook groups dealing with homosexuality typically remain, while groups dealing with zoosexuality tend to always remain small because they are constantly being deleted by the Facebook authorities; this would seem to indicate a bias of one orientation over another, and this bias (I’m assuming) is probably felt in places other then Facebook. Because of this, zoophiles are probably in their own “closet”, similar to the “closet” of homosexuality. Part of the reason for this is the fact that some LGBT leaders have stated that they don’t approve of zoosexuality joining them in their cause to normalize “abnormal” orientations. This would probably create guilt in the zoosexuals, push them further into their “zoosexual closet”, and perpetuate the already existing taboo against zoosexuality. It also explains why there are no “zoosexual rights” groups – the zoosexuals are afraid of being persecuted if they reveal what they think. The anxiety zoosexuals feel about coming out of the closet is one of the reasons zoosexuality is considered taboo, and may also explain why other subjects are taboo.

Below are a few examples of irrational and bigoted anti-zoosexual bullying via Facebook comments (anti-zoosexual discrimination):<blockquote>''“You [a zoosexual] are sick son of a bitch who deserves to be kicked repeatedly in the throat by a professional MMA player. Ass-clown! That is all”''

''“What a poor excuse for a human being! And he said he his ex-wife didn’t see anything wrong with it! Well they are as sick as he is! He needs to see professional help ASAP! Scumbag!”“It is disgusting, and a real perversion. No one needs to “understand” a [zoosexual] relationship. Send him to a psych ward!”''</blockquote>The comments above represent ignorance and bigotry. Comments like “send him to a psych ward” are the kind of ignorant comments that would’ve been said to a gay person in the 1880s (when people erroneously thought homosexuality was a “mental illness”). Here is a response by a zoosexual person to the above bigoted comments:<blockquote>''“So this clearly isn’t the best cross section of educated opinions. But [I'm] not gonna lie to you: shit like this hurts. A lot. To be rejected so outright with such a clear and visceral reaction and with the knowledge that no amount of discourse or scientific evidence could rectify hurts me more than any blind hate spouted by a 12 year old on YouTube ever could. A part of me aches because a part of me knows that a part of me will always have to be lied about, likely for the rest of my life.”'' — Pale Blue Knot, <nowiki>http://pale-blue-knot.tumblr.com/post/72031565831/your-blog-intrigues-me-im-not-really-into-the</nowiki></blockquote>My post about zoosexual discrimination has a very long list of bigoted anti-zoosexual comments from ignorant people all over the Internet — the kind of people who would’ve had torches and pitchforks if they had lived in the 1600s. After reading comments like those, it’s no wonder that so many zoosexuals have to hide in the closet (and are consequently not open about their zoosexuality). If their zoosexuality becomes known, they risk becoming the target of angry vigilante anti-zoosexual bigots with an irrational prejudice and unjustifiable hatred and animosity towards zoosexuals — these individuals could harm them or their property, bully them, or snitch on them to authorities (who are themselves anti-zoosexual bigots and would use some kind of bigoted anti-zoosexual law to unjustly prosecute them [see section 12 below]).

====== Zoosexual Closet ======
Here is a quote regarding the “zoosexual closet”:<blockquote>''“But how [does one reveal his/her zoosexuality]? What on earth could be a good ice breaker to introduce someone into the world of zoosexuality? As we have seen many times before there are very few, if any, people that we can outright trust. Families have turned their very own children over to police or self-righteous psychologists. It’s very hard to find a friend who will keep such a secret safe. And unless you met your significant other through a zoo friendly environment chances are they will take to the idea as well as getting a third wheel for the weekend.''

''What is one to do? The first thing you MUST do is be careful! With so many people out there wanting to show their moral superiority by literally enslaving us to their beliefs, you can’t be too cautious. But what exactly is going on in someone’s head when you break the news to them? We all know the unfortunate thought process of close minded people.[...]There are seven levels of competencies, in order from the first level to the final one: ignorance, awareness, understanding, appreciation, acceptance, internalization and adaptation. These different levels perfectly demonstrate what someone will go through when exposed to a lifestyle different than their own.[...]Believe it or not, most people are truly ignorant to the existence of a zoosexual orientation let alone the fact that people actually participate in it.[...]There are several [Internet sites] dedicated to providing equal rights to zoosexuals. Sadly most rescue and abuse societies are against zoosexuality citing many myths and incorrect information.[...]The truth is there is no cookie cutter way to introduce someone to a new culture or act. It takes a special person to internalize something that they themselves may never participate in. There are a few things that you can do to portray a positive zoosexual image. Be clean, honest, approachable, respectful, and smart. It’s key to be someone that is hard to hate. If you are an all around good person who is appealing and respectful of others feelings and beliefs they will have little recourse but to say ‘your alright, not my bag but alright’. And be smart. Understand both sides of the debate and know the opposing view just as well as your own. Be able to dispel myths using creditable non zoo related sources.''

''If all works out well you will still have your friend and best of all someone who understands you and accepts you as you. It’s not something to rush into, but to take your time in considering and delivering.[...]Take your time, consider your options, and be very picky when you decide who you are going to tell that you are a zoosexual. There is a lot of support available, but there isn’t a lot that can be done when the wrong person finds out and comes after you and your lover.”'' — Dogbert’s Zoo, <nowiki>http://dogbertzoo.blogspot.com/?zx=30ba2612e0ad88ad</nowiki></blockquote>The above quote demonstrates the difficulties zoosexuals face when they try to come out of the closet. In many ways, a gay person coming out of the closet could be seen as ''easy'' compared to coming out of the zoosexual closet. Whereas homosexuals have at least '''some''' support and acceptance, zoosexuals have virtually '''none'''.

Regarding the zoosexual closet, a Wikipedia article stated that although sex with animals is legal in Sweden, there is still an irrational, knee-jerk social stigma and taboo associated with it, which keeps people in the closet:<blockquote>''“Evidence showed that many remarkable men [in Sweden] had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those men had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a ‘primitive moral reaction’.”'' — <nowiki>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/zoophilia_and_the_law</nowiki><ref>Zoophilia and the law http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/zoophilia_and_the_law</ref></blockquote>

Oftentimes, people feel confused about their zoosexual feelings because society has been telling them for their entire lives that sex with animals is immoral, disgusting etc (the usual bullsh*t). People ''should'' just say “f*ck them” to those who reject them and accept themselves for who they are. However, not everyone is this confident, and many never reach the stage of self-acceptance. For example, read these quotes:<blockquote>''“I want to tell people [about my zoosexuality] so damn bad [that] it eats me up inside to the point that I sometimes think that anything can be better than [hiding in the closet]. I worry [about suicide] because I got a couple guns in my room, but the thought is always there but if I die then what will happen when I’m gone? I fear when I die my family will grieve, and hate me for my death. Suicide is a one way ticket and I know this, but my heart and love can’t take that much more hiding, I want to tell people [that I am zoosexual], but if I do I don’t know what will happen, I fear the consequences.''

''Even my best friend doesn’t know because I once brought up the subject of animal loving and he shot the subject down by telling me that any one who thinks and does that is an enemy to him. I cant even tell the one person I tell everything too! But since I found [beastforum.com], I can express my love without any fear of people making me an outcast; this forum saves lives… mine is probably one of them, but who knows what will happen tomorrow.”'' — 33k121, <nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-130422-105.html</nowiki></blockquote>And a second quote:<blockquote>''“Writing this is very difficult. I’m an 18-year-old young lady in college and am interested in bestiality, only involving dogs. I am very confused with these interests, and have weighed them in my strong (secular) ethical codes, which I pride myself deeply upon and are my absolute being. I’ve never spoken to anyone about this, or even written it down. I’ve concluded that my interests (obviously involving consensual activities) don’t go against my ethics because they are not harmful in any way, but bestiality is so severely taboo that I’m ashamed of having this interest.''

''If anyone in my present life were to learn this about me, I know I would be irreversibly shunned and judged. I’m more turned on by this and experience more sexual satisfaction watching videos [of humans having sex with animals] than I do in intimacy with my boyfriend, who I love unconditionally. He and I have a relationship that is substantial in every way, but if I ever even hinted to him about this, I’m not sure if he would be able to respect me at all. We share a genuine love for animals that defines our ethics and lifestyle, as we’re vegetarians, and I feel that he would consider what I’m interested in as animal abuse among other immoral things. Also, it would be so out of character for who I am, he would probably reject me because he wouldn’t think I was the person that I am.''

''I just…don’t know how to deal with this. If I was given the choice, I would just erase this interest altogether from my mind, but I know that I can’t and have to keep it a secret. I try to look at other erotic materials for satisfaction but nothing even comes close to how much this turns me on. How have you dealt with these feelings, if you’ve had them? And if you haven’t had them, why not?”'' — Leeit, <nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-165361.html</nowiki></blockquote>If one views the bad parts of society (i.e. intolerance) as an illness, then guilt would be a ''symptom'' of that illness. Some people are more ''resistant'' to the intolerance “illness” than others, and so they are not “infected” with the guilt. However, some people (such as “Leeit” in the above quote) let their guilt control them. When “Leeit” says she looks at non-zoosexual material in an attempt to deliberately “eradicate” her zoosexuality, that is equivalent to an insecure gay person who looks at heterosexual material to try to “make” himself/herself heterosexual. People who do this are denying who they are — gay people shouldn’t pretend to be straight, and zoosexuals shouldn’t pretend to be non-zoosexuals.

A person on Yahoo Answers said that she was sexually attracted to a dog and didn’t know how to express herself. In response, the following was said by a person called ''Teinaava'':<blockquote>''“Realize that there’s nothing wrong with being a zoophile. Zoophilia is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Zoophiles (like me) love the animal they choose to be their partner and would do anything to keep them from coming to harm. They treat them as you would a human spouse, i.e., take care of them, spend time with them, make sure they’re happy, etc. A lot of people seem to think that just because someone is attracted to animals, that they go around raping every animal they see. However, that’s not true; while some may do that, most don’t. And yes, animals can consent to sex with humans, though it’s not through words like humans do. For example, if a female dog wants to have sex with you, she’ll do things like turning her butt towards you and moving her tail to the side, rubbing herself against your crotch, etc. If you respond to her advances and have sex with her, how is that not consensual? Besides, if an animal doesn’t want to have sex, it can say no with its claws, teeth, hooves, horns, etc. Also, most zoophiles love their partner, regardless of the sex, and even if he/she didn’t show an interest in it, they would love him/her just the same. Anyone who rapes animals or uses them as sex toys is perverted and should be grouped with rapists and pedophiles. But that’s getting off the subject. So, I think you should take some time and think before you come to any decisions. Try getting used to the idea that you may be attracted to dogs.”'' — Teinaava, — <nowiki>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100508180716AAI34lS</nowiki></blockquote>The person who made the above quote (Teinaava) went on to say the following to a person who thought he might be an equine zoosexual:<blockquote>''“Don’t worry, there’s nothing wrong with you. You may just be a zoophile, meaning that you’re attracted to animals, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You may feel a bit weird since this is the first time you’re feeling this, but give yourself some time to get used to it. I’m a zoophile too, though I’m attracted to dogs instead of horses, and I wouldn’t trade the love of a dog for anything. So, you should give it a chance. Maybe go to some ranches and spend some time around horses and see how you feel. And, if you are a zoophile, then that’s who you are and there’s nothing wrong with it.”'' — Teinaava, <nowiki>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100423100550AAKejC8</nowiki></blockquote>And here is a similar quote by a person named “Smith Baker”:<blockquote>''“Know what, I’m sick of hearing people AND the media [attack zoophiles]. [The zoosexual lifestyle] is the life we live because we choose to live our life with an open mind, and that we were brought onto this world to love, and give love to everything around us. Some of us find relationships in an animal, and regard humans as something that would be lower than an animal. [The zoosexual lifestyle] is like a religion to us: we treat animals as we would our own lover or mate, and yes sometimes this does involve sex, but its not played out like it is in the media where you just go and rape a damn dog, it’s not like that whatsoever.''</blockquote><blockquote>''All I’m asking is that you give our lifestyle a thought — we don’t rape animals and we are ALL animal activists. There are thousands of us, and we all share the same passion for animals you do, except we treat these animals as we would our own kin, our own blood.[...] All we ask is that you think about it with an open mind, not a closed one, we love these animals more then you could ever know, and we NEVER harm animals, we are just as much against that as you.”'' — Smith Baker, <nowiki>http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/metairie_man_arrested_for_sex/1952/comments-newest.html</nowiki></blockquote>

====== Therapy and psychological evaluation ======
As I mentioned earlier in this post, Wrongdiagnosis claims that having a sexual attraction to animals is a “mental illness”, which I think is a bunch of hogwash. However, despite this flawed psychological perspective, there are (luckily) some people out there who have a more rational view of zoosexuality. For example, read this quote:<blockquote>''“I [saw a therapist] some years ago. And guess what he told me. He said, ‘I do not see anything wrong with what you are doing, you are truly taking care of you dogs, far more than a lot of people do. Besides, what goes behind the closed doors of your house is up to, and no one else. Enjoy yourself, and have fun.’ Still remember those words today.”'' — <nowiki>http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/T8LEJO16359M2F379/p20</nowiki></blockquote>
The person in the quote above in a cynophile (a person sexually attracted to dogs). As stated earlier in this post, cynophilia is one of many subcategories of zoophilia. What’s important to note in the above quote is that when an actual therapist was consulted about zoosexuality, he/she found nothing wrong with it. The therapist didn’t see it as “deviant”, or “perverted”, or “abnornmal”, or “disgusting” — the therapist did not have any problems with it, because he/she recognized that the cynophile '''was a good person and not a zoosadist'''.

As I said before, zoosexuality is '''not''' a “mental disorder” — if one’s zoosexual feelings do not cause him/her distress, then it is NOT a disorder. The reason people have classified zoosexuality as a “mental disorder” and “mental illness” is because of ignorance and irrational anti-zoosexual bigotry (the same kind of ignorance and bigotry that caused homosexuality to be classified as a “mental disorder” for most of the 20th century). Therapies which try to stop people from being zoosexual are just as useless and harmful as therapies which try to make homosexual people less gay (i.e. the “pray the gay away”). Psychologists who have a negative attitude towards zoosexuality should be avoided by zoosexuals, since they will only make a zoosexual person’s life worse.

Also, remember that in some jurisdictions such as Oregon and Arizona, there are irrational and unjustifiable laws which '''force''' zoosexual people who are caught to undergo “intensive psychological evaluation” — these laws treat zoosexual people like abnormal specimens of fungi (and stomp on their rights and liberties). Laws which force zoosexual people to undergo “psychological evaluation” ONLY because of the fact that zoosexuality is involved are discriminatory and should be struck down or repealed. Some of the mentioned laws give judges unjust power to force zoosexuals to undergo these harmful “psychological evaluations” which are likely to have an anti-zoosexual prejudice (and essentially force the a zoosexual person to pay for anti-zoosexual “treatment” that he/she knows is a bunch of bulls**t). No wonder so many zoosexual people hide in the closet — they don’t want to have their liberties and rights trampled on.

In addition, zoosexual people hide in the closet because they are afraid of discriminatory and unfair restrictions being placed on them if they “come out” (example of unfair restrictions: having their animal lovers (soul mates) unjustly confiscated from them, and being forced to not own animals for no legitimate reason — these tragic and heartbreaking consequences of being caught cause most zoosexuals to hide in the closet).

Here is another quote relating to zoosexuality and psychology:<blockquote>''“If [a person] is zoosexual, there is no ‘getting rid of it’, or curbing it, it’s a valid orientation just like any other. I’ve seen many other zoosexuals commit suicide over the years because they felt like they were alone, unaccepted and hated as well as other reasons.”'' — Sydney,<nowiki>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmW_0ijPgSS33cYVHi_JLhwjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20110109070135AAT6Zup</nowiki></blockquote>

== SECTION 12: IRRATIONAL, DISCRIMINATORY, INTOLERANT ANTI-ZOOSEXUAL LAWS ==
There is a paradox worth mentioning – the more zoophiles try to endorse zoosexual rights, the more they worry that “witch hunts” will begin and there will be a big backlash from “moralistic”, self-righteous vigilante groups; because of this zoophiles feel that they only way they can protect their way of life is to not be recognized by anyone and to fly under the radar, because they argue that it would be too difficult to fight to become accepted, and that a fight for acceptance might destroy them.

Another issue with zoosexuality is its legality. It is not officially “legal” in any single country, but it is outlawed in several countries and in about 38 U.S. states (map below). It is '''appalling''' that so many states have banned interspecies sex between humans and other animals. The laws against zoosexuality were created due to social taboos, ignorance, prejudice, zoophile phobia (zoophobia), intolerance, speciesism, bigotry and irrationality. They were also created due to anti-zoosexual vigilantes going on crusades and “witch hunts” against zoosexuals.<blockquote>Sites like Anti-furry on telegram and Antifury.com create and contribute this atmosphere with illegal doxxing and have infiltrated groups like StatosFurry, and have board members you never see at any convention providing illegal cyberstalking to continue their witchhunt for Zoophiles who aren't Zoosexual and attempt to blacklist most almost anyone who has an interesting Furry lifestyle.

Doxxing is illegal and cyberstalking to anyone because they think it's ok to stalk others is the height of arrogance.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This includes zoophiles and Zoosexuality that is covered under the privacy of one's own domicile and not explored or exported from that area of their life.</blockquote>

====== Laws ======
Zoosexual acts are unjustly illegal in about 70% of U.S. jurisdictions (38 states and 2 territories), and zoosexual acts are legal in about 30% of U.S. jurisdictions (12 states, DC, 3 territories, and the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands). Lawmakers should be '''decriminalizing''' zoosexual acts, but unfortunately in recent years they have gone in the opposite direction, adopting an ignorant medieval view of anti-zoosexuality. The legality of zoosexuality in U.S. jurisdictions is discussed in the post “Which states are the most anti-zoosexual?”, and a list of countries where zoosexuality is legal/illegal can be found in the zoosexual rights post.

Laws against zoosexual acts in the U.S. fall into the following categories:

'''Category #1: Archaic laws''' — archaic laws are antiquated laws based on a flawed sense of “morality” (often driven by religious bigotry) that were created centuries ago, and to this day nobody has bothered to get rid of them (example: Rhode Island’s “crime against nature” law was created in 1647 [about 367 years before the present and 129 years before the Declaration of Independence] — the part of the law criminalizing homosexuality was removed in the 1990s, but the anti-zoosexual part remains on the books to this day.) These bad laws are generally called “sodomy” laws or “crime against nature” laws (even though inter-species sex is not “unnatural”). Most of these archaic laws originally (or still do) have anti-gay components, though most of them have been recently modified so that the anti-gay part is removed but the anti-zoo part is NOT removed.

'''Category #2: NEW anti-zoosexual laws''' — These laws are more of a threat to zoosexual people because they are '''recently-created''' laws which are '''specifically''' anti-zoosexual and tend to have bigoted language that is more precise and less vague than those in the archaic category. These laws '''completely fail''' to protect ethical zooosexuals and unfairly criminalize ANY kind of interspecies sexual interaction. Delaware’s anti-zoosexual law (created in 1993) is generally considered to be the first in this category of “new” laws. PA made an anti-zoosexual law in 1999, and the states of OR, IA, ME, MO, IL, IN, WA, AZ, TN, CO, AK and FL have all made anti-zoosexual laws '''since the year 2000''' (the insidious, bigoted laws in all of these states are less than 14 years old). When an archaic “sodomy” or “crimes against nature” law is removed in a jurisdiction, that jurisdiction often created a “category 2″ law in order to fill the “hole” left behind after the archaic anti-gay & anti-zoo law is removed. These new laws are irrational and bigoted. They are the 21st century versions of the “archaic” laws, and they often are '''disguised''' as anti-cruelty laws (when in reality the purpose of their existence is the same purpose the archaic laws were created — flawed “morality”, ignorance, and anti-zoosexual hatred, prejudice, intolerance and bigotry).<blockquote>Subcategory of category #2: “Sneaky” laws — there are some jurisdictions which have “sneaky” anti-zoosexual laws, meaning that in the past 15 years (recently) some jurisdictions have quietly modified an already existing law and tainted it with anti-zoosexual bulls**t. Two states that have done this are Colorado and Connecticut. Their anti-zoosexual laws are not “stand-alone” and are instead “attached” to an already existing law (infecting it like a virus). CT did this in 2005 and CO did this in 2007.</blockquote>It is worth noting that anti-zoosexual laws are sometimes erroneously called “animal sexual assault” laws, which is a bunch of bullsh**t because not all zoosexual acts involve “assault” — most zoosexual acts are ethical and non-abusive.

In Australia, zoosexual acts are criminalized at the state level (like in the U.S.), but unlike the U.S., zoosexual acts have been unjustly criminalized in ALL of Australia’s mainland jurisdictions, including the ACT (it was criminalized in the ACT in 2011). The only places in Australia where zoosexual activity is legal are the overseas territories (such as Christmas Island and Norfolk Island). Most of the state-level laws banning ethical zoosexual sex were created '''centuries''' ago, and the state-level governments in Australia have failed to repeal them. Penalties vary from state to state, but they are generally much harsher than U.S. laws. For example, the maximum sentence in Tasmania is 21 years in prison and the maximum prison sentence in South Australia is 10 years in prison. In 2011, when several people in South Australia were arrested after they had '''ethical sexual intercourse''' with a dog, the judge admitted that the SA law was ridiculous and that it was not up to him to determine the morality of zoosexual acts; he did however penalize them with a small prison sentence anyway:<blockquote>''“[The accused people stated that] the animals were not physically harmed, mistreated or in any distress as a result of the [zoosexual] behaviour, and the owner of the dogs contended they seemed to enjoy the activity. The prosecution accepted the [defense's claim of] welfare of the animals, and the RSPCA chose not to take any action.[...] [The judge] considered it outside his role to consider the appropriateness of the criminalisation of bestiality.[...] The case raises issues of legal moralism and criminalisation in the absence of harm. Neither the SA parliament nor courts have engaged with the argument, most prominently promoted by ethicist Peter Singer, that sexual activity between animals and humans is not necessarily exploitative or abusive of the animal and not an affront to an individual’s humanity, as human beings are also animals.”'' — <nowiki>http://www.altlj.org/news-and-views/downunderallover/duao-vol-37-4/466-three-plead-guilty-to-bestiality-offences</nowiki><ref>Altlj - Three plead guilty to bestiality offenses http://www.altlj.org/news-and-views/downunderallover/duao-vol-37-4/466-three-plead-guilty-to-bestiality-offences</ref></blockquote>The comments above about South Australia’s courts applies to courts pretty much everywhere — in other words, courts all over the world have '''failed'''to address (or have completely '''ignored''') the idea that zoosexual activity can occur ethically. In some cases, courts have even refused to believe hard evidence that no harm occurred during zoosexual activity (for example a 2012 attempt to rule Florida’s anti-zoosexual law unconstitutional failed because the judge had an anti-zoosexual prejudice and stubbornly refused to entertain the idea that the law is unjust and unconstitutional). It is clear that in terms of zoosexual rights, more work needs to be done in the judicial field — judges need to become educated about how zoosexual activity is ethical and why anti-zoosexual laws '''must''' be struck down.

Because zoosexuality’s legality in the United States is so ambiguous and arbitrary, this is an indicator that many of the laws created against zoosexuality are probably archaic and not based on enlightened thinking (similar to the way that until a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, there were many U.S. states, mostly in the deep south, that banned homosexual acts). Prostitution is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, demonstrating that anti-prostitution is apparently a “core” value of the U.S. However, zoosexuality is neither legal nor illegal in all states, so it would seem that the prohibition of zoosexuality is not a “core” value but rather a series of laws created by either isolated incidents or individuals such as Nan Rich who are obsessed with making zoosexuality illegal. People like Nan Rich are prejudicial and have zoophile phobia (“zoophobia”). Nan Rich is an ignorant anti-zoosexual bigot who nagged the Florida legislature year after year to ban zoosexuality until she got her way (i.e. “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”) — she had no rational reason for her anti-zoosexual ban (it was created out of ignorance and prejudice), and nobody questioned the ban (because people in the FL legislature are ignorant with regard to zoosexuality and '''assume''' it is bad because of their irrational prejudices and flawed moral compasses).

The same could be said about the anti-homosexuality laws – they were created by bigots and close-minded people who were either religious or had some psychological problem with accepting homosexuality. I find it amazing that with so many important issues out there, some people would rather waste their time persecuting minorities rather then solving problems which affect the world.
[[File:Legality of zoophilia by country or territory.svg|thumb|Legal status of Zoosexuality]]

(At the posting of this editorial in 2014) Outside of the United States, zoosexuality is legal in a few countries, such as Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Cambodia, Thailand, Denmark, Hungary and Finland. But overall, the sad truth is that there are many countries which have unjustly criminalized it, including Canada, Australia proper, New Zealand, the UK, India, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden. What is especially disturbing is that the trend in recent years has been towards criminalizing it (the trend '''should''' be towards '''decriminalizing''' it). As an example, Belgium criminalized zoosexuality in 2007, the Netherlands criminalized zoosexuality in 2010, Germany criminalized it in 2013 and Sweden criminalized it in 2014. In other words, all of these laws are recent and created for completely irrational and unjustifiable reasons. The same is true in the United States — many anti-zoosexual laws in the U.S. have been created recently; for example, Washington state criminalized zoosexuality in 2006, Arizona criminalized zoosexuality in 2006, Alaska criminalized it in 2010 and Florida criminalized it in 2011. This '''needs to stop''' — these laws do not differentiate between ethical zoosexual people and people who actually abuse animals — and because of this they are unfair (and unconstitutional) and should be '''repealed'''. There is '''no''' legitimate reason for their existence (they are often created because of people’s irrational prejudice, disgust, ignorance and bigotry). U.S. states and countries should be '''decriminalizing''' ethical forms of zoosexuality, not criminalizing it — yet countries (especially in Europe) continue to criminalize it and are going in the wrong direction.

====== Anti-Zoosexual laws ======
Anti-zoosexual laws serve no purpose because the only cases worthy of prosecution (i.e. those which involve extreme zoosadism) can be dealt with by using existing animal cruelty laws; law specifically prohibiting bestiality are unnecessary and discriminatory. People are going to have sex with animals regardless of whether there is a law or not; therefore, interspecies sex should not be penalized. Many people come to the incorrect conclusion that '''all'''zoosexual acts involve cruelty — this is not true. Unfortunately, this incorrect belief has already been embedded into many legal systems.<blockquote>Anti-zoosexual laws also:

1) Prevent zoosexuality from being accepted

2) Prevent zoosexual people from being open about their zoosexual feelings

3) Establish a restrictive atmosphere which perpetuates ignorance about zoosexuality

4) Perpetuate the “taboo” status of zoosexuality

5) Perpetuate discrimination against zoosexuals

6) Unjustly restrict the individual freedom of ethical zoosexuals<blockquote>For example, anti-zoosexual laws often unethically force zoosexual people to not own animals</blockquote>7) Unjustly put all forms of zoosexual acts (both ethical and unethical) in the same category

8) Are used to justify people’s hostility towards zoosexual people (i.e. their intolerance and bigotry)

9) Make it difficult to discuss zoosexuality openly and positively

10) Make it difficult to establish public demonstrations/rallies in favor of zoosexuality

11) Enable ignorant speciesism and anthropocentrism to flourish

12) Cause zoosexual people to take their animals to the vet less often (out of fear that a vet would find out about the zoosexual acts and contact authorities)

13) Cause zoosexual people to live in fear, hide in the closet, and go underground (and be silent about their beliefs)

14) Give authorities the unjust power to prosecute incidents which involved no cruelty whatsoever

15) Enables “tipsters” to snitch on ethical zoosexual people (yet another burden placed upon zoosexual people); the unethical actions of the “tipsters” are permitted by the unjust laws

16) Are unconstitutional (anti-zoosexual laws violate the U.S. constitution)

17) Are unethical and are created due to irrational fear, ignorance, bigotry, intolerance and speciesism

18) Create situations which could potentially ruin the lives of zoosexuals (for example, anti-zoosexual laws often give authorities an excuse to raid a zoosexual person’s home, unjustly invade their privacy, take their property and forcefully take their animals away from him/her permanently [sometimes even killing the animals involved])<blockquote>Anti-zoosexual laws often have tragic, heartbreaking and unethical penalties for zoosexual people (people who have non-abusive sex with animals) who are “outed”: For example, in many cases a zoosexual person’s animal partner is confiscated (stolen) from them by authorities who have an anti-zoosexual prejudice. In many cases, the zoosexual person is never able to see their animal lover again, and this causes them great distress, depression and heartbreak, as well as anger at the bigots who took his/her animal away. Meanwhile, the confiscated animal is usually treated unethically (i.e. put in a cage, killed via euthanasia, etc.) The frightened animals want to be with their owner again but are traumatized by the bigoted authorities who unjustly confiscated (stole) them from their rightful owner.</blockquote>19) Some anti-zoosexual laws unethically force a zoosexual person who is “outed” to undergo bulls**t “psychological treatment” and “counseling” (both of which are likely to be tainted by anti-zoosexual prejudice), and force the zoosexual person to pay for these unethical and harmful “psychological treatments” against his/her will. This kind of unethical “mandatory psychological” bullsh**t was used to “treat” gay people in the 1950s (because people erroneously thought homosexuality was a disease that could be “cured”).<blockquote>(Reminder: a person’s intrinsic quality of being zoosexual does not mean he/she is “mentally ill” — anti-zoosexual laws are delusional and do not recognize this)</blockquote>20) When zoosexual activity is criminalized, it gives anti-zoosexual people an '''excuse''' to claim it’s “immoral” (for example, people will say “it is immoral because it is illegal”.) This twisted logic enables them to criticize zoosexual acts simply because of the fact that they are illegal (and not for any justifiable reason)</blockquote>It has become clear to me that laws against human-animal sexual contact are not only discriminatory, but also irrational and immoral. Anti-zoosexual laws should be abolished because there is no legitimate reason for their existence (especially since interspecies sex is natural part of life on Earth). For example, read this quote:<blockquote>''“[Few people] dared to challenge its underlying premise — that sex between human beings and animals should be illegal under all circumstances. In fact, despite the concerns of opponents like Notre Dame Philosophy professor Ralph McInery that decriminalization of bestiality was ‘an idea whose hour will surely come, and soon’, the reality is that the past few years have witnessed a dramatic increase in anti-bestiality statutes[...] Unfortunately, the legislative debate over these bans has lacked even the pretense of serious reflection or intellectual rigor. Instead, most lawmakers have relied upon widespread public repugnance to justify legal action. As a co-sponsor of the Washington State Law [banning bestiality], State Senator Bob McCaslin, said: ‘How could you be for bestiality? My God!’ Such an approach differs greatly from the way our society addresses most legal prohibitions, where we place the burden upon those supporting such restrictions to prove that laws are necessary[...]''

''I suspect that the vast majority of lawmakers who voted for anti-bestiality statutes do not eschew hamburgers, leather-goods or even fur — not to mention cleansers and cosmetics safety-tested on the eyes of lab rabbits[...] Washington State’s [anti-bestiality] law was inspired, in part, because of the tragedy of Kenneth Pinyan, a zoophile who was fatally injured while having sex with an Arabian Stallion. However, opponents of bestiality have never offered evidence that such acts are common enough to justify legislative action. Moreover, the uncomplimentary language of these prohibitionists used to describe Pinyan at the time of his death suggests that his welfare was not their primary concern.”''–<nowiki>http://w w w.opposingviews . com/i/three-reasons-society-shouldn-t-rush-to-condemn-bestiality</nowiki><ref>Reasons why bestiality should not rush to condemn bestiality http://w w w.opposingviews . com/i/three-reasons-society-shouldn-t-rush-to-condemn-bestiality</ref></blockquote>Also, read the following quotes:<blockquote>''“Laws restricting the private conduct of individuals in which ‘a person’s conduct affects the interests of no person but himself, or need not affect them unless they like,’ unjustly constrain the legal and moral rights of such individuals. '''Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty'''. Though it has been argued that such laws are necessary for the protection of both animals and the greater good of society, the reasons given to support such arguments are not compelling. If animal protection was the goal of such laws, it could be accomplished more effectively by strengthening laws that address deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on animals as has been done in Sweden. Laws prohibiting zoophilia are enforced even in the absence of any discernible harm to the animal resulting from such acts. The argument that zoophilia needs to be criminalized because of a '''possible''' link between animal abuse in the wider sense, including acts of intentional cruelty, and violence against other humans, is equally deficient. Such a link is not only'''unproven''' but is very probably '''unprovable''' given the wide range of factors that affect human behavior.”''–<nowiki>http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf</nowiki><ref>http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''“[Anti-zoosexual laws] allows the state to invade the lives of millions of adults [...] Governments have used [anti-zoosexual laws] to harass [zoosexuals], censor their speech, threaten them with prison and raid their homes. [...] [Anti-zoosexual laws] invade privacy and create inequality. They relegate people to inferior status based on how they look or how they love. They degrade people’s dignity by declaring their most intimate feelings “unnatural” or illegal. The [anti-zoosexual laws] can be used to discredit enemies and destroy careers and lives. They promote violence and give it impunity. They hand police and others the power to arrest, blackmail and abuse. They drive people underground to live in invisibility and fear. [...] It is'''not''' the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behavior.”'' — Adapted from <nowiki>http://www.hrw.org/node/77014/section/2</nowiki><ref>Alien Legacy http://www.hrw.org/node/77014/section/2</ref> (''This Alien Legacy'')</blockquote><blockquote>''“Overall much of the [hostility towards zoosexual activity] can be summarized as coming from speciesism, ignorance, fear and hatred of those who are different, the violation of social norms, and irrational repugnance at the concept of human-animal sexuality; this is presented in a societal context of religious or social abhorrence, and a desire to reduce what is '''perceived''' to be abuse. Because laws against zoophilia have been created as a result of irrationality, prejudice and moral panic (and not with regard to the animal’s interests), the reasons for creating these laws have been called ‘not compelling’ and have been described as being ‘an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty.’ Anti-zoosexual laws have also been criticized because they are subject to cultural relativism, and because humans '''are''' animals.”'' — <nowiki>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/zoophilia_and_the_law</nowiki> Also Reference's on this wiki [[Zoophilia and the law]]</blockquote>Remember what was said earlier in this post: the fact that interspecies sex is '''not unnatural''', and many of the weak “arguments” against zoophilia are the same weak “arguments” made against homosexuality:<blockquote>''“Now, one of the most interesting things about Peter Singer’s approach is the way he dismisses the common arguments against bestiality, for they are the same arguments that have often been made against homosexuality. On libertarian grounds, [arguments regarding homosexuality] are also the same arguments that might incline us to agree with Singer about bestiality —i.e., '''that what one does in one’s own barn is none of the government’s business.''' The key words here are, of course, ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. Both are terms that have been used to condemn gay sex, and both are equally meaningless when applied to inter-species sex — which is why Singer’s phrasing here is savvy. The words ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ carry no inherent moral weight, and never have. They are statements of fact, to be sure, but not arguments. '''They should, then, have no more legal or philosophical bearing on bestiality than they should on homosexuality.”'''''–<nowiki>http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-03-27/nyc-life/you-re-an-animal/1/</nowiki><ref>villagevoice http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-03-27/nyc-life/you-re-an-animal/1/</ref></blockquote>It should be noted that laws which prohibit ethical zoosexual acts are '''not''' about “animal cruelty”; they are about a flawed and delusional view of'''morality'''. For example, consider Indiana, a state which has extremely absurd and irrational animal laws. In Indiana, it is a '''felony''' for a dog to lick peanut butter off a woman’s vagina, but it is only a '''misdemeanor''' to torture and kill an animal via a decompression chamber, and it is only a'''misdemeanor''' to violently rip out a dog’s vocal chords. It is also ''legal'' in Indiana to torture an animal by hunting and killing it with a gun. Indiana’s irrational and unjust legal framework is a perfect example of how lawmaking in many places has gone terribly wrong; it is also an example of the fact that anti-zoosexual laws are '''not''' designed to stop “animal cruelty”, they are designed to '''punish''' people for being “immoral” (even though in reality the people '''making''' those bad laws are the ones who are '''really''' immoral). Lawmakers in places like Indiana have abused their power — ethical zoosexual acts should be '''legal''', and acts which are '''really''' cruel to animals (like hunting them, killing them, slaughtering them, etc) should be '''illegal'''.

Keep in mind that to many people, zoosexuality is a core part of their spirituality — to them it is sacred (and compassion for animals is also sacred to them). Therefore, when a law is enacted which prohibits ethical forms of zoosexual sex, this law is unconstitutional because it prohibits a person from expressing their spiritual beliefs (in this case, “spiritual” can be seen as a placeholder for “religion”). In the United States, the constitution allows for freedom of religion, and if one views zoosexuality in this context, it is unethical and unconstitutional to create a law which prohibits one’s core beliefs, especially when one’s practices (in this case, interspecies sex) are harming no one and are not immoral in any way. (see zoosexuality as part of a spirituality)

====== Removing an animal to "protect" them, is actually harming them ======
There have been cases in which authorities learned about a person’s zoosexual activity and then forcibly took the zoosexual person’s animals away from him/her for their “protection”. In reality, this act does '''not''' “protect” the animals, it traumatizes them and ruins their lives — they long to be with their original owner again but cannot because of ignorant bigoted people who don’t understand what it means to be zoosexual. The same is true for the zoosexual person who lost his/her animals — he/she is traumatized, heartbroken, and feels that their spiritual beliefs have been severely violated. He/she is also angry at the people who unjustly took his/her animals. Because of this, the forcible taking of animals from good zoosexual people is an extremely unethical and heartbreaking desecration of their sacred way of life.

And also, remember that in many cases, '''due process''' and '''equality''' before the law are often unethically '''disregarded''' because of people’s irrational “gut hatred” of zoosexuality. In Delaware, a state where zoosexual acts are a felony, two people were unjustly arrested in January 2013 for having sex with a dog, even though no harm occurred. Their privacy was severely invaded and the authorities were irresponsible in how they handled it. Here are several quotes with regard to that incident:<blockquote>''“[The Delaware case] is another example of anti-zoosexual bigotry, especially in a case like this where there appears to be no harm done. As usual, a “concerned citizen” (as the source puts it) snitched on them and (because zoosexuals are not protected under the law), the “snitcher” is able to screw up the lives of zoosexuals (while the “snitcher” sits back and watches). It should be the opposite: zoosexuals should be protected under the law and should '''not''' be prosecuted, while “snitchers” and “informants” who invade people’s privacy '''should''' be prosecuted. Also, to make matters worse, the actual real street address of the Delaware victims are revealed in the above news source (which is pretty disturbing and is an outright invasion of privacy).”'' — Zqwm7, <nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-209984.html</nowiki></blockquote><blockquote>''“[In response to above quote]: Don’t we have the right to face our accusers in the US? Seriously. If someone was to say something about me, I want to face them. Have them say it to my face. I want their name. [If] they are going to screw up my life, then they can have theirs ruined as well. It is called karma. Bad karma…”'' — jamagh, <nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-209984.html</nowiki></blockquote><blockquote>''“We are socially unacceptable to the degree that we [zoosexuals] are perceived as guilty even when accused by faceless individuals in the dark of the night with no evidence against us. The official law like to think of us as “non-human” and “inhuman monsters”. So, it becomes acceptable to skirt the rules and procedures of the law to get us because we are so “evil”. We are a feel good enemy to society — one that can be easily and repeatedly knocked over, trampled on and denigrated so those self-appointed “morality” police of society can hold up our bleeding corpses as proof of their own self-righteous power and victory. So sadly you won’t get the names [of the snitchers], because justice is not as important as it is to get the “monsters” in the community.”'' — energydog, <nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-209984.html</nowiki></blockquote>
The above quotes remind us of the fact that bigoted, intolerant, unjust, discriminatory anti-zoosexual legislation (usually created by arrogant, bigoted speciesists) often becomes law in places like Delaware, and their unjust draconian bullsh** is never questioned by anyone because zoosexuality is taboo and everyone erroneously '''assumes''' that zoosexuality is “bad”. Horrible anti-zoosexual laws like the one in Delaware need to be eradicated, and new anti-zoosexual legislation needs to be prevented. As ''Lawrence vs. Texas'' (a Supreme Court ruling) showed us, with regard to harmless private sexual acts between mature beings, people’s perceptions of “morality” should not be embedded into the law:<blockquote>''“The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties”''</blockquote>Below is a quote regarding wisdom (in terms of defining “abuse” in the law):<blockquote>''“I think it would be better not to have any specific laws against sexual offenses at all. Instead, it would make more sense only to punish general abuse. Treating sexual abuse separately from non-sexual abuse can be used to distract from the severity of non-sexual abuse.''

''The issue with consensual sexual intercourse with non-human animals is a rather delicate issue. Often, due to speciesism, it is claimed axiomatically that non-human animals can’t “consent” to sexual intercourse with human animals, with no real basis in reality. I think it’s in the interest of utilitarians to '''not''' restrict the spectrum of pleasant activities for animals arbitrarily; [therefore, there should not be any laws which prohibit zoosexual activity].”'' —<nowiki>http://felicifia.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=461</nowiki><ref>felicifia http://felicifia.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=461</ref></blockquote>

====== A response from Equality for All (E.F.A) ======
Here are two quotes which are responses to an anti-zoosexual who was advocating for irrational anti-zoosexual laws:<blockquote>''“As an admirer of E.F.A. [Equality for All, a zoosexual rights organization] I applaud your efforts on behalf of all helpless, abused animals. There is nothing sadder to me – and many of us – than seeing defenseless animals abused for human gratification, whether it be sexual, financial, cosmetic, culinary, ornamental, entertainment or any other well-documented type of abuse.''

''But, as you point out, not all zoosexual people are cruel, or even indifferent, to their animal partners. On the contrary, true zoosexual people are more concerned about their non-human partners than anyone else. To lump everyone into one category and make all zoosexual people criminals just to save law-enforcement the ‘trouble’ of discerning between the lovers and the abusers is a very dangerous step in the wrong direction. you open the door to criminalizing entire swaths of human population every time a problem arise. That attitude brings you prohibition, drug wars, Patriot act and numerous other absurd over-kills. To criminalize hundreds of millions of people just to protect some animals is also absurd as humans are also animals. We can’t be lazy and we must carefully outlaw the abusers without panicking and pushing several percentage of the human population underground.''

''Watch Sir Tijn Po’s COMING SOON, read Peter Singer’s HEAVY PETTING, and you might change your approach a bit. Perhaps you can even join forces with E.F.A.”'' — <nowiki>http://www.webpronews.com/zoophiles-march-on-berlin-to-demand-equal-rights-2013-02</nowiki><ref>Zoophiles march on Berlin to demand equal rights http://www.webpronews.com/zoophiles-march-on-berlin-to-demand-equal-rights-2013-02</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''“Jenny, I just want to address the points you have made as I doubt you realize how daft some of your things you have said are.''

''1) Animals do not need to be trained or conditioned into having sex with people. Usually animals need to be discouraged from displaying sexual behavior towards people either through careful training or simply just neutering. Personally I think to imply that no animals can enjoy sex either with their own or other with other species is only really possible if you have no understanding of animal sexual behavior. Often the only reason these animals are removed from their true owners is because of these anti-zoo laws. The laws themselves are creating problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place.''

''2) It is utter rubbish that animals are often injured by sex with humans and in the cases where this does happen it is usually due to the person deliberately trying to cause harm or causing harm due to ignorance. In many cases better understanding could prevent those injuries due to ignorance and better understanding is not gained by banning and criminalizing something which can prevent people finding out the information they need.''

''3) Finally I want to point out the huge flaw in your “but it is for the good of the animals” argument that you use in your last paragraph. If you were up to date with what had been happening in Germany you would know that Germany already had a law in place to prosecute those who harmed animals either through sexual or non-sexual activity. So this law to protect innocent victims was already in place. The existing law could already be used to target abusers and fencehoppers [trespassers] and maybe could even have been made stricter to better prosecute people convicted of causing this harm. The new law ignores this and is equally or even more devoted to simply targeting those who haven’t ever caused harm. This would seem to be good solid evidence that the new law is not for animal protection (as that law already existed) but simply to enforce morality.''

''In terms of what you say about having to criminalize all sex with animals to try and prevent the actions of a tiny minority of people engaging in sexual activity with animals I think forgets the basic fundamental fact that this law won’t change anything. Zoosexual people who still love their animals will still have sex with them and the horrible sadists who genuinely enjoy and revel in causing pain and suffering will still continue to do so. If we are to take the banning something to prevent the actions of a tiny negative minority then why are we not campaigning to ban sex between men and women to protect women from rapists, domestic abusers and serial killers? Why are we not trying to ban homosexual sex to protect gay men against someone akin to Jeffrey Dahmer? Why are we not banning all pet ownership full stop to protect animals from the few horrifically neglectful owners that exist? I could go on and on with these examples but it simply points to the same thing. This new law is neither an effective tool to achieve its planned ends and worse it has not been brought in to actually do anything more than subject a group of people to the uneducated moral opinion of others.''
''I also wanted to add that zoophilia [zoosexuality] is not a choice people make. It is (and is starting to be recognized as such by professionals) a sexual orientation. A zoosexual person can no more choose not to be zoo than a homosexual man can simply choose not to be gay. And yes it IS an equal rights issue. We live in a world where people who work in animal breeding industries are allowed to sexually arouse animals for profit. They are allowed to restrain female animals to be raped by a male of their choosing so they can get the offspring they want. They can perform almost any manipulation or mutilation to an animals genitals they want as long as this is done for either profit or for “medical” reasons. These things are viewed as “OK” but a [sexual] act performed for the mutual enjoyment of both parties or in some cases simply for the enjoyment of the non-human party is viewed as “bad”. Even some of those acts that can legally be performed for profit are illegal if done in a non-commercial situation!”'' — Ryan D,www.webpronews.com/zoophiles-march-on-berlin-to-demand-equal-rights-2013-02</blockquote>Sometimes in jurisdictions that have non-anti-zoosexual laws, an “animal cruelty” law is unjustly used against someone (even if the zoosexual act did not involve any cruelty or abuse). Animal cruelty laws should only be used against actual acts of cruelty (remember that zoosexual acts are not inherently abusive and can occur ethically — therefore they are not automatically “cruel”); in many cases, a politician will create an anti-zoosexual law and say they are doing for “animal welfare” or to “prevent cruelty”, but this is a lie and is a facade (their REAL reason for prohibition is because of their irrational bigoted anti-zoosexual prejudice — they don’t really care about animal welfare. If they did they would all be vegetarians and not buy animal products).

== '''SECTION 13: THE BLOCK QUOTES OF TRUTH''' ==
(For page length; There will be a reference to the site this editorial was derived from to see more of the quotes listed.

Before finishing this post, there are several block quotes that caught my attention. Here is the first one (an anonymous Netherlands person referring to a relationship with his dog):<blockquote>''“It’s beyond the question of attraction, it was just love for a single dog at first.''

''I slowly progressed into becoming sexually attracted towards dogs[…] I’m not insane or anything. I just have a strong devotion of being passionate with my canine lover. As long as he’s in ecstasy, I am. It’s like we’re emotionally attached. Call me species blind, or confused. I do often see myself, sometimes, as a female dog[…] After we ever much grew closer, our bond became very much spiritual. It was beyond aesthetic attraction and romance[…] This felt nice to me, knowing he was experiencing pleasure, I felt warm and tingly inside. I soon got warm, I hugged him, surprisingly, I realised he enjoyed this.''

''It felt so natural, it didn’t feel wrong. I know we all may have heard of deviants raping and hurting animals, because they’re ‘easily coerced’ for masturbatory purposes. But I did not have that at all in mind, I’d never force nor harm him with or without sex, I love him.”'' (Quote URL: <nowiki>http://www.psychforums.com/paraphilias/topic42401.html</nowiki><ref>Psychforums http://www.psychforums.com/paraphilias/topic42401.html</ref>)</blockquote>Also, consider the following block quote of a commenter on a news website:

''“Only laws say [zoosexuality] is sick[...] if everyone thought it was good, everyone would do it, but because the laws, morals, and religions make out it is bad (biased opinions), they think its bad [and that it is] only animal cruelty [and] not sexual activity, [yet] empirical data proves animals are happy if they are not physically harmed. Animal abusers are non-zoos and zoos, [and because of this] zoophilia itself [has] nothing to do with cruelty[…] If zoophilia should be banned, so should homosexuality, because [it’s] just [as] odd [an] orientation as zoophilia.''

====== The reason people frown at Zoosexuality ======
The reason people tend to frown at zoosexuality is that they have a lack of imagination. They follow the herd, they do what society has taught them to do from an early age, and they don’t question it. People tend to say “ewww” and not even approach the subject – this is a result of our anti-zoo culture. The above two block quotes show that there are plenty of people out there who support zoosexuality – in fact, each of the people who said the above quotes probably represent thousands of people who are too sheepish to reveal what they think on the Internet. Their opinions are drowned out by misconceptions and bigotry, and they hide in the darkness of their zoo closets. They fear that they will be scorned, ridiculed and despised by people if they reveal their zoosexual orientation.

On another website, a person was making many negative accusations about zoosexuals that are common – among them, comparing animals to children, believing that the animals are “forced” to have sex because they cannot consent, and believing that animals need to be “protected” from humans (thus creating an artificial barrier between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom). This person went on to argue that this barrier (the status quo) should remain in place. In response to this, there were several comments that stood out (from 5 different people); this block quote was said by the first person:<blockquote>''“So why do I call Natalie’s response arbitrary? First, she said something about the article with the title saying a dog is as intelligent as a 2-year-old (yes I read that article) equates a dog to a child. I think she meant in reference to the study discussed in the article as the authority and not the title itself (I hope). But even then, if a dog has the reasoning ability of a 2-year-old that doesn’t make the dog an equivalent of a 2-year-old. For one, they’re different species. Two, we’re comparing sexually mature dogs to very young children who are just beginning their development. Three, our society has “Disneyised” animals into asexual children which is very unrealistic. An adult dog is a mature, sexual being unlike a 2-year-old. Also, her argument that a dog doesn’t choose but wants contradicts the scientific studies about canine cognition. They’re not instinctual automatons. They’re sentient beings, and although not on par with humans intellectually, still have a degree of rational thinking capacity. True, there’s the issue of -informed- consent. Meaning, they know what they want but they don’t necessarily understand the consequences. But that doesn’t stop us from using dogs for dangerous jobs like police work, hunting (dogs can be cut up pretty bad by a raccoon or mountain lion), or even the battlefield. But when it comes to sex then it’s suddenly different. But why? It’s so arbitrary.''</blockquote>Another commenter said the following:<blockquote>''“I am a female zoosexual, in a relationship with a male dog. I believe this to be an orientation. Growing up, I was always closer to animals than to my peers.I would like to address the concept of consent. Yes, my animals take a submissive role in the household. They are not capable of making the decisions necessary to keep them healthy and well. I have the responsibility of providing them with nutritious food and appropriate veterinary care, with making sure they are groomed, free of parasites, and not permitted to roam at large. I ignore their consent in all of these areas, and yet this is considered the model of good dog ownership.So…can my male consent to sex, in this context? Asking that is like asking a Lab if they can consent to playing “Fetch”, while the dog is standing in front of you with the ball in his mouth and hopping from foot to foot in excitement. I have made it clear to him that I will only tolerate his sexual advances when in the bedroom. The result of this edict is that anytime I walk towards the bedroom door, he bolts ahead of me and then bounces eagerly at the door, begging to be let in. If I don’t want to play, I have to be very careful to exclude him from the room, as he will get on the bed and then refuse to be dislodged from it until he’s had his fun.''
''We don’t argue about “informed consent” when dog herd cows, run agility courses, detect bombs, or retrieve birds, all for our convenience or pleasure. So why is it suddenly an issue when sex is involved?”''</blockquote>A fourth commenter said this:
''“It is very likely that the state laws in this regard exist mainly because of religious tradition and unclear thinking. People cannot fathom that animals are capable of seeking sex, consenting to sex[,] and pleasure itself.''
''Animals are not humans. They will never be expected to hold conversations about ethics, hold a 9 to 5 to support the wife, 2.5 children, dog and 2 cars. Their world is mentally much simpler than ours. Ethics, guilt, law, psychology and sociology are all human inventions.A two year old human cannot: survive in the wild; mate and produce viable offspring; work for a police department to find things such as bombs, drugs, missing persons, perps and the like; help the disabled function in society; consent to sex; seek out sex; and engage in agility and speed competitions with others of its kind. Clearly, dogs (when they reach maturity) have the capacity to choose to seek and participate (consent) to sex[…]''

== '''SECTION 14: CONCLUSION''' ==
Commenters such as the ones above (and other Internet-based outlets) are the only way people can hear the voices of zoophiles in our current, strict society. They bring up many valid points. For example, the common argument against zoosexuality is a lack of consent – yet there is no consent at all when a person neuters an animal, or hunts it.
The following comment reflects this idea:<blockquote>''“It [sex with animals] should be legalized, love is love and you shouldn’t discriminate against anybody’s lifestyle choices. And don’t give me crap about ‘consent’– [people] can kill these beautiful creatures without [their] consent for food and sport, so why should [consent] be required to make sweet inter-species love to them?”'' — Poems, <nowiki>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvhfHIBuKII1pQbBVrQ1k4YjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20110118232812AA55ke3</nowiki></blockquote>Also, mentioned throughout this post is the idea that many animal rights advocates erroneously believe that having sex with an animal is ''autmoatically''animal abuse; plenty of evidence suggests that having sex with animal '''is not''' automatically abuse (in a few cases it is abusive, but most of the time it is not); the following comment reflects this idea:<blockquote>''“Many animal rights people [those who condemn zoosexuality] say they want what is ‘best’ for animals. This is a load of crap because what they really want is what they '''think''', or have made an uneducated decision about, what is best for animals. Many of these people have little to no knowledge about animals and animal behavior in the real world and will happily overlook anything that doesn’t coincide with what they have convinced themselves is ‘right’. I find it best to ignore people like this[...] The most important thing is to live your life how you want, and just make sure you’re not deliberately harming anyone or anything else. Other people’s [negative] opinions of your [zoosexual] life shouldn’t mean anything.”'' — Dirtbiker2000,<nowiki>http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-170217.html</nowiki></blockquote>Remember what Martin Luther King said:<blockquote>''“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort or convenience, but where he stands at moments of challenge and controversy.”'' — Martin Luther King Jr.</blockquote>As the above quote states, if a person knows something is right and defends it (even when it is unpopular), it shows that the person is good. Zoosexual people who defend ethical (non-cruel) sex with animals are good because they are defending something that is right, even though it is unpopular. Through reconciliation, many closeted zoosexuals who previously hated zoosexuality have learned to accept themselves for who they are; those people have made peace with themselves and live enjoyable lives because they are comfortable with their zoosexuality and know there is nothing wrong with it.

For many people, compassion for animals and zoosexuality are a core part of their belief structure and their spirituality, and it gives their lives meaning. As discussed in Section 12, laws which prohibit ethical zoosexual sex are unconstitutional because they violate the spirituality of these people. For these zoosexual people, engaging in ethical inter-species sex with a being who happens to be non-human is a sacred and spiritual part of their existence — these people care more about the animal’s welfare than they do about their own. Many zoosexual people believe that non-human animals have souls just like humans, and that non-human animals should be treated as equal to humans in terms of moral consideration and interests (seezoosexuality as part of a spirituality).

Based on what I’ve learned over the years about zoosexuality, I’ve compiled a list which summarizes this post and my conclusions about zoosexuality (link here) — and a list of zoosexual links that do not contain anti-zoo bias. Ultimately, '''it’s OK to be zoosexual, just as it’s OK to be homosexual or bisexual. There is nothing wrong with zoosexuality.''' Humans '''are''' animals, and humans are just another species in the Animal Kingdom (despite their intellect). Any rational person should realize that sexual intercourse between a human and non-human animal '''is not intrinsically wrong'''. Whenever our irrational culture makes claims that sex with animals is immoral, or that zoosexuality is an “illness”, '''do not believe it.''' Just as ''certain kinds'' of human-human sex are bad (i.e. rape), the same is true for human-animal sex — '''but that does not mean that all human-animal sex is bad.''' Only a few zoosexuals abuse animals; most zoosexuals '''deeply love and care''' for their animals. Additionally, '''there is no link between zoosexuality and pedophilia, animals can non-verbally consent''', and zoosexual relationships can be '''mutually pleasurable'''.

It is incorrect to assume that '''all''' zoosexual acts are “cruel” and “abusive”. Sexual activity between humans and non-human animals usually does '''not'''involve cruelty. Not all zoosexual people are good — some are “zoosadists” and some are “bestialists” (have sex for the sake of having sex). Zoosadists and bestialists treat animals like “sex toys”. '''However''', most zoosexual people '''are NOT like that'''. Most zoophiles '''are ethical''' and treat their animals with extreme care and devotion (these people usually form romantic relationships with their animal lovers). Many of these zoosexuals are also vegetarians and animal rights activists.

''[[Category:Surveys]]
[[Category:Research]]''
<references />{{Home}}

Horse

2026-07-21T23:31:44Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

===Horse===
The domestic horse ( Equus caballus ) is a common domestic animal kept in numerous breeds around the world.

Taxonomically, the domestic horse with donkeys, half donkeys, and zebras belongs to the horse family (equidae, Equidae) within the order of the odd-toed ungulates (Perissodactyla).
==Features==
===Exterior===
Like all horses, the domestic horse is a long-legged herbivore with a massive head and smooth, short fur, which in all breeds is formed into a mane or tail, the so-called long hair, on the neck and tail. The foot ends in a single walking hoof, i.e. horses are tiptoe walkers who walk on their third, middle toe alone. The remaining toes have receded. Because the eyes are on the sides of the head, horses can see almost all around. But what exactly is in front of your nose you only notice when you turn your head. Although horses are not color-blind, they cannot distinguish all colors from one another. The brown, green, and gray are uniform gray; On the other hand, they see colors such as white, red, yellow, and blue particularly well.

The movable auricles can be set in all directions. Faced forward, the horse shows attention and curiosity, but when placed back against the head, the horse is angry and aggressive. If the ears hang to the side, this is either a sign of malaise and/or tiredness or an expression of submission or fear. If the ears are pointing backward, this is a sign of illness or boredom.

In order to be safe from predators in their original habitat, different coat colors developed over time (see below: coat colors of horses). One of the horse's earliest coat colors was fawn.

===Size, Age, Reproduction===
Depending on the breed, horses reach between 70 and 210 cm shoulder height (withers). Horses with a height at the withers of less than 148 cm are called small horses or ponies. Their weight can be between 90 kg (Falabella) and 1200 kg (Shire). Physically mature horses are 3 to 6 years old, ponies are rather late, large horses are earlier. Large horses reach an age of around 25 years, ponies get a little older at 40 years of age. The highest recorded age for a large horse is 62 years. Mares reach sexual maturity at 12 to 18 months, stallions reach sexual maturity between 12 and 20 months of age. The gestation time for all horses is around 330 days. The horse's sexual cycle is subject to a period of oestrus. The animals show no sexual activity in the period from about December to March.

==Behavior==
The horse is a typical herd animal. There is a clearly defined hierarchy within the herd, the herd is usually led by a lead mare. The highest-ranking stallion is called the lead stallion, only he covers the mares of the herd. While the lead mare leads the herd and determines the activities and paths, the lead stallion is primarily responsible for defense. On the run, he runs in the back to drive slower animals and, if necessary, to defend the herd against the attacker.

As a steppe inhabitant, the horse, in contrast to the donkey, is a flight animal that tries to avert danger first and foremost by fleeing quickly.

Mares and geldings are particularly widespread in keeping as pets or livestock, and in most cases, they fit easily into a more or less large herd group. Because of their strong sex drive, stallions are considered difficult to predict. If the stallion smells a sturdy mare, he usually tries everything to get to her - if the pasture or the stable is inappropriately fenced, stallions are often injured. Many stallions tend to aggressive rank fights in herds, so they are mostly kept on their own pastures or in separate tables.

In order to be able to distinguish a horse externally from others, one can take advantage of the markings on his face, his body, and his legs. The most common marks on the face are line, blaze (which can be narrow and wide), star, snip, flake, etc. In addition to these, a horse can also have a toad mouth or milk mouth. The latter is particularly common in the Mongolian wild horse.

On the legs, one differentiates only the height of the badge, whereby a "bright white foot" is the largest, and the "white crown" the smallest. Fur swirls and chestnuts (remains of horn on the inside of the legs, remains of the fifth toe) are also used to identify sport horses.
==Domestication and Keeping==
===Ancestry===
Horses were probably born around 3000 BC. First domesticated in Central Asia. There are contradicting theories as to when and where exactly the horse was made usable by humans. Final examinations. which are based on the evaluation of the mitochondrial DNA of today's domestic horses and of fossils of extinct species suggest that the domestication of the horse did not take place in one place, but independently of one another in several places. An essential indicator for this is the breadth of the genetic variations, which is the same in both test groups. With only one place of domestication, a lower genetic range of variation would have been expected in domestic horses. In addition, during these tests, it was found that some of the fossil finds were more closely related to today's species,

Investigations of mitochondrial DNA in 2002 showed that there were at least 77 strain types in mares, suggesting that different wild horse populations in different regions of the world have been domesticated independently of one another; considerably more than with other types of pets.

The wild Przewalski horse apparently does not belong to the ancestors of the domestic horse, as the ancestral lines separated already 120,000 to 240,000 years ago.

===History of the Domestic Horse===
The early nomadic peoples of Central Asia invented the saddle and bridle as early as the third millennium BC. Later the Greek historian Strabo reported on the extraordinary riding skills of the Scythians, who probably brought the horse to Europe.

The domestication of the horse brought the peoples an extraordinary advantage. Long distances were covered in much less time, which made maintaining great empires easier. The early empires of the Assyrians and Hittites profited from harnessing the horse in war. Around 1700 BC The Hyksos invaded Egypt, a nomadic people of unknown origin - horses were unknown to the Egyptians until then, and despite their high civilization, they were so far inferior to the Hyksos in a battle that Egypt could be conquered.

In "Tacitus Germania" (about 90 AD) the following is noted about horses among the Teutons: "And the widespread custom of questioning the voice and flight of birds is also known here; however, it is a Germanic peculiarity, also on At the expense of the general public, white horses are kept in the groves and clearings mentioned, which have not been profaned by any service for mortals. They are harnessed to the holy chariot; the priest and the king or the head of the tribe go next to them and watch their neighing and snorting. And no sign is believed more, not only with the people: also with the noble ones, with the priests, for they consider themselves only servants of the gods, the horses, on the other hand, their confidants. "

The Greek historian Xenophon wrote in the 4th century BC. The work Peri hippikes ("About the art of riding"), in which he gathered knowledge about horses and riding. Most of the advice from this work is still valid today.

While horses used in the war in early antiquity were initially mostly harnessed to chariots, this method became increasingly uncommon during the dominance of the Roman Empire. Cavalrymen on horses that were bred ever-larger turned out to be faster, more agile, and thus more effective than fighters on chariots as the art of riding increased.

The horseshoe was brought to Europe in the 5th century during the Great Migration. The exact origin of this invention is unknown.

The use of the horse as a workhorse was only possible in the Middle Ages with the invention of the collar. Previously, oxen were mainly used in agriculture. The harnesses that were customary up to that time cut off the horses' breath when they were pulling heavily and were only suitable for easy-running wagons, but not for heavy work. The collar made it possible to use horses to pull a plow, for example. Since their labor output was significantly greater than that of oxen, this marked an agricultural revolution.

There were no domesticated horses in the Americas; Although there were originally wild horses in America too, these were extinct before they could be domesticated. It was only the Europeans who brought the horse to America. In North America, some of the horses ran away and formed herds of free-range mustangs. This was the first time the Indians encountered horses; the contact radically changed the way of life of some peoples. Above all, the peoples of the prairie were able to capture the bison more easily thanks to the speed of the horse and due to their greater mobility, they could undertake [[further]] hunting expeditions and thus kill more buffalo than before.

The invention of the automobile made the horse largely superfluous as a means of transport and as a workhorse in the course of the 20th century.

==Use==
While thoroughbreds and the somewhat calmer warm-blooded animals are mounts and are also used as draft animals in front of light carriages, the rather massive cold-blooded horses are slower pace and almost exclusively draft and work animals, which used to be used to pull heavy wagons, to cultivate fields (plowed horse) and for hauling felled trees (back horse) as well as for similar power work. Since modern forestry and agricultural machinery has displaced horses from these areas, cold-blooded horses have become rare these days. In the meantime, horses are increasingly being used again in gardening and forestry work, as they hardly compact the soil and work more flexibly and more gently than machines in the forest. Most horses are now kept as sport and leisure horses. Larger ponies such as Haflingers, Norwegians or Tinkers are often kept as leisure horses, which are characterized above all by their ease of feeding and undemanding. The police horse is still used as a utility horse today, and horses can still be found occasionally in armies.

Before the horse was domesticated, the animals were hunted as meat suppliers. Eating horse meat, after having become completely uncommon in the meantime, has recently increased again. In 2001, an estimated 153,000 tons of horse meat were eaten around the world.

The importance of the horse as a meat producer within the EU is still so high that the horse can only be given unrestricted medication if the owner has a horse passport in which he declares that the animal will not be used for meat processing and in which every medicinal product Treatment is entered. If, after treatment, the desire to collect the slaughter price arises, the owner must allow a minimum period to elapse before the animal can be slaughtered.

The Jewish religion forbids the consumption of horse meat. Such an express prohibition does not exist in Islam or Christianity, but the eating of horse meat was frowned upon in both cultures. From Pope Gregory III. It is recorded that in 732 he condemned the eating of horses as a pagan abomination that should be stamped out.

==Feeding==
When feeding horses, the individual needs of each animal must be taken into account, so foals and young horses as well as pregnant and nursing mares have a significantly increased protein requirement, with sport horses, however, attention should be paid to the use of particularly high-energy feed and in older horses the lower feed usability must be taken into account To be taken into account. The supply of minerals also deserves special attention, as deficiency symptoms often occur here. In addition to the traditional feed straw, hay and oats and the increasing use of finished feed, the following products are also used:

Alfalfa hay
Green flour
Grass silage
Corn silage
Haystack
Carrots, apples, bananas
Dried pulp
Corn
barley
Soybean meal
Vegetable oil
Wheat bran
Mash
Horses need access to freshwater every day. The amount required depends to a large extent on the weather, feeding, and weight of the horse and can be up to 80 liters per day.

==Horses in Mythology==
The close relationship between humans and horses has led to the fact that in the mythology of many peoples there are numerous horse figures to which great importance is attached.

Greek mythology, in particular, is rich in horses and horse-like beings:

the centaur is a hybrid of human and horse, with a horse's body and a human head. There were numerous centaurs, most of them unkind beings; however, the two most famous centaurs, Pholos and Cheiron, were friendly and intelligent representatives of their race.
Pegasus was a winged, semi-divine horse who aided Bellerophon in numerous heroic acts, including killing the chimera.
Bucephalus was the legendary horse of Alexander the Great. Numerous mythical properties were ascribed to it, but it is very likely to go back to a really existing horse.
The Trojan horse was a wooden horse inside which the Greeks hid to get into Troy.
The myth of the legendary unicorn, a horse with goat hooves, a lion's tail, and a horn on its forehead, probably originated in India. Unicorns did not appear in Greek mythology, but they did appear in scientific descriptions by Aristotle and Pliny.

In Norse mythology, there is Sleipnir, the eight-legged horse of the god Odin, as well as the horses Arvak and Alsvid, who pulled the sun's chariot across the sky.

==Names, Races, Coat Colors==
The male horse is called either a stallion or if neutered, a gelding. The female horse is called a mare. Young animals are called foals or foals; Enter denotes the one-year-old horse.

===Horse Breeds===
The list of horse breeds can be broken down into

Small horses and
Large horses
organize. Another possible classification depends on the temperament of the horses. So can

Thoroughbreds,
Warmbloods and
Cold-blooded animals
can be distinguished. This nomenclature relates to temperament - the blood temperature is the same in all horses and is normally between 37.5 ° C and 38 ° C.

Official documents often contain references to the breed after the horse's name: xx stands for English thoroughbred, an ox for Arabs and x means that the horse is an Anglo-Arab - an English thoroughbred with at least 25 percent Arab crossbreeding.

===Coat Colors===
There are a large number of different colors of horses and their names, some of which vary from region to region. The most important basic colors are black, bay, fox, and gray (Fellfarben_der_Pferde for more information).

==References==
zoowiki.zetapin.de

{{Terms}}
[[Category:Terms]]

Horny

2026-07-21T23:31:44Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
==Horny==
Horny means sexually-aroused. In females the term used may be ‘receptive’.

Male animals have notoriously high sex drives if they manage to escape the common [[Non-Zoo|non-zoo]] practice of neutering, and their lust may be directed at members of other species as well as their own.

==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/
[[Category:Terms]]

History of zoophilia

2026-07-21T23:31:43Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Short description|none}} 
{{unreliable sources|date=May 2021}}
The '''history of [[zoophilia]]''' and '''bestiality''' begins in the prehistoric era, where depictions of humans and non-human animals in a sexual context appear infrequently in European rock art.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bahn|first=Paul G.|title=The Cambridge illustrated history of prehistoric art|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0-521-45473-5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xwm_D1u_UTsC&pg=PA188|accessdate=18 February 2012|page=188}}</ref> Bestiality remained a theme in mythology and folklore through the classical period and into the Middle Ages (e.g. the Greek myth of Leda and the Swan)<ref name="HSE" /> and several ancient authors purported to document it as a regular, accepted practice—albeit usually in "other" cultures.

Explicit legal prohibition of human sexual contact with other animals is a legacy of the Abrahamic religions:<ref name="HSE" /> the Hebrew Bible imposes the death penalty on both the person and animal involved in an act of bestiality.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{bibleverse||Leviticus|20:15|131}}</ref> There are several examples known from medieval Europe of people and animals executed for committing bestiality. With the Age of Enlightenment, bestiality was subsumed with other sexual "crimes against nature" into civil [[sodomy]] laws, usually remaining a capital crime.

Bestiality remains illegal in most countries. Arguments used to justify this include: it is against religion, it is a "crime against nature," and that non-human animals cannot give consent and that sex with animals is inherently abusive.<ref>Regan, Tom. ''Animal Rights, Human Wrongs''. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp. 63-4, 89.</ref> In common with many [[paraphilia]]s, the internet has provided a connective platform for the [[Zoophilia#Zoophile community|zoophile community]], which has lobbied for the recognition of zoophilia (or zoosexuality as an alternative sexuality), and advocated for the legalisation of bestiality.<ref>{{cite news|last=Francis|first=Thomas|title=Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement|url=http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/|accessdate=18 February 2012|newspaper=Broward Palm Beach New Times|date=20 August 2009|archive-date=15 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150215053508/http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

==Prehistory==
Depictions of human sexual activity with animals appear infrequently in prehistoric art. Possibly the oldest depiction, and the only known example from the Palaeolithic (prior to the domestication of animals), is found in the Vale do Côa in Portugal. It shows a man with an exaggerated, erect penis juxtaposed with a goat. However, there is some doubt that the two figures are contemporary; while the goat is depicted in characteristic palaeolithic style, the scene may have been altered in a later period with the insertion of the human figure.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Angulo Cuesta |first1=J. |last2=García Diez |first2=M. |title=Diversity and meaning of Palaeolithic phallic male representations in Western Europe |journal=Actas Urol Esp |year=2006 |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=254–267 |url=http://www.actasurologicas.info/v30/n03/ENG/3003OR02.htm |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120726163724/http://www.actasurologicas.info/v30/n03/ENG/3003OR02.htm |archivedate=2012-07-26 }}</ref>

From the Neolithic onwards, images of zoophilia are slightly more common. Examples are found at ''Coren del Valento'', a cave in Val Camonica, Italy, containing rock art dating from 10,000 BCE to as late as the Middle Ages, one depicting a man penetrating a horse,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Anati |first=E. |title=The Way of Life Recorded in the Rock Art of Valcamonica |journal=Adoranten |year=2008 |issue=2008 |url=http://www.ssfpa.se/pdf/2008/anati_adorant08.pdf |publisher=Scandinavian Society for Prehistoric Art |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100819050756/http://www.ssfpa.se/pdf/2008/anati_adorant08.pdf |archivedate=2010-08-19 }}</ref> and [[Sagaholm]], a Bronze Age cairn in Sweden where several petroglyphs have been found with similar scenes.<ref>{{cite web|title=Sagaholm |url=http://home.online.no/~wen-mja/ontherocks/sagaholm.htm |work=On the rocks |accessdate=18 February 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110907011750/http://home.online.no/~wen-mja/ontherocks/sagaholm.htm |archivedate=7 September 2011 }}</ref>

==Classical antiquity==
[[File:Da michelangelo, leda e il cigno, post 1530 (national gallery) 01.jpg|thumb|right|''[[Leda and the Swan (Michelangelo)|Leda and the Swan]]'', copy of lost [[Michelangelo]]]]
Several Greek myths include the God Zeus seducing or abducting favoured mortals while in the form of an animal: Europa and the bull, Ganymede and the eagle, and Leda and the Swan.<ref name="HSE">{{cite encyclopedia |last1=Cornog |first1=M. |last2=Perper |first2=T. |year=1994 |title=Bestiality |editor1-last=Haeberle |editor1-first=E. J. |editor2-last=Bullough |editor2-first=B. L. |editor3-last=Bullough |display-editors=3 |editor4-last=B. |encyclopedia=Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia |publisher=Garland |location=New York & London |url=http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH06.HTM#b3-BESTIALITY |accessdate=18 February 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204033652/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH06.HTM#b3-BESTIALITY |archivedate=4 February 2012 }}</ref> Only the latter legend includes actual copulation between Leda and Zeus in his animal form, but depictions of this act, fairly uncommon in antiquity, became a popular motif in classicising Renaissance art, contributing to a lasting prominence in Western culture.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bull|first=M.|title=The Mirror of the Gods, How Renaissance Artists Rediscovered the Pagan Gods|year=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=0-19-521923-6|url=https://archive.org/details/mirrorofgods00bull}}</ref>
[[File:Zoophilia.jpg|thumb|right|Zoophilia carving on Rock with Old Kannada script engraved at [[Kedareshvara Temple, Balligavi]]]]

Various classical writers recorded that bestiality was common in other cultures. Herodotus was followed by Pindar, Strabo and Plutarch{{Citation needed|date=February 2012}} in alleging that Egyptian women engaged in sexual relations with goats for religious and magical purposes – the animal aspects of Egyptian deities being particularly alien to the Greco-Roman world.<ref>{{cite book|last=Ray|first=J. D.|title=The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion|year=2002|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-515401-6|editor=Redford, D. B.|page=90|chapter=Animal Cults}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Leavitt|first=J.|title=Greek and Egyptian Mythologies|year=1992|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago, IL|isbn=978-0-226-06454-3|editor=Bonnefoy, Y.|page=[https://archive.org/details/greekegyptianmyt00bonn/page/248 248]|chapter=The Cults of Isis among the Greeks and in the Roman Empire|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/greekegyptianmyt00bonn/page/248}}</ref> Conversely, Plutarch and Virgil make similar accusations of the Greeks.

Despite their place in mythology and literature, actual acts of bestiality were probably as uncommon in antiquity as they are today.<ref name="HSE" /> Roman civil law, however, made no mention of it.<ref>{{cite web|last=Norton|first=R.|title=Of Sodomy and Bestiality|url=http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1729disn.htm|work=Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook|accessdate=18 February 2012}}</ref> The explicit prohibition of and strict penalties for zoophilia universal in later European legal systems were derived from Jewish and Christian tradition.<ref name="HSE" /> The Hebrew Bible imposes the death penalty on both the human and animal parties involved in an act of bestiality: "if a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> The [[Synod of Ancyra]] in 313–316 discussed the position of the church with regard to bestiality at length and two of the resulting twenty-five canons addressed it: the sixteenth canon described the penance and level of restrictions to be applied to various age groups for committing bestiality; the seventeenth canon prohibited all lepers from praying inside church if they had committed bestiality while they suffered from leprosy.<ref>{{cite web|title=THE COUNCIL OF ANCYRA, HISTORICAL NOTE & CANONS|url=http://www.synaxis.org/canon/ECF37THE_COUNCIL_OF_ANCYRA_HISTORICAL.htm|accessdate=18 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100213214224/http://www.synaxis.org/canon/ECF37THE_COUNCIL_OF_ANCYRA_HISTORICAL.htm|archive-date=13 February 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Hittite law mandated the death penalty for intercourse with animals, excluding horses and mules (violators were instead barred from the priesthood and from approaching the king).<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1650nesilim.asp The Code of the Nesilim, c. 1650-1500 BCE] Retrieved 24 July 2013</ref>

==Europe: Middle Ages==
In the Church-oriented culture of the Middle Ages, zoosexual activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging.{{citation needed|date=December 2017}} Sects deemed heretical by the Church such as the Hussites were accused of bestiality.<ref name="Out Of Print Marmor 1980 p. ">{{cite book | author=Out Of Print | last2=Marmor | first2=J. | title=Homosexual Behavior | publisher=Basic Books | year=1980 | isbn=978-0-465-03045-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rBkbAAAAYAAJ | access-date=2022-10-16 | page=}}</ref> Masters comments that:
:"Theologians, bowing to Biblical prohibitions and basing their judgements on the conception of man as a spiritual being and of the animal as a merely carnal one, have regarded the same phenomenon as both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man, with the result that the act of bestiality has been castigated and anathematized [...]"{{citation needed|date=December 2017}}

In 1468, Jean Beisse, accused of bestiality with a cow on one occasion and a goat on another, was first hanged, then burned. The animals involved were also burned. In 1539, Guillaume Garnier, charged with intercourse with a female dog (described as "sodomy"), was ordered strangled after he confessed under torture. The dog was burned, along with the trial records which were "too horrible and potentially dangerous to be permitted to exist" (Masters). Other accusations of bestiality in the period include the trials of Thomas Weir<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GQlJj3_koNUC&dq=thomas+weir+bestiality&pg=PA168 | title=The Culture of Controversy: Religious Arguments in Scotland, 1660-1714 | isbn=9781843837299 | last1=Raffe | first1=Alasdair | year=2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EK3tCwAAQBAJ&dq=thomas+weir+bestiality&pg=PA191 | title=Witchcraft and Folk Belief in the Age of Enlightenment: Scotland, 1670-1740 | isbn=9781137313249 | last1=Henderson | first1=Lizanne | date=8 April 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mGMUBAAAQBAJ&dq=%22thomas+weir%22+%22atherton%22&pg=PA271 | title=Incest and Agency in Elizabeth's England | isbn=978-0812203301 | last1=Quilligan | first1=Maureen | date=7 June 2011 }}</ref> and John Atherton.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FT8FO95uMyYC&dq=john+atherton+bestiality&pg=PA215 | title=The Ancient and Modern History of the Maritime Ports of Ireland | isbn=9783954273522 | last1=Marmion | first1=Anthony | date=June 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ncRpEAAAQBAJ&dq=john+atherton+bestiality&pg=PT89 | title=Trial of Translation: An Examination of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the Vernacular Bibles of the Early Modern Period | isbn=9781725277557 | last1=Wirrig | first1=Adam L. | date=4 April 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oGKJDwAAQBAJ&dq=john+atherton+bestiality&pg=PA357 | title=Sex and the Church in the Long Eighteenth Century: Religion, Enlightenment and the Sexual Revolution | isbn=9781786731579 | last1=Gibson | first1=William | last2=Begiato | first2=Joanne | date=28 February 2017 }}</ref> In 1601, [[Claudine de Culam]], a young girl of sixteen, was convicted of copulating with a dog. Both the girl and the dog were first hanged, and finally burned. In 1735, François Borniche was charged with sexual intercourse with animals. It was greatly feared that "his infamous debauches may corrupt the young men." He was imprisoned, and there is no record of his release.{{citation needed|date=December 2017}} Historians claim there were more than a thousand executions recorded for bestiality in Sweden throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.<ref name="Österberg 2010 p. 170">{{cite book | last=Österberg | first=E. | title=Friendship and Love, Ethics and Politics: Studies in Mediaeval and Early Modern History | publisher=Central European University Press | series=The Natalie Zemon Davis Annual Lectures Series | year=2010 | isbn=978-615-5211-79-9 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q_0OEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA170 | access-date=2022-11-30 | page=170}}</ref><ref name="Krogh 2011 p. 59">{{cite book | last=Krogh | first=T. | title=A Lutheran Plague: Murdering to Die in the Eighteenth Century | publisher=Brill | series=Studies in Central European Histories | year=2011 | isbn=978-90-04-22137-6 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8ccyAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59 | access-date=2022-11-30 | page=59}}</ref>

On the other hand, other accounts are more possibly fictitious, such as Pietro Damiani's, who in his "De bono religiosi status et variorum animatium tropologia" (11th century) tells of a Count Gulielmus whose pet ape became his wife's lover. One day the ape became "mad with jealousy" on seeing the count lying with his wife that it fatally attacked him. Damiani claims he was told about this incident by Pope Alexander II and shown an offspring claimed to be that of the ape and woman. (''Illustrated Book of Sexual Records''){{citation needed|date=December 2017}}

Clergyman and chronicler Gerald of Wales claimed to have witnessed a man having intercourse with a horse as part of a pagan ritual in Ireland.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n12800341 Last Night's Television: Always let a sleeping pagan lie]</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jul/20/television.artsfeatures | work=The Guardian | location=London | title=Please, please tell me now | date=July 20, 2004 | accessdate=May 4, 2010 | first=Nancy | last=Banks-Smith}}</ref>

Although thousands of female witches were accused of having sex with animals, usually said to be the Devil in animal form or their familiars, court records available in Europe and the United States, dating back to the 14th century and continuing into the 20th century, nearly always show males, rather than females, as the human parties in court cases. (''Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality'', Humboldt University){{citation needed|date=December 2017}}

==French Revolution and legal reform==
From at least the 13th century and until the French Revolution, French criminal law had theoretically punished bestiality with death (burning at the stake), although in practice law courts only occasionally meted out that penalty. When the revolutionary politicians of the National Constituent Assembly set out to remake French government and society, their reforms included new criminal laws liberalizing sexual activities, inspired by ideas of the 18th-century Enlightenment. In 1791, Louis-Michel Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau presented a newly drafted penal code to the National Constituent Assembly. He explained that it outlawed only "true crimes" and not "phoney offenses, created by superstition, feudalism, the tax system, and [royal] despotism." Zoophilia was not mentioned in the new Penal Code (promulgated September 26-October 6, 1791) and thus decriminalized it.<ref name="Napoleonic Code">[http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/napoleonic_code.html Napoleonic Code ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140910195256/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/napoleonic_code.html |date=2014-09-10 }}</ref><ref name="Sexual Relations with Animals">[https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-GbOvrbniQC&dq=Russia+law+zoophilia&pg=PT9 Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals ]</ref>
==19th-Century==
In 1835, the Russian Empire criminalized ''skotolozhstvo'' (bestiality) in the country. In 1845, the Russian Empire merged both ''muzhelozhstvo'' (sodomy) and ''skotolozhstvo'' statues together into a single statue prohibiting ''protivoestestvennye poroki'' (vices contrary to nature).<ref name="Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-siècle Russia" /> On August 20, 1848, Norway adopted new penal codes which replaced a 1687 law that implemented the capital punishment by burning for "intercourse which is against nature" (bestiality) and reduced the punishment for engaging in bestiality from capital punishment to a sentence of hard labor of the fifth degree.<ref name="Criminally Queer">{{cite book |last=Rydström |first=Jens |date=May 31, 2007 |title=Criminally Queer: Homosexuality and Criminal Law in Scandinavia 1842-1999 |isbn=9789052602455 |accessdate=September 9, 2014 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cfsUAQAAIAAJ}}</ref>

In 1855, the German physician Wilhelm Gollmann claimed that [[sodomy]] was initially committed by shepherds. He adds that shepherds were drawn to this method of pleasure for the "want of more natural opportunities." Gollmann then prejudicially attacks Sicilians, whom he claims commit zoophilia against goats. According to Blumenbach, the females of Guinea commit indecent acts against monkeys. Gollmann finalizes his dubious claims with his assertion that Iranians commit acts against donkeys as a cure for coxalgia.<ref>
{{cite book
|first=Wilhelm
|last=Gollmann
|title=Homeopathic Guide to all Diseases Urinary and Sexual Organ
|publisher=Rademacher & Sheek
|others=[[Charles Julius Hempel]]
|year=1854
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1PjgLvjto-kC&q=%22sodomy+was+originally+practiced+by+shepherds%22&pg=PA202}}</ref>

In 1852, the Austrian Empire enacted § 130 which criminalized bestiality with a maximum of five years in prison. About fifty people were convicted annually due to the law.<ref name="an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation" /> In 1861, the Offences against the Person Act 1861 lowered the criminal penalty of buggery in the United Kingdom from the death penalty to life in prison.<ref name="Sexual Relations with Animals" /> On February 10, 1866, Denmark (including Greenland and Faroes) adopted new penal codes which replaced a 1683 law that implemented the death penalty at the stake by means of royal pardon for "intercourse against nature" (bestiality) and reduced the punishment for engaging in bestiality from capital punishment to a sentence of hard labor ranging from about eight months to six years, which was further reduced with about one third if the penalty was served in solitude.<ref name="Criminally Queer" /> On June 25, 1869, Iceland adopted a new penal code that replaced a 13th-century law mandating death by burning for "intercourse which is against nature" (bestiality) to a punishment of work in a house of correction.<ref name="Criminally Queer" />

On May 15, 1871, the German Empire enacted Paragraph 175 into the “Reichs-Criminal Code” (RStGB) which outlawed zoophilia and punished it by imprisonment.<ref name="an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation" /><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=44lheqlq-jYC&dq=May+15%2C+1871+Paragraph+175&pg=PA70 Chicago Whispers: A History of LGBT Chicago before Stonewall]</ref> In 1878, the penal code of the Kingdom of Hungary criminalized bestiality with a maximum of one year in prison.<ref name="Sexual Relations with Animals" /> Sweden, in 1864, and Grand Duchy of Finland, on December 19, 1889, adopted new penal codes replacing and a 1734 penal code, which applied to both countries and criminalized bestiality with being burnt at the stake. The 1864 Swedish law punished "fornication with animals" (bestiality) with two years hard labor, while the 1889 Finished law punished bestiality with imprisonment for two years.<ref name="Criminally Queer" />

==20th-Century==
[[File:Édouard-Henri Avril (28).jpg|thumb|Plate XVII by Édouard-Henri Avril, ''De Figuris Veneris'' (1906)]]

On June 28, 1935, Nazi Germany enacted legislation that created a separate category in Paragraph 175 for "fornication with animals" and penalized with up to five years in prison.<ref name="an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation">[http://www.tierimrecht.org/en/PDF/Zoophilia_an_Unrecognized_Problem_in_Animal_Welfare_Legislation.pdf Sexuality with Animals (Zoophilia) – an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221500/http://www.tierimrecht.org/en/PDF/Zoophilia_an_Unrecognized_Problem_in_Animal_Welfare_Legislation.pdf |date=2016-03-03 }}</ref>

During the 20th century, zoophilia was legalized in the Russian Empire in 1903,<ref name="Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-siècle Russia">[https://archive.org/details/keystohappinesss0000enge/page/59  The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-siècle Russia ]</ref> in Denmark (including Greenland and Faroes) on January 1, 1933,<ref name="Criminally Queer" /><ref>[http://www.thegranitetower.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=905 Animal Slaughter is Illegal in Denmark but Animal Prostitution Is Not ]</ref> in Iceland on August 12, 1940,<ref name="Criminally Queer" /> in Sweden in 1944,<ref>[http://www.inquisitr.com/163453/sweden-considering-ban-on-beastiality/ Sweden Considering Ban On Beastiality ]</ref> in Hungarian People's Republic in 1961, in West Germany in 1969,<ref name="an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation" /> in Austria in 1971,<ref name="an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation" /> in Finland on January 15, 1971,<ref name="Criminally Queer" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://yliopistolehti.helsinki.fi/yl14art.htm#a6|title=Järjettömäin luondocappalden canssa|first=Pekka|last=Kilpinen|work=University of Helsinki|year=2001|accessdate=13 July 2014|language=fi|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070320104934/http://yliopistolehti.helsinki.fi/yl14art.htm|archivedate=20 March 2007}}</ref> and Norway on April 21, 1972.<ref name="Criminally Queer" />

==21st-Century==

In 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lowered the criminal penalty of bestiality in the United Kingdom from life in prison to two years in prison.<ref>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69 Intercourse with an animal ]</ref>

In 2006, Denmark's Council for Animal Ethics said there was no need to ban bestiality unless it took place in pornographic films or sex shows. Only one of the 10 members of the council, set up by the Danish Justice Ministry to establish and uphold animal ethics, wanted bestiality expressly prohibited. The other members said current laws provided enough animal protection.<ref>[http://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-denmark-sex-idUKL3073141820061130 Animal sex proposal spurs call for referendum ]</ref> Denmark outlawed bestiality in 2015 after all parties except the Liberal Alliance voted in support of a ban, leaving Hungary, Finland and Romania as the only European Union countries without bans on bestiality.<ref name="bbcdenmark">{{cite news | date = 22 April 2015 | title = Denmark passes law to ban bestiality | work = BBC Newsbeat | accessdate = 20 July 2015 | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32411241/denmark-passes-law-to-ban-bestiality}}</ref>

During the 21st century, bestiality was re-criminalized in the following countries or territories:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+United States of America
!Federal district or state
!Date criminalized
!Penalty for first-time non-violent bestiality offense
|-
|Iowa
|July 1, 2001
|Class D felony, up to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $1,025 to $10,245 and the court may impose other conditions, such as restrictions on owning animals or mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is deemed to have resulted from a psychological or behavioral issue.
|-
|Maine
|September 21, 2001
|Class D crime, up to 1 year in jail, a fine up to $2,000 and the court may order psychological counseling, especially if the offense is part of a pattern of behavior or related to underlying mental health issues. Additionally, offenders may face restrictions on owning or possessing animals and may be required to surrender any animals they currently own.
|-
|Oregon
|January 1, 2002
|Class C felony, up to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $125,000 and the court may impose additional conditions, such as mandatory psychological counseling if the offense is connected to psychological issues. Furthermore, offenders may face restrictions on owning animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Illinois
|January 1, 2003
|Class 4 felony, between 1 to 3 years in prison, a fine up to $25,000 and the court may impose additional conditions, such as mandatory psychological counseling if the offense is linked to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be forfeited.
|-
|South Dakota
|July 1, 2003
|Class 6 felony, up to 2 years in prison, a fine up to $4,000 and the court may order psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is part of a broader pattern of behavior or is related to mental health issues. Additionally, offenders may face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Missouri
|August 28, 2003
|Class A misdemeanor, up to 1 year in a county jail, a fine up to $2,000 and the court may impose additional conditions, such as mandatory psychological counseling if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Washington
|June 7, 2006
|Class C felony, up to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $10,000 and the court may order psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is connected to psychological issues or if the offender is deemed a risk for future offenses. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|Vermont
|July 1, 2006
|Misdemeanor, up to 1 year in jail, a fine up to $2,000 and the court may also impose additional conditions, such as mandatory psychological counseling if the offense is related to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Arizona
|August 12, 2006
|Class 6 felony, between 4 months to 2 years years in prison, a fine up to $150,000 and the court may impose additional conditions, such as mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is related to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be forfeited.
|-
|Colorado
|July 1, 2007
|Class 6 felony, between 1 to 1.5 year in prison, with a mandatory parole period of 1 year, a fine up to $100,000, the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is connected to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|Indiana
|July 1, 2007
|Level 6 felony, between 6 months to 2.5 years in prison, a fine up to $10,000 and the court may impose additional conditions, such as mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Tennessee
|July 1, 2007
|Class E felony, between 1 to 6 years in prison, a fine up to $3,000 and the court may also impose mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Additionally, offenders may be prohibited from owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Alaska
|July 1, 2010
|Class A misdemeanor, up to 1 year in jail, a fine up to $10,000 and the court may order psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is related to psychological or behavioral issues. Additionally, offenders may be required to forfeit any animals involved in the offense, and they may face restrictions on owning or possessing animals for a period of time after their sentence.
|-
|Florida
|October 1, 2011
|Third-degree felony, up to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $5,000 and the court may impose mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|Alabama
|July 1, 2014
|Class A misdemeanor, up to 1 year in jail, a fine up to $6000 and the court may impose additional conditions, such as mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and forfeited.
|-
|New Jersey
|November 9, 2015
|Third-degree crime, between 3 to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $15,000 and the court may impose mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Texas
|September 1, 2017
|State jail felony, between 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility, a fine up to $10,000 and the court may impose mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized.
|-
|Nevada
|October 1, 2017
|Category D felony, between 1 to 4 years in prison, a fine up to $5,000 and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|New Hampshire
|January 1, 2017
|Class D felony, up to 1 year in jail, a fine up to $2,000 and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is related to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|Kentucky
|June 27, 2019
|Class D felony, between 1 to 5 years in prison, a fine and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|Ohio
|March 24, 2021
|Second-degree misdemeanor, up to 90 days in jail, a fine up to $750 and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also be required to forfeit the animal involved in the offense and may face restrictions on owning or possessing animals in the future.
|-
|Hawaii
|June 7, 2021
|Class C felony, up to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $10,000 and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed. Additionally, offenders may be required to pay restitution for the care of the animals.
|-
|Wyoming
|July 1, 2021
|Felony, up to 2 years in prison, a fine up to $5,000 and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|District of Columbia
|April 23, 2023
|Class B misdemeanor, up to 180 days in prison, a fine up to $1,000 and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to behavioral or psychological issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed.
|-
|New Mexico
|June 16, 2023
|Fourth-degree felony, up to 18 months in prison, a fine up to $5,000 and the court may order mandatory psychological counseling, particularly if the offense is linked to psychological or behavioral issues. Offenders may also face restrictions on owning or possessing animals, and any animals involved in the offense may be seized and rehomed. The court may also impose community service or other rehabilitative measures.
|}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Europe
!Country
!Date criminalized
!Penalty for first-time non-violent bestiality offense
|-
|France
|10 March 2004
|Misdemeanor, up to 2 years imprisonment and a fine up to €30,000
|-
|Belgium
|11 May 2007
|Misdemeanor, up to 1 month to 3 years imprisonment and a fine between €52 to €2,000
|-
|Norway
|1 January 2010
|Misdemeanor, up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine up to 75,000 NOK
|-
|Netherlands
|1 July 2010
|Misdemeanor, up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine up to €19,500
|-
|Germany
|13 December 2012
|Administrative offense, a fine up to €25,000 (if the animal was forced)
|-
|Iceland
|1 January 2014
|Misdemeanor, a fine using the day-fine system
|-
|Sweden
|2014-04-01
|Misdemeanor, up to 2 year imprisonment and a fine using the day-fine system
|-
|Spain
|30 March 2015
|Administrative offense, between 1 to 30 days of community service, a fine between 1 to 2 months using the day-fine system and a special disqualification between 3 months to 1 year imposed for the exercise of a profession, trade or trade that is related to animals and for the possession of animals
|-
|Denmark
|1 July 2015
|Misdemeanor, a fine determined by a case-by-case basis
|}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Australia
!Territory
!Date criminalized
!Penalty for first-time non-violent bestiality offense
|-
|Australian Capital Territory
|22 March 2011
|Indictable offense, up to 10 years imprisonment
|}

==See also==
* [[Human–animal marriage]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Further reading==
* Marie-Christine Anest: ''Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine'' (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece)'' (1994), {{ISBN|2-7384-2146-6}}
* Dubois-Dessaule: ''Etude Sur la Bestiality au point de Vue Historique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint)'' (Paris, 1905)
* Gaston Dubois-Desaulle: ''Bestiality: An Historical, Medical, Legal, and Literary Study'', University Press of the Pacific (November 1, 2003), {{ISBN|1-4102-0947-4}} (Paperback Ed.)
* Hans Hentig Ph.D.: ''Soziologie der Zoophilen Neigung (Sociology of the Zoophile Preference)'' (1962)
* Bronisław Malinowski: ''The Trobriand Islands'' (1915) ''The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia'' (1929)
* Robson, ''Bestiality and Bestial Rape in Greek Myth'', 1997, S. Deacy and K. F. Pearce (edd.), Rape in Antiquity, Duckworth, 65-96
* Voget, F. W. (1961) Sex life of the American Indians, in Ellis, A. & Abarbanel, A. (Eds.) The Encyclopaedia of Sexual Behavior, Volume 1. London: W. Heinemann, p90-109
*Holy Scriptures-Ezekiel 23:28

{{DEFAULTSORT:Historical And Cultural Perspectives On Zoophilia}}
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Culture]]

History

2026-07-21T23:31:39Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Culture}}
==History==
Sex between humans and animals has been taking place since at least the Paleolithic Era (before the domestication of animals), so this likely took place between animals in [[heat]] and observant humans who were unable (or unwilling) to resist their sexual overtures, whether due to the heady scent of oestrus in the air or perhaps the animal’s beckoning gestures and visibly-swollen sex organs.

‘Cave paintings’ are imagery produced by early humans (and sometimes, apparently, Neanderthals), and the earliest known image featuring human-animal sex as a theme was created in what is now Portugal, although there is some debate as to whether the human was added to the image at a later date than the goat his dramatically engorged erect penis is juxtaposed against.

These images were apparently important to early people, as the imagery in Sweden (including one zoophilic depiction of a man about to penetrate a [[horse]] with his erect penis) were actually found inside of a grave, with each image turned toward the center – presumably providing the interred human with the best possible view of these images throughout the remainder of eternity.

When it comes to classical antiquity, [[bestiality]] was achieving a height of popularity which has perhaps been unmatched, before or since. In Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome women with high sex drives (called ‘nymphomaniacs’) would be locked into rooms with dogs for several days in the hopes that these animals would have sex with them frequently enough to leave the women satisfied and no longer ‘suffering’ from their ‘sickness’.

The famous Ruins of Pompeii included imagery of human-animal intercourse.

One of the most infamous works of art from antiquity is a statue of a man (the god Pan) in missionary position with a female goat, holding her hind legs while he penetrates her! It was found in Herculaneum – and in the presence of a king, no less! He was not amused, the tale says… perhaps Pan grabbing the goat’s beard and staring into its eyes while completing the act was just too much for the man.

Hittites were the people who preceded the Jewish (and thus all Abrahamic) culture. Their laws ruled for 500 years and while human-animal sex acts were prohibited with most species, it was permitted to have intercourse with a horse or a mule, just not in front of the king and the zoo would be prohibited from becoming a priest later. Assuming one is not a member of the royal house and has no intention of becoming a priest, this is hardly any deterrent at all.

Later Jewish people would prohibit sex with any type of animal in an attempt to differentiate themselves from their pagan neighbors, who often had animal gods and engaged in sexual activity with real animals. Christians and Muslims kept this prohibition due to heavily referencing the Jewish Old Testament for their historical and religious instruction. Apparently the Jewish people were known to engage in sex with animals anyway, at least on some occasions, because they found it necessary to forbid widows from owning dogs – presumably because the women would be tempted to give themselves over the hounds.

There was a long period during which bestiality was equated with witchcraft due to the ‘unnatural’ union of man and animal, leading to the deaths of many zoos as well as their animal lovers. The dark ages truly were dark; for [[zoophiles]] perhaps even more than the average individual.

Eventually came the French Revolution and along with it a relaxing of the religiously-motivated laws against bestiality, as well as many other victimless crimes such as homosexuality, oral sex, and other non-procreative sex acts. Even countries which did not fall under French rule were revising their laws to prohibit sex with animals for legal reasons rather than due to some divine order.

This eventually caused outrage among anti-zoos who recruited members of the recently-developed animal welfare organizations to petition for laws against [[interspecies]] sexual contact. In recent years there has been a widespread re-criminalization of bestiality, when only perhaps a decade before there had been many safe-havens for zoos in America, Europe, and elsewhere.

[[Category:Culture]]

==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/

Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia

2026-07-21T23:31:39Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

#REDIRECT [[History of zoophilia]]

Heterosexism

2026-07-21T23:31:39Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Imported}}
{{Short description|System of bias and prejudice in favor of female–male sexuality}}
{{LGBT sidebar}}{{Delete}}{{Discrimination sidebar}}
'''Heterosexism''' is a system of [[Attitude (psychology)|attitudes]], [[bias]], and [[discrimination]] in favor of female–male [[Human sexuality|sexuality]] and relationships.<ref name="JungSmith">{{cite book|last=Jung|first=Patricia Beattie|author2=Smith, Ralph F.|title=Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge|publisher=State University of New York Press|year=1993|isbn=0-7914-1696-8|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/heterosexismethi0000jung}}</ref> It can include the presumption that other people are [[Heterosexuality|heterosexual]] or that female–male attractions and relationships are the only [[Norm (social)|norm]]<ref name="Cramer2014">{{cite book|author=Elizabeth Cramer|title=Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dqAAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1|date=5 March 2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-82328-5|page=2 |quote=The definition for heterosexism that I used for authors in the collection is: The expectation that all persons should be or are heterosexual. The belief that heterosexual relations are normal and the norm. These expectations and beliefs occur on individual, institutional, and cultural levels. ...}}</ref> and therefore superior.

Although heterosexism is defined in the online editions of the ''[[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]]'' and the ''[[Webster's Dictionary|Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary]]'' as anti-gay [[discrimination]] or prejudice "by heterosexual people"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/heterosexism|title=Yahoo|access-date=4 July 2016}}</ref> and "by heterosexuals",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heterosexism|title=Definition of HETEROSEXISM|access-date=4 July 2016}}</ref> respectively, people of any [[sexual orientation]] can hold such attitudes and bias, and can form a part of [[Internalized homophobia|internalised hatred]] of one's sexual orientation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ego.thechicagoschool.edu/s/843/images/editor_documents/heterosexism.doc |title=Heterosexism and Internalized Heterosexism |author=Kira Weidner |access-date=3 September 2014}}</ref>

Heterosexism as discrimination ranks [[gay men]], [[lesbian]]s, [[bisexual]]s, [[zoosexual]]s, and other sexual minorities as [[second-class citizen]]s with regard to various legal and [[civil rights]], economic opportunities, and [[social equality]] in many of the world's jurisdictions and societies. It is often related to [[homophobia]].

== Background ==
While the ''[[Webster's Dictionary|Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary]]'' notes the first use of the term heterosexism as having occurred in 1972, the term was first published in 1971 by [[gay rights activist]], [[Craig Rodwell]].<ref>Rodwell, Craig. ' 'The Tarnished Golden Rule' ' pg. 5, QQ Magazine, Queen's Quarterly Publishing, New York. (January/February 1971 issue, Vol. 3, No. 1) Retrieved July 21, 2011.</ref>

===Etymology and usage===
Similar terms include "heterocentrism" and "heterosexualism".<ref>Corsini, Raymond J. (1992). ''The Dictionary of Psychology''. {{ISBN|1-58391-328-9}}.</ref> Although the well-established term ''heterosexism'' is often explained as a [[Neologism|coinage]] modeled on ''[[sexism]]'', the derivation of its meaning points more to (1.) ''heterosex(ual)'' + ''-ism'' than (2.) ''hetero-'' + ''sexism''. In fact, the word ''heterosexualism'' has been used as an equivalent to sexism and racism.<ref name="psychology.ucdavis.edu"/>

Given this lack of [[Transparency (linguistic)#Descriptive|semantic transparency]], researchers, outreach workers, [[critical theorists]] and [[LGBT]] activists have proposed and use terms such as ''institutionalized homophobia'', ''state(-sponsored) homophobia'',<ref>International Lesbian and Gay Association. [http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=1058&FileCategory=10&ZoneID=7 "State-sponsored Homophobia"]</ref> ''sexual prejudice'', ''anti-gay [[bigotry]]'', ''[[straight privilege]]'', ''[[La pensée straight|The Straight Mind]]'' (a collection of essays by French writer [[Monique Wittig]]), ''heterosexual bias'', ''[[compulsory heterosexuality]]''<ref>LGBTQ on-line encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture</ref> or the much lesser known terms ''heterocentrism'', ''[[homonegativity]]'', and from [[gender theory]] and [[queer theory]], ''[[heteronormativity]]''. However, not all of these descriptors are synonymous to ''heterosexism''.

===Contrast to homophobia===

''[[Homophobia]]'', a form of heterosexism, refers both to "unreasoning fear of or [[antipathy]] towards homosexuals and homosexuality"<ref name=dictionary.com>{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia|title=Dictionary.com|access-date=2008-01-29|year=2008|publisher=Dictionary.com}}</ref> and to "behavior based on such a feeling".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/homophobia |title=homophobia – Dictionary definition and pronunciation – Yahoo! Education |publisher=Education.yahoo.com |access-date=2014-01-12 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131204061410/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/homophobia |archive-date=2013-12-04 }}</ref> ''Heterosexism'', however, more broadly denotes the "system of ideological thought that makes heterosexuality the sole norm to follow for sexual practices".<ref name="granddictionnaire.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.granddictionnaire.com/ficheOqlf.aspx?Id_Fiche=8373795#eng |title=Accueil |publisher=Granddictionnaire.com |date=2013-05-13 |access-date=2014-01-12}}</ref> As a bias favoring heterosexuals and heterosexuality, heterosexism has been described as being "encoded into and characteristic of the major social, cultural, and economic institutions of our [[society]]"<ref>Dines, Gail (2002). ''Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader''. {{ISBN|0-7619-2261-X}}.</ref> and stems from the [[essentialist]] cultural notion that [[maleness]]-[[masculinity]] and femaleness-[[femininity]] are complementary.

Researcher, author, and psychology professor Gregory M. Herek states that "[Heterosexism] operates through a dual process of invisibility and attack. Homosexuality usually remains culturally invisible; when people who engage in homosexual behavior or who are identified as homosexual become visible, they are subject to attack by society."<ref name="psychology.ucdavis.edu">{{cite web |url=http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/prej_defn.html |author= Gregory M. Herek
|title=Definitions: Sexual Prejudice, Homophobia, and Heterosexism |publisher=Psychology.ucdavis.edu |access-date=2014-01-12 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131229154227/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html |archive-date=2013-12-29 }}</ref> Furthermore, in interviews with perpetrators of [[anti-gay violence]], [[Forensic psychology|forensic psychologist]] Karen Franklin points out that "heterosexism is not just a personal [[value system]], [rather] it is a tool in the maintenance of [[gender]] dichotomy."<ref name="Franklin">Franklin, Karen (1998). "Inside the Minds of People Who Hate Gays" Retrieved May 29, 2008: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/franklin.html</ref> She continues by saying that "assaults on homosexuals and other individuals who deviate from [[Gender role|sex role]] norms are viewed as a learned form of [[social control]] of deviance rather than a defensive response to personal threat."<ref name="Franklin"/>

===Parallels and intersections===
{{Rquote|right|Using the term heterosexism highlights the parallels between antigay sentiment and other forms of prejudice, such as [[racism]], [[antisemitism]], and [[sexism]]. |[[Gregory M. Herek]], researcher, author, and professor of psychology at [[University of California at Davis|UC Davis]].<ref name="psychology.ucdavis.edu"/>}}

It has been argued that the concept of heterosexism is similar to the concept of [[racism]] in that both ideas promote privilege for dominant groups within a given society. For example, borrowing from the racial concept of [[white privilege]], the concept of [[heterosexual privilege]]<ref name="genderknot149">{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Allan J.|title=The Gender Knot|publisher=Temple University Press|location=Philadelphia|year=1997|page=149|isbn=1-56639-519-4}}</ref> has been applied to benefits of (presumed) heterosexuality within society that heterosexuals take for granted. The analogy is that just as racism against non-white people places white people as superior to [[Person of color|people of color]], heterosexism places heterosexual people or relationships as superior to [[non-heterosexual]] ones. In trying to rebut this premise, some commentators point to differences<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.bet.com/news/youthvote/4-reasons-why-gay-is-not-the-new-black/4|title=Celebrities|access-date=4 July 2016}}</ref> between the categories of race and sexual orientation, claiming they are too complex to support any generalizations. For example, "[[Diversity training|trainer on diversity]]" and consultant Jamie Washington has commented, although heterosexism and racism are "woven from the same fabric" they are "not the same thing".<ref>[http://susquehanna.edu/crusader/article.cfm?IssueID=59&SectionID=1&ArticleID=2573 Issues of race and sexuality discussed, Susquehanna Crusader Online, accessed Aug 29, 2009 ]</ref> Some American Conservative leaders such as Rev. Irene Monroe comment that those who suggest or state "gay is the new black", as in a cover story of ''[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]'' magazine,<ref>[http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp Gay is the New Black, accessed Aug 30, 2009]</ref> exploit [[black people]]'s suffering and experiences to legitimize their own.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.irenemonroe.com/2008/12/16/gay-is-not-the-new-black/ |title=Gay is NOT the new Black, accessed Aug 29, 2009 |access-date=August 29, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090302232756/http://www.irenemonroe.com/2008/12/16/gay-is-not-the-new-black/ |archive-date=March 2, 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Nonetheless, a study presented at the [[British Psychological Society]]'s Division of Occupational Psychology 2009 Conference shows that heterosexist prejudice is more pervasive than racism.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/division-of-occupational-psychology/prejudice-study-finds-gay-is-the-new-black.cfm |title=Prejudice study finds gay is the new black, accessed Sept 3, 2009 |access-date=2009-09-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090123035152/http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/division-of-occupational-psychology/prejudice-study-finds-gay-is-the-new-black.cfm |archive-date=2009-01-23 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Heterosexism can also [[Intersectionality|intersect]] with racism by [[further]] emphasizing differences among arbitrary groups of people.<ref name="tatum22">{{cite book|last=Tatum|first=Beverly|title=Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?|publisher=Basic Books|year=1997|pages=21–22}}</ref> For example, heterosexism can compound the effects of racism by:
* promoting injustices towards a person already facing injustices because of their race
* establishing [[social hierarchies]] that allow one group more privilege than other groups.

Likewise, racism can allow LGBT people to be subjected to additional discrimination or violence if they belong to or are considered a part of a socially devalued racial category.<ref>(2008) Heterosexism and Homophobia. Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, 2, 1–4. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from Gale Virtual Reference Library: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS.</ref> Some of the privileges afforded to people falling into the categories of white people and (perceived) heterosexuals include, but are not limited to, social acceptance, prestige, freedom from negative [[stereotypes]], and the comfort of being within the [[social norm]] and thereby not being [[marginalized]] or viewed as different.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Simoni |first1=Jane M. |last2=Walters |first2=Karina L. |title=Heterosexual Identity and Heterosexism: Recognizing Privilege to Reduce Prejudice |journal=Journal of Homosexuality |date=2001 |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=157–172 |doi=10.1300/J082v41n01_06}}</ref>

== As a set of beliefs and attitudes ==
{{See also|Religion and homosexuality|Homosexuality and psychology|Timeline of sexual orientation and medicine|Social attitudes toward homosexuality}}

=== Individual and group level ===
[[File:Save Our Children From Homosexuality Brochure.jpg|thumb|upright|Brochure used by [[Save Our Children]] in 1977]]
Heterosexism as a set of beliefs and attitudes relies on a core [[wikt:tenet|tenet]] according to which [[Heteronormativity|homosexuality and bisexuality do not normally exist]] and, as such, constitute [[Mental disorder|mental illnesses]] or [[Deviance (sociology)|deviant behaviors]].<ref name="genderknot17">{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Allan J.|title=The Gender Knot|publisher=Temple University Press|location=Philadelphia|year=1997|page=17|isbn=1-56639-519-4}}</ref> Within a heterosexist ideology or [[mindset]], the concept of [[sexual orientation]] is rejected or deemed irrelevant. A set of more nuanced heterosexist views, which some may consider faith, [[dogma]], [[Moral absolutism|universal truths]], natural law, [[Appeal to authority|appeals to authority]], or popular beliefs, but others consider to be [[conventional wisdom]] or [[Sociobiology|sociobiological]] knowledge can include, among others, the following:

* Non-heterosexual people should keep their sexual orientations private (i.e., they should remain "[[closeted]]").<ref name="JungSmith" /> p. 15
* The attitude that gay men are not [[Machismo|"real" men]] or lesbians are not "real" women because of the socially pervasive view that heterosexual attractions or activities are the "norm" and therefore superior.<ref name="genderknot149" />
* "God created [[Adam and Eve]], not [[Adam and Steve]] (or Madame and Eve)" and similar essentialist cultural notions that maleness-masculinity and femaleness-femininity are complementary;
* Homosexuality being wrong, ungodly, and against nature, it is therefore a [[sin]], [[evil]] or subhuman.<ref name="JungSmith" /> p. 18
* The idea that (in the words of [[Anita Bryant]] during her [[Save Our Children]] campaign): "homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must [[Homosexual recruitment|recruit]] our children."
* Because of their lifestyle, homosexuals do not have families with children, so they undermine the survival of the human race ([[natalism]]).
* Homosexuality is an affectional or [[mental disorder]] or simply a social ill, therefore, it can be cured or stamped out. If it is not eradicated, it will lead to [[Social solidarity|social disintegration]] and [[societal collapse]].
* Homosexuals can be [[Conversion therapy|converted]] to heterosexuality.<ref name="JungSmith" /> p. 109

In an attempt to bring awareness to people who exhibit heterosexist views but are possibly not aware of it, Mark Rochlin constructed a set of questions in 1977 which are questions that non-heterosexual people are often exposed to, but not heterosexuals, such as "''What do you think caused your [[sexuality]]?''" This heterosexuality questionnaire is often distributed around college campuses to bring awareness of heterosexist sexual prejudice against LGBT persons.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pinkpractice.co.uk/quaire.htm|title=The Pink Practice – Heterosexuality Questionnaire|access-date=4 July 2016}}</ref>

===Institutional level===
As well as comprising attitudes held by an individual or a social group, heterosexism can also exist as the expression of attitudes within an institution. As a result, schools, hospitals, and correctional facilities can act as a showcase for heterosexist attitudes in various ways. First, schools may implement these attitudes and ideas through unequal and inconsistent disciplinary actions. One such example is meting out harsher punishment to a same-sex couple violating the school ground rules while allowing a heterosexual couple to pass with a more lenient disciplinary action for an equal or identical violation. Also, hospitals may limit patient visiting only to immediate family, i.e., relatives, and exclude same-sex partners.<ref>Heterosexism and Homophobia. Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, 2, 1–4. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from Gale Virtual Reference Library: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS.</ref>

Heterosexism affects the family in several ways. For example, in many countries around the world, same-sex marriage is not allowed, so non-heterosexual persons must remain unmarried or enter into heterosexual marriage.<ref name="TFDASJ" /> Many countries also deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, including custodial and adoption rights for children, Social Security benefits, and automatic durable power of attorney and hospital spousal rights.<ref name="TFDASJ">{{cite book|last=Adams|first=Maurianne |author2=Bell, Lee Anne |author3=Griffin, Pat|title=Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice|publisher=Routledge|year=2007|edition=2|chapter=Appendix 9H|isbn=0-415-95200-X }}</ref>

== Research and measurements ==

===Measurements===

Psychologists have aimed to measure heterosexism using various methods. One particular method involves the use of a [[Likert scale]]. However, since heterosexism is perceived as something that is unseen it is difficult to determine if someone is heterosexist based on a [[Self-report study|self-report method.]] Researchers, thus, have constructed implicit measurements of heterosexism. An example of this would be an [[Implicit Association Test]]. A popular implicit association test measuring heterosexism that is open to the public is a virtual laboratory called [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ Project Implicit].

One limitation present in research on heterosexism is that there often is not a distinction between homophobia and heterosexism. Individuals are more likely to be aware of homophobic tendencies rather than heterosexist views; thus, researchers often measure homophobia instead of heterosexism.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Herek |first1=Gregory M. |title=The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |date=2000 |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=19–22 |doi=10.1111/1467-8721.00051}}</ref>

===Research===

Research on heterosexism has focused on variables that may affect views of heterosexism. For instance, in a study by psychologist, [[Gregory M. Herek]], it was found that there was a gender difference between heterosexual attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.<ref name="Herek, G. M. 1988">{{cite journal |last1=Herek |first1=Gregory M. |title=Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences |journal=Journal of Sex Research |date=1988 |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=451–477 |doi=10.1080/00224498809551476}}</ref> Specifically, the study reveals that heterosexual individuals all seem to have some heterosexist tendency, however, heterosexual males have a greater tendency than heterosexual females to exhibit negative attitudes towards non-heterosexual individuals (this includes gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals). Another notable finding of Herek's study was that heterosexual males showed a greater tendency to demonstrate hostility towards gay men rather than lesbians.<ref name="Herek, G. M. 1988"/> Other factors that Herek acknowledges to contribute to heterosexism include individual differences, religiosity, conforming to social norms, [[right-wing authoritarianism]], customs and beliefs regarding cultural tradition, and personal experience with non-heterosexual individuals.<ref name="Herek, G. M. 1988"/> Research has also recognized the effects of level of education on views of heterosexism.<ref name="Wright L. W. 1999">{{cite journal |last1=Wright Jr. |first1=Lester W. |last2=Adams |first2=Henry E. |last3=Bernat |first3=Jeffery |title=Development and Validation of the Homophobia Scale |journal=Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment |date=1999 |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=337–347 |doi=10.1023/A:1022172816258}}</ref> Wright et al. revealed that higher levels of education, or having more years of education, is related to less homophobic tendencies.<ref name="Wright L. W. 1999"/>

== As discrimination ==

===Explicit or open===

This type of heterosexism includes [[LGBT rights opposition|anti-gay]] laws, policies, and institutional practices, harassment based on sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; [[stereotyping]], discriminatory language and discourse, and other forms of [[discrimination against LGBT persons]] such as:
* [[Hate speech]], [[terms of disparagement]], [[hate mail]], [[death threats]], [[Stop Murder Music|"murder music"]]
* [[Scapegoating]], [[mobbing]], [[Witch-hunt#Political usage|witch-hunts]], [[moral panic]]; using gay men and homosexuality as a [[folk devil]] for the [[AIDS pandemic]].
* Negative portrayals or stereotypes of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals solely as villains, suicide or murder victims<ref>{{cite book|title= Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences|last= Garnets|first= Linda|author2= Kimmel, Douglas C.|year= 1993|publisher= [[Columbia University Press]]|isbn= 0-231-07884-6|url-access= registration|url= https://archive.org/details/psychologicalper0000unse}}</ref>
* Using the [[gay panic defense]] in assault or murder cases.
* [[Sodomy law]]s when enforced almost exclusively against consenting, adult, same-sex partners. ''See also: [[Bowers v. Hardwick]] and [[Lawrence v. Texas]]''
* In some countries where [[Homosexuality laws of the world|homosexuality is criminalized]], such as Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, offenders may receive the maximum sentence of [[capital punishment]]. ''See also: [[Paragraph 175]]''
* Discrepancies in [[Age of consent#Homosexual and heterosexual age discrepancies in law|age of consent]] laws in which legal sexual activity between members of the same sex is set at a higher age than that for partners in female–male relationships. Most such laws apply explicitly (or have historically applied) only to male homosexual sexual activity. ''See also: [[Chris Morris (activist)|Morris v. The United Kingdom]]'', ''[[State v. Limon]]''
* Prohibiting youth from bringing a same-sex date to [[Prom|high school prom]].<ref>[[American Civil Liberties Union]]: [http://gbge.aclu.org/schools/free-speech-free-expression-and-prom Free Speech, Free Expression and Prom] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091224142614/http://gbge.aclu.org/schools/free-speech-free-expression-and-prom|date=2009-12-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/who-are-you-taking-prom-year |quote=Aaron Fricke decided he wanted to go to his senior prom with Paul Guilbert. His principal wouldn't let him.|title=Who are you taking to the prom this year? |date=31 December 2000 |publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] |access-date=18 September 2013}}</ref> ''See also: [[Fricke v. Lynch]], [[Marc Hall v. Durham Catholic School Board]]''
* Adoption bans against either same-sex couples or gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals. ''See also: [[LGBT adoption]], [[In re: Gill]]''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2009/02/26/parliamentary-inquiries-same-sex-adoption/|title=GordonMoyes.com » Parliamentary Inquiries – Same Sex Adoption|access-date=4 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171007120222/http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2009/02/26/parliamentary-inquiries-same-sex-adoption/|archive-date=7 October 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* Legislation that prevents legal and [[social equality]], i.e., laws that prohibit protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, particularly with regard to health care, housing, and employment.
* The institution of female–male marriage and reserving the right to marry strictly for female–male couples via explicit definitions or through bans on [[same-sex marriage]] such as "[[Marriage Protection Act|marriage protection acts]]" (such as [[Defense of Marriage Act|DOMA]] in the United States);<ref name="JungSmith" /> pp. 145–151
* Also, the above restriction even when same-sex couples have access to [[civil union]]s that are either analogous to or not on a par with marriage;
* Barring gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals from serving in the armed forces or from working in the education field; this can include policies such as the [[Military of the United States|American military]]'s "[[Don't ask, don't tell]]" policy or [[Lech Kaczyński]] and other conservative Polish politicians’ stance to exclude gay men and lesbians from entering the teaching profession. ''See also: [[LGBT rights in Poland]]''
* Organized opposition to [[gay rights]]; [[Labeling theory|labeling]] such rights and privileges as "[[special rights]]" or the "[[Homosexual agenda|Gay Agenda]]";
* Referring to a suspected criminal's homosexuality or bisexuality when in analogous situations there is no mention of a suspect's heterosexuality.

===Implicit or hidden===
This form of heterosexism operates through invisibility, under-representation, and [[wikt:erasure|erasure]]. It includes:
* Lack or under-representation of homosexual or bisexual people in advertising to the general public;
* Censorship of homosexual or bisexual characters, themes, and issues in works of art, [[literature]], entertainment; ''see also [[Postcards from Buster#Controversial episodes|"Sugar Time" episode of Postcards from Buster]]''
* Exclusion of historical and political figures’ and celebrities’ homosexuality or bisexuality; their portrayal as heterosexuals;
* Complete avoidance of mentioning these people and their positive contributions particularly in news media;
* In the context of sex education or professional advice, referring only to female–male relationships when discussing female or male [[sexual attraction]] and activity;
* Silence on issues affecting homosexual and bisexual people at school or work or absence of their discussion in a positive light;
* Implementation and use of [[content-control software]] (censorware) to filter out information and websites that focus on homosexuality or bisexuality;
* [[Postal censorship]] and border control or customs seizure of publications deemed obscene solely on the basis of them containing material related to homosexuality even when they contain no erotic or pornographic material; ''see also [[Little Sister's Book and Art Emporium]]''
* Work environments that tacitly require gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals not to reveal their sexual orientation via discussion of their relationship status while heterosexuals can discuss their relationships and [[marital status]] freely;
* At public libraries or bookstores: rejection, removal or destruction of [[Homosexuality in children's literature|books]] (e.g. ''[[Jenny lives with Eric and Martin]]''), films, and posters with homosexual themes;
* Refusal to include families headed by [[Same-sex parenting|same-sex parents]] at school events or to represent such family diversity in school curricula; ''see also [[anti-bias curriculum]]'';
* Coercive or forced [[sex reassignment surgery]] on gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals – an issue addressed in [[Tanaz Eshaghian]]'s 2008 documentary, ''[[Be Like Others]]''. ''See also: [[LGBT rights in Iran]]''
* [[Forced disappearance]], ''[[damnatio memoriae]]'', [[ostracism]], [[shunning]], and other forms of [[social rejection]] geared towards making homosexual or bisexual people ''[[Persona non grata|personae non gratae]]''.

== Effects ==

Heterosexism causes a range of effects on people of any sexual orientation. However, the [[Portal:Main|main]] effects of heterosexism are marginalization, and anti-LGBT violence and abuse.{{citation needed|date=April 2017}}

=== Marginalization ===
{{unreferenced section|date=April 2017}}

The [[Portal:Main|main]] effect of heterosexism is the [[marginalization]] of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals within society. Heterosexism has led to [[Social stigma|stigmatization]] and persecution of not only these people but also those of other [[sexual diversity]] such as transgender, and transsexual people. Along with [[homophobia]], [[lesbophobia]], and [[internalized homophobia]], heterosexism continues to be a significant social reality that compels people to conceal their homosexual or bisexual orientation, or metaphorically, to remain in [[Closeted|the closet]] in an effort to [[Passing (sexual orientation)|pass]] for heterosexual.

Marginalization also occurs when marriage rights are heterosexist. More specifically, when marriage rights are exclusive to female–male couples, all same-sex couples, be they gay, lesbian, straight or mixed, are prevented from enjoying marriage’s corresponding legal privileges, especially those regarding property rights, health benefits, and child custody. Moreover, such limitation prevents same-sex couples from receiving the inherent social respect of marriage and its cultural symbolism.

=== Anti-LGBT violence and abuse ===

Yolanda Dreyer, professor of practical theology at [[University of Pretoria]], has stated that "Heterosexism leads to prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and [[Violence against LGBT people|violence]]. It is driven by fear and hatred (Dreyer 5)."<ref>Dreyer, Yolanda. "Hegemony and the Internalisation of Homophobia Caused by Heteronormativity." Department of Practical Theology. 2007. University of Pretoria.5 May 2008 [www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/2741/1/Dreyer_Hegemony(2007).pdf.]</ref> Along the same lines, forensic psychologist Karen Franklin explains violence caused by heterosexism toward both men and women, regardless of their sexual orientations:<ref name="Franklin" />

<blockquote>[T]hrough heterosexism, any male who refuses to accept the dominant culture's assignment of appropriate masculine behavior is labeled early on as a "[[Sissy#Pejorative|sissy]]" or "[[Fag (slang)|fag]]" and then subjected to [[bullying]]. Similarly, any woman who opposes male dominance and control can be labeled a lesbian and attacked. The potential of being ostracized as homosexual, regardless of actual sexual attractions and behaviors, puts pressure on all people to conform to a narrow standard of appropriate gender behavior, thereby maintaining and reinforcing our society's hierarchical gender structure.</blockquote>

Another form of heterosexist violence as [[social control]] that most often targets lesbian women is [[corrective rape]]: a [[gang rape]] of a lesbian to "cure" her of her same-sex attractions. A notorious example from South Africa is the corrective rape and murder of [[Eudy Simelane]], [[LGBT social movements|LGBT-rights]] activist and member of the [[South Africa women's national football team|women's national football team]].<ref name="guardian120309">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa|title=Raped and killed for being a lesbian: South Africa ignores 'corrective' attacks|last=Kelly|first=Annie|date=12 March 2009|publisher=The Guardian|access-date=2009-03-14}}</ref>

According to a Frontline article titled "Inside the Mind of People Who Hate Gays", bias-related violence against homosexuals is believed to be widespread in the United States, with perpetrators typically described by victims as young men in groups who assault targets of convenience. Victims accounts suggest that assailants possess tremendous rage and hatred; indeed, [[Module:Documentation|documentation]] of horrific levels of brutality has led gay activists to characterize the violence as political terrorism aimed at all gay men and lesbians. Other motives for antigay violence suggested in the literature include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires.<ref>{{Cite web|title = The Roots Of Homophobia – Inside The Mind Of People Who Hate Gays {{!}} Assault On Gay America {{!}} FRONTLINE {{!}} PBS|url = https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/franklin.html|website = www.pbs.org|access-date = 2015-10-26}}</ref>

== Responses ==

According to an article in the ''Howard Journal of Communications'', some LGBT individuals have responded to heterosexism through direct confrontation and communication, or through the removal of self from the hostile environment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Camara |first1=Sakile K. |last2=Katznelson |first2=Amy |last3=Hildebrandt-Sterling |first3=Jenny |last4=Parker |first4=Todd |title=Heterosexism in Context: Qualitative Interaction Effects of Co-Cultural Responses |journal=Howard Journal of Communications |date=2012 |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=312–331 |doi=10.1080/10646175.2012.722836}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|LGBT|Society}}
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[Anti-LGBT rhetoric]]
* [[Culture war]]
* [[Discrimination against non-binary gender people]]
* [[Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS]]
* [[Harassment#Categories|Harassment (categories and types)]]
* [[Heteropatriarchy]]
* [[Identity politics]]
* [[Toleration|Intolerance]]
* [[LGBT stereotypes]]
* [[Liberal homophobia]]
* [[Minority rights]]
* [[Transphobia]]
* [[Straight pride]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{LGBT|social=expanded}}
{{Discrimination|state=uncollapsed}}
{{Authority control}}

[[index.php?title=Category:Anti-LGBT sentiment]]
[[index.php?title=Category:Heterosexuality]]
[[index.php?title=Category:LGBT and society]]
[[index.php?title=Category:Sexism]]
[[index.php?title=Category:Queer theory]]

Heat Ride

2026-07-21T23:31:38Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
==Heat Ride==
Going on a ‘[[heat]] ride’ is another term for having sex with a female animal while she is in heat. At this time they are known to be increasingly flirtatious, aroused, and amorous. They will often flag or even mount the object of their affection!

Some would advise that the first time a zoo attempts sexual intercourse with an animal should be when she is in heat, as she is more likely to enjoy the attentions and even repeatedly seek out her [[mate]] for [[further]] interaction. Some females will only have sex while they are in heat, while others may decide that they enjoy the attention throughout the year.
==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/
[[Category:Terms]]

Heat

2026-07-21T23:31:37Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
==Heat==
When a female animal is in the fertile and [[receptive]] phase of her estrous cycle, she is said to be ‘in heat’.

This is often accompanied by physical changes such as engorgement of the vulva and reproductive tissues as well as behavior indicators such as flirtatious behavior, increased urine-marking, and even masturbation or mounting and humping behavior in some females!

When the female is in heat, regardless of her species, she will oftentimes desire sexual release. This is the best time to introduce them to more involved intimate contact, such as eager cunnilingus or slow and gentle digital stimulation. Once the zoo has assessed her arousal-level and degree of interest, he may decide (depending upon her size) to attempt penetration at this time.

Having her first experience in the frenzy and desire of heat will leave a female many positive memories, and she may sometimes choose to engage in sex only during her fertile phases or possibly, if she likes it quite a lot, she may enjoy this activity year-round.
==References==

http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/
[[Category:Terms]]

Happy Dance

2026-07-21T23:31:37Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

#REDIRECT [[Zoomies]]

Hankey's Toys

2026-07-21T23:31:37Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

==Hankey's Toys==

Hankey’s Toys describes themselves as handmade from only the finest materials, using molds we craft ourselves in order to meet our exacting specifications. We work hard to give each of our toys that perfect level of firmness to create believability, while also making our toys comfortable and pleasurable to use.

==Reference==
https://www.mrhankeystoys.com/
[[Category:Websites]]

Hani Miletski's Chat Logs

2026-07-21T23:31:37Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

==Speaking With Zoosexuals Before Writing Dissertation==
<blockquote>
*Tammy shouts — Can I have everyone’s attention in the forest please?
*Tammy shouts — I’ m going to be moderating tonight
*Active says — Moderate away, Tam :)
*Tammy shouts — Those of you planning on attending the thing with Hani, please come down here
*Tammy says — Okay. Beverly has asked me to moderate tonight. The purpose for this visit, as I understand, is for Hani to tell us about her research and then for her to answer questions.
*Black says — what kind of research?
*Tammy says — I’ m going to find that out along with you all
*Active says — So she’s not looking for information from us?
*Strong says — Not at this time.
*Tammy says — this is not going to be a one on one thing, not at this time.
*Active says — Interesting.
*Tammy says — but she would like to have contact with some people here.
*Satyr says — This is a meeting to allow us to meet her and understand what she is trying to do/research.
*Tammy shouts — Can I have everyone’s attention in the forest please?
*Doggie says — No!
*Active listens.
*Kevin wows at Doggie
*Tammy pokes Doggie :)
*Mike nods
*Whitedog says — It’s only a little report, Active. Nothing’s going to be published.
*Active says — Oh?
*Tussle walks in
*SIGN ON — [[Hani Miletski|HANI MILETSKI]], MSW
*Active says — Hi Hani!
*Satyr says — Heya Hani :)
*Thrill lifts Kevin up... “ can you see?”
*Tammy says — Hi Hani
*Jim tacklehugs Hani
*Black says — Hi Hani
*Mike says — hello then :)
*Alex says — hi Hani
*Foxi says — Hi Hani
*Tussle spyhops
*Satyr says — Welcome to the Forest, or “ total chaos” as it sometimes is ;)
*Troy says — hi all
*Tammy says — I am explaining what’s going on to everyone. My name is Tammy, and I will try to moderate tonight. I would like to use the same method as we did for other meetings... talking one at a time, and if you wish to talk, use a 🐾 to indicate that.
*Cocco says — hello everyone
*Tammy says — Kevin, can you keep track of who is next to talk for me?
*Kevin says — okay, let me get some scritch paper
*Urge splashes Race [[Horse]]
*Jim thwapples Race Horse gently
*Axiom says — Hi Active
*Redcow sits and moos
*Craig walks in
*Prince appears from nowhere!
*Mic walks in
*Littlehorse walks in
*Full walks in
*Mic grabs the couch
*Zoro walks in
*Mike sits next to Mic
*Foxi says — eekk, what a crowded hallway!
*Alex snags a spot on the couch
*Foxi sits by Mic
*Whitedog lays on Mike and Mic :)
*Beverly says — okay, people, Hani isn’ t used to the net, so don’ t spam her, please.
*Full eats outa his feeder
*Word walks in
*Active nods
*Redcow lies down and ruminates...
*Jim finds a piece of carpet to lay on, and pulls Race Horse down on top of him, skritching his tummy
*Active grins
*Dolphin reads the message board.
*Race Horse yeeeps and stretches on Jim, “ Mmmmmmm!”
*Tammy says — While Hani is talking, please do not interrupt.
*Hani says — Hi everybody. Just wanted to let you know that it’s my first time on the net and I’ m very slow at this, so please be patient. Do you have any questions for me?
*Black says — hi Hani
*Mike says — hello Hani :)
*Active says — Hi Hani
*Holland bids you all good morning!
*Foxi says — Hi Hani
*Dolphin says — Hello Hani!
*Tammy says — Welcome Hani
*Mic says — hi Hani
*Doggie says — hi Hani. We spoke on der phone
*Prince says — howdy!
*Alex says — greetings Hani
*Satyr bows in greeting to Hani
*Jim waves
*Littlehorse says — hi, we spoke
*Trouble clicks hello! :)
*Race Horse bows, “ Hello Hani. I’ m a complete stranger.”
*Whitedog waves to Hani. Then sits and pays attention.
*Littlehorse says — 🐾
*Sheep knocks on the door
*Holland says — Hani, what is the purpose of your study? What do you hope to get out of it?
*Crocodile appears from nowhere!
*Hani says — Basically, I want to get all the info. I can get about [[bestiality]] and [[zoophilia]], and more specifically if this is a form of sexual orientation.
*Active says — 🐾
*Jim says — 🐾
*Dog appears form nowhere!
*Wolfie arrives in a blinding flash!
*Kevin says — Littlehorse is next
*Satyr says — 🐾
*Doggie says — 🐾
*Littlehorse says — okay, could you tell us where besides here you find sources of information? Or put differently, are all your sources Internet typoes of one sort or another?
*Prince says — 🐾
*Horselover walks in
*Lamb walks in
*Hani says — I am hoping to get all of your cooperation in that, so that you tell others who are not connected to the net about me.
*Littlehorse says — okay, thanks
*Kevin says — Active is next
*Active says — I don’ t think there’s any question that zooness is a sexual orientation, like being hetero or gay or bi.
*Race Horse says — 🐾
*Dolphin is ignoring everyone.
*Hani says — but I don’ t think other people know that (I don’ t know that either, but I hope to find out)
*Dolphin is now listening
*Active nods and says — That’s part of the problem: they think we do it because we can’ t get a human:)
*Hani says — right. I get a lot of that from people who have no idea about the subject.
*Tammy says — 🐾
*Burro walks in
*Mike says — 🐾
*Kevin says — Jim is next
*Jim says — I just wanted to make a clarification; when you say “sexual orientation” you are saying in contrast to a kink, or sexual behavior, like bondage/frottage/etc... So, in your research you are trying to determine if zoophilia is in fact an orientation and not just a kink?
*Hani says — Yes, a sexual orientation like homosexuality.
*Pony says — 🐾
*Littlehorse says — 🐾
*Mic says — 🐾
*Kevin says — Satyr is next
*Satyr takes a deep breath and says — I think we would all like to get a little background as to why you are gathering this information. What is already out there on the subject, and what do you hope to contribute to the psychological community by doing this study? I know you’re planning on putting together a rather lengthy questionnaire for those who choose to partake in the study. Do you have any ideas as to what its content will be?
*Satyr yields the floor
*Hani says — I know there is not a lot out there, and that’s why I want to do something about it. The questionnaire will probably be long, and will include questions about your sex life, as well as questions about your life in general, such as level of education, age, etc. I will have questions with different options for you to choose from, and I will also allow you to elaborate on your feelings, thoughts, and experiences, so that I can get more info.
*Satyr nods and thanks Hani
*Star walks in
*Active says — 🐾
*Moo arrives in a blinding flash!
*Wolf walks in
*Prince says — that was my question. I was curious as to when you...oops, sorry...
*Kevin tickles Prince ;)
*Fortune walks in
*Kevin nods to Doggie and says — Doggie is next
*Doggie says — thanks. Are the study results to be widely published in some form? Might it mean a change of term from zoophilie to something like [[zoosexual]] which indicates an orientation rather than a mental illness? Yields der floor.
*Hani says — I don’ t know. Haven’ t thought about it. I am hoping to have enough info. to be able to
*publish it in a book.
*Doggie says — thank you.
*Kevin tickles Doggie — limit your questions silly ;)
*Breath knocks on the door and walks in
*Fortune curls up quietly on the floor...
*Hani says — next question
*Redcow says — 🐾
*Kevin hands the microphone to Prince
*Prince says — I’ m a professor of photography. I will be happy to do the illustrations, Hani 🐾laughs🐾... seriously, your form sounds interesting. When will they be available and how do we get them? Thank you.

*Hani says — good question. It will probably be ready, hopefully, before the summer. I need you to call me at (###) ###-####, to tell me how can I send it to you, since I have no regular access to the net. If anyone is long distance, you can call me, and I’ ll call you right back, so don’ t worry about the charges. Even if you are in a different country.
*Black says — 🐾
*Holland says — 🐾
*Active says — 🐾
*Word reads the mail
*Kevin says — Race Horse, your turn
*Race Horse walks up to the mic and baps it on his head. “ Ow.”
*Tammy smiles
*Fortune smiles
*Hani says — Hani too (I’ m starting to get the hang of this).
*Two knocks on the door
*Foxi perks her ears
*Race Horse says — insomuch as zoophilia being considered a [[sexuality]], I do agree that it is. But I think it is vastly different from homosexuality on a few points. In my experience, the majority of [[zoophiles]] or zoosexuals, whatever you call it, had mostly environmental factors that made them that way, for the most part. I imagine all of us have an “ affinity” toward animals. But by and large, I suspect most here grew up spending much time alone, and turned to non-humans as a means of support and friendship. To many of us, it seems only logical to take that a step [[further]] and extend those relationships into the areas of [[intimacy]]. More and more it seems homosexuality is becoming linked to genetics. This may be true of zoophiles to a degree, but only marginally.

*Hani says — everything is possible. I hope to find out more about it in the future.
*Race Horse says — a person may have had an abusive family, for instance, and formed a relationship with his dog.
*Hani says — right! That’s why this will be one of my questions in the questionnaire.
*Fortune nods
*Race Horse says — I think you’ ll find scenarios like this abundant when you talk to the rest of us.
*Tammy says — thanks Race Horse
*Race Horse is finished, now that his face is blue.
*Spike walks in
*Black applauds
*Crocodile says — 🐾
*Kevin passes the mic to Lamb
*Lamb says — is your research going to look at the zoophiles’ other relationships as well? I’ m currently in a relationship and have told her about my interests. It worked out well for me, but others were not so lucky.
*Hani says — yes. I’ m happy for you. It must have been difficult for you.
*Moo smiles
*Tammy says — Hani, many of my friends here are very concerned about privacy. What kind of guarantees do they have this will all be in confidence? And can we work together to set up something so that their privacy can be maintained? I mean like a go between... or something. Oh, one more... are you interested in zoo-friendly’s?
*Hani says — Well, the questionnaire is anonymous. I am not going to include any personal info. on you in my study. All I need is a name and an address to send it to you. When you send it back you don’ t have to put your address on. (Beverly, who is sitting next to me, is telling me that Tammy is not a zoo, but a “ zoo-friendly.” She likes to hang out with zoos and help them when they need her help). The people who qualify for my study are those who have had [[Sexual Contact with Animals|sexual contact with animals]]! Sorry.
*Tammy says — you understand, Hani, that many people here can be arrested for this. Maybe the form can be made available electronically on one of the zoo sites?
*Hani says — the problem with that is that I will have no idea who was the respondent, and I can get people who just played a trick on me.
*Tammy says — I could be an intermediary, if people trusted me...
*Doggie says — 🐾
*Moo says — 🐾
*Whitedog says — 🐾
*Two says — 🐾
*Full says — 🐾
*Alex grins
*Active says — 🐾
*Ron says — 🐾
*Woof goes to the forest
*Goat goes to the forest
*Kevin says — okay, the list is over 17 long now. Trouble is next, but Black has to leave soon.
*Tammy says — Black...
*Black says — is the research you do here going to be used as part of any graduate work? And for what specific purpose?
*Hani says — I am a doctoral student in [[human sexuality]]. This is my dissertation research.
*Black waves bye to everyone and says — okay, thank you
*Hani says — bye
*Dogman arrives in a blinding flash!
*GW appears from nowhere!
*Mike says — what prompted you to do this research?
*Hani says — I am a psychotherapist in my profession. I have a client who is a zoo, and I was trying to get some [[literature]] for him, but found almost nothing. So I figured that this subject needs to be researched and published.

*Mike smiles. “ Thank you” :)
*Wildlife walks in.
*Trouble says — two parts: 1. What specific research question do you want to answer, or are you just gathering general information about zoophilia?
*Hani says — generally, both. Specifically, is there such a thing as a sexual orientation toward animals?
*Trouble says — 2. How do you plan to address the obvious bias that 🐾we🐾 as power computer users, are just a subset of the total [[zoo community]]?
*Hani says — I know, that’s a problem. I will have to address that in my dissertation as a limitation of my study. But, I am hoping to get people who are not in the net as well.
*Trouble hopes so too and yields the floor
*Sunshine walks in
*Pony says — is it your goal to attempt an origin theory on zoophilia, or the coping mechanisms that various zoos have developed in order to function within [[society]]?
*Hani says — I guess both. It will be great if I can get the answers to all of that.
*Pony says — can I squeeze in another one?
*Hani says — a ha
*Pony says — what are your current beliefs about the origin of zoophilia: biological, psychological, or sociological?
*Hani says — currently I have no actual beliefs. I don’ t want to get into this research project with biases.
*Moo nods
*Lamb says — good answer :)
*Hani says — thanks. Who’s next?
*Mic says — sorry, Hani, I’ m confused. So far, it seems that you are only gathering information. You have not formulated any specific question which you are trying to answer. I do not think that I want to be involved in just an information gathering without knowing to what end the information I give will be used. Hani says — basically yes. But, I said earlier that I am trying to find out if there is a sexual orientation toward animals.

*Mic says — of course there is, or we wouldn’ t be here :)
*Hani says — I believe that whatever I find will be important and worthwhile, since most people have no clue about this subject, including psychotherapists who are supposed to help people deal with that.
*Mic says — help people deal with what? What do you mean by “ deal with it.” ?
*Tammy says — Mic, there are many issues to be “ dealt with.” I’ m sure Hani is not saying it is wrong
*Mic says — sorry, but I do not feel like I am getting solid answers
*GW nods in agreement
*Hani says — with their struggles. I know that a lot of you thought at one point or another that you are the only one, and that something is wrong with you, and there was no one to talk to about it, and nothing to read... So I think it is important to get people to know more, and not be judgmental.
*Mic says — okay. Then that would be a purpose that I would be willing to participate in. I yield.
*Hani says — great. Thanks!
*Tammy says — just an FYI, I’ ve discussed zoophilia with my therapist, she knew nothing about it.
*Mike says — 🐾
*Blackhorse walks in
*Active says — okay, here it goes, this is going to be long. First, I think I speak for the majority when I say I do not approve of asking zoos for a mailing address, under any circumstances, even if you don’ t connect the answers to the individual respondents. Sorry to come so hard, but using snail mail is extremely dangerous for items of a sexual nature, especially where that nature is illegal in some areas. Sending bestiality information, even a survey response, through the mail can be a Federal offense, so everyone who replies may become a criminal. I second Tam’s recommendation that you make the form available at one or more of the more popular zoo web pages. This should make distribution easy and very safe. Those of us with zoo friends not connected to the net can pass the info along by ourselves and relay it via email through a trusted intermediary. As for people who play a trick on you, that’ ll happen no matter what method you use for gathering the data. Masters and Johnson faced it, and so did Margaret Mead. It simply goes with the territory. Sex is prone to pranksters. And for the record, I never thought there was anything “ wrong” with me :) Finally, in more mundane matters, have you read “ the Horseman” by Mark Matthews? I haven’ t read it myself, but it is highly recommended.
*Race Horse grabs a bucket of popcorn
*Hani says — well, first, please don’ t write so much at one time... I’ m a slow reader :) Active apologizes — I’ m leaving soon, so I threw up my queue all at once :)
*Hani says — I read the book, and even talked to the author. This was one of the things that inspired me to do the research. I already have about 20 people who have given me their addresses. I know it is dangerous, but if you don’ t put your address, the police can only arrest me.
*Active says — but if someone wanted to compile a list of zoos, this is how one would do it. In order to receive a form, one must send out an address, so the list compiler knows at least you’re a zoo.
*Hani says — I highly doubt that anyone is going to open the mail. Also, I send you the questionnaire, and when you send it back, no one knows who it is from. I promise not to give out and not to use the list I have in any form or shape. I don’ t know what else I can tell you.
*Beverly says — if she was to give out personal information after gathering it into a list, she would be censured by her university. No reputable researcher gives out personal information on subjects
*Mike nods
*Hani says — and I will also loose my credentials as a psychotherapist
*Breath says — and our name would be prisoner 9243b
*Blackhorse says — hehe
*Active turns on his total paranoia mode — if you are really a researcher and not a Fed. Sorry, it had to be said. Paranoia mode off :(
*Foxi grins
*Active now yields the floor. Promise :)
*Kevin tickles Active, mainly cause it’s fun ;)
*Beverly says — I look around Hani’s room, at the literature and [[Module:Documentation|documentation]] already gathered on the subject, and wonder if Hani could really be a Fed. I don’ t think so.
*Hani says — thanks.
*World walks in
*Doggie says — 🐾
*Foxi says — 🐾
*Deer walks in
*Copy arrives in a blinding flash!
*Full says — 🐾
*Redcow says — are the questionnaires going to be given to non-zoos for comparison? How are you going to compare the question results?

*Hani says — that’s a very good idea. I’ ll have to talk to my committee members about it.
*Redcow says — Will it be qualitative or quantitative? Will questions be leading? Will you use open or closed answers?

*Hani says — both. I’ ll have open-ended questions as well as multiple choice ones.
*Redcow says — will you take into account the socio-economic factors? And even geographical location? Age? Sex? Etc.

*Hani says — yes, all of the above.
*Redcow says — how will you present them to the subject?
*Hani says — what do you mean?
*Redcow says — well, do you ask your subject about economics, or do you use census data?
*Hani says — I ask. Probably will give a few options to choose from.
*Redcow says — sorry, you seem to have misunderstood. Are you going to find further data about the subject from previous surveys, using say their address to find their socio-economic class. Also, have you had any papers published in journals etc. before?

*Hani says — I will have to look at other studies, but I don’ t think anyone has studied it before, at least as far as I know. I will only use the info you give me. Im not going to spy on you in any other way. I don’ t even ask questions on the phone when people call me. And I have not yet published anything, but my master’s thesis is going to be published probably in January.

*Redcow says — 2 last questions. Very short, are you going to look at the species of animal the subject likes, and the age at which they started?

*Hani says — Sure. That’s very important info.
*Tammy says — good questions Redcow
*Jim says — there is only a tiny amount of literature out there on the topic, and what there is of it is largely outdated... so Hani has a job cut out for her, due to the scarcity of prior work. I’ m not sure she’s even gotten a chance to formulate the kinds of questions she wants to ask. This is going to be a very big synthesis.

*Ball walks in
*Kevin notes — the list: Holland, Breath, Doggie, Moo, Two, Full, Ron, Mini, Kevin, Mike, Foxi, Sunshine, so you can all know who is in front of you and get ready :-)

*Holland stands up clears his throat and says — just want to know, in the UK, are you going to snail mail the questionnaires over to us? Also, what sort of time do you accept phone calls bearing in mind our time difference. Is the questionnaire going to be based in a sexual context? Or will there be an emotional content as well. For instance, to me, sex is not the only consideration. It covers the whole spectrum just like in human relationships.

*Hani says — yes, I’ ll have to send it by regular mail. I am going to ask about the emotional aspect as well, cause this is part of it, as far as I understand. Copy nods

*Holland says — my overriding concern is my horse’s happiness, not my own. I’ ll do anything for that.

*Moo smiles at Holland
*Mike nods enthusiastically
*Hani says — there’s 6 hours difference between DC and UK. So just calculate the time, whenever you want

*Holland says — Hani, and you’ ll call back to the UK??? That’s expensive.
*Hani says — sure I’ ll call!!!
*Mike says — cool :)
*Tammy says — okay Holland?
*Holland says — umm... I think those bits about the emotional aspects and such was it.
*Tammy says — Breath is next
*Kevin suddenly notes the absence of a microphone in his hand!! Giggles
*Tammy says — oops! Did I mess up?
*Tammy sits back and lets Kevin do his job — sorry :)
*Breath says — the thing that worries me the most is the anonymity. Let me get this right, you want me to give my entire address to a complete stranger about a subject which is completely illegal in the UK and carries a maximum penalty of life sentence for an unclear advantage?

*Hani says — I know I am asking you to trust me and you don’ t even know me. I’ m asking a lot, but what else can I do?

*Tammy says — you are with two people we do trust, Hani. I’ m sure we can figure something out.
*Hani says — thanks Tammy
*Breath says — make the form available via a web site or send it out via... What do you hope to actually achieve with this whole thing? Who will be able to see it? The general public? The psychiatry community? Or just a few professors in a small university?

*Hani says — currently I am not connected to the net, so that’s a problem. We’ ll see. I’ m hoping to publish it as a book, and have in mind to make presentations to professionals in various conferences.

*Littlehorse is satisfied and will answer the questionnaire when it appears
*Hani says — thank you Littlehorse
*Breath is afraid he’s not going to touch this. Sounds too fishy to him
*Hani says — why Breath?
*Tammy says — everyone is entitled to their own opinion
*Hani says — true, but still, I need as many people as I can get. The more people I have, the more credible the study will be

*Breath says — exactly, and my opinion is that I am not going to give my home address to anyone I don’t know real well, or without a good reason. Who’s to say that Hani is not someone collectingaddresses of zoos for various reasons. Ours is not a simple life. People would see us persecuted at every chance. And why the curiosity over this subject in particular? Is there a reason?

*Hani says — I understand you. That’s why I want you to call me, so you may get to know me better. I explained earlier.

*Tammy says — she has gone over that. I’m recording and will make the file available
*Breath says — sorry, I didn’t see that
*Hani says — that’s okay. Feel free to call me
*Breath says — why don’ t you just conduct some interviews here? Lock a room and interview people. Anonymous and easy.
*Tammy says — she has no net access
*Breath says — how is she here now then?
*Beverly says — we came over to her house with a laptop and signed on through our account
*Breath sits down and listens
*Breath says — Beverly is with her in real life?
*Tammy says — yes
*Breath didn’ t know this fact :)
*Beverly says — we are here, it’s our computer, and we trust Hani
*Breath would have been a lot more chilled out had someone told him this
*Hani says — that’s okay. I’ m glad you are with us
*Race Horse says — I’ m sorry Hani. I don’ t think I can trust you. I think you’re an alien from Dimension X
*Tammy says — let’s let Hani continue with her answers
*Doggie says — I believe Hani is a medical professional bound by rules of ethics/client confidentiality. Those concerned about their address should use a P.O. Box, or not participate, perhaps. Email/second party and web pages can be meddled with. Test is not illegal to mail, or “ The Horseman” could never be mailed. Overseas mail coming in to the US is subject to search at customs.
*Moo waits patiently for his turn
*Kevin passes the mic over
*Moo says — first of all I’ m hoping you’ ll realize how important it is for you to make this available to as many as possible, through whatever means possible. We treasure our anonymity dearly and we must protect ourselves foremost. I’ m wondering how many different ways you’re going to crossreference the data. There are a lot of demographics to consider: those who are straight/bi/gay with people. Those who aren’ t involved with people at all, those who are married/divorced/re-married, race,religion, present age, “starting” age, animal of choice, etc. Are you just going to look for commonalities and then go from there? I’ m just wondering if you’ ll put more importance behind the [[statistics]] or from personal anecdotes? Cause I believe that you may learn a lot more from talking to us as opposed to just getting us to list off answers to questions.

*Mike nods
*GW nods too and says — good question Moo
*Hani says — I am hoping to get qualitative as well as quantitative info, and the questionnaire will probably be long
*Moo says — alright. Willya accept a collect call on Monday? :)
*Hani says — yes! Please!
*Moo smiles and gets his dialing finger ready ;)
*Horselover says — 🐾
*Two says — I would like to add to the “ orientation” question first. Yes, I think there is definitely a sexual orientation toward animals, be it genetic or learned. I am as much aroused by my mares as my wife, and sometimes will drift off and remember past encounters. Second, one thing at least for me is the lack of false pretenses with all animals. Face it, humans will lie. If you do something an animal doesn’ t like, you will know, as you will know if you do something they like. I have spent many hours just scratching an itchy spot and have seen a look that means “I really like that.”
*Tammy says — Two, do you have a question Hani can answer for you?
*Two says — uh, guess not.
*Tammy smiles at Two and says — you will have time to chat with Hani on the phone.
*Active says — 🐾
*Copy says — 🐾
*Ron, looking at the big picture, wonders if Hani’s research is aimed at pulling zoophilia back into the realm of normal sexuality, where it was once before, or further define it as a perversion that does not produce children to further the ideology of our society.
*Hani says — I have no such aim. My intention is to provide objective data so that people will know about zoophilia and maybe understand it better. I will have to analyze all the findings and put it in some form in my dissertation, and afterwards in my future book. I am still in the beginning process of my work, so it will take some time, and a lot of work...
*Race Horse expects a full report, with cover and illustrations on his desk tomorrow.
*Fur appears from nowhere!
*Pope appears from nowhere!
*Doggie says — 🐾
*Kevin sits on Race Horse
*Pope laughs
*Kevin smiles
*Race Horse winks at Hani
*Mini says — Hani, please forgive if I sound stern in what I say, no disrespect is intended, and please excuse my slow typing. First, I saw you mention “ committee.” Will these people be privy to the personal info that I give you, should I decide to do so? How many others, besides yourself will be privy to that info?
*Hani says — no one. Just me
*Mini says — I do not mean to sound paranoid, but...
*Hani says — I understand
*Race Horse says — Hani no esta los federales
*Mini says — these people here are my family. I [[love]] them all, and am fearful of this whole thing. But
*Beverly seems to trust you, and so will I.
*Mike smiles
*Hani says — thanks
*Mini says — but please understand my and others fear
*Hani says — I do
*Mini says — thank you. Sorry for rehashing an old question
*Hani says — that’s fine :)
*Tammy hugs Mini tightly
*Race Horse huggles Mini too
*Ron grins and hugs Mini tightly
*Strong says — 🐾
*Kevin says — at the start you mentioned that the reason you are doing this at all is a result of a patient of yours. I know that you can’ t tell us who the patient is, but I might be so bold as to say that there are many folks here who have found “ acceptance” here, online. It might be a thought for your patient to “ come here” sometimes. They could, of course, be anonymous unless they chose to say anything about it.
*Hani says — I know. I’ ll keep that in mind
*Race Horse notes that the “ acceptance” found here is a double edged sword. It ain’ t always a bouquet of roses.
*Kevin says — that’s it. And I’ ll be calling you sometime
*Hani says — thanks
*Sunshine says — would you send several questionnaires to New Zealand, as I know some here that would fill them out?
*Hani says — yes, but I would like to talk to you on the phone first. Call me and I’ ll call you back.
*Horselover says — I’ ve been discussing mailing the questionnaire with an Australian Customs Officer, and in her off-duty opinion, it’s unlikely that any harm would come to "me" sending the response. But text on bestiality, with details, is a prohibited import everywhere she knows about.
*Hani says — I know, I’ m the only one at risk
*Horselover says — so, effectively, Hani, I would be getting "you" to break the law by answering your questions in detail. How are you going to deal with it in the small chance that someone does check the mail.
*Jim says — but it could be reasonably argued that it’s not erotica
*Pope wonders if the academic nature of the material wouldn’ t protect it
*Hani says — Jim and Pope are probably right, hopefully :)
*Polo appears from nowhere!
*Bobby walks in
*Kevin nuzzles Bobby
*Copy says — did anyone ask if repression because of religion becomes involved for the person, and the ramifications of that and on altered social behavior for not being who you are and what outlets does this altered behavior take? Is this going to be contained in the report?
*Hani says — these are all good ideas for questions. Thank you.
*Copy says — Also, are you going to include, for those of us who are married who’s spouses know about their zoo life, any questions for them?
*Hani says — no, but I’ ll ask you about it.
*Copy says — okay. That was it for me.
*Mustang appears from nowhere!
*Doggie says — they consider us to be dog rapists who should be castrated and jailed. Bringing out "too" much info publically may make them, the Humane Society, and animal rights groups more aware of an "organized network" with possibly bad consequences. What is Hani’s view on this additional exposure risk?
*Hani says — that’s a good one. Let me think...
*Doggie says — people laugh at sex with horses, but get mighty pissed if they think a dog is being abused.
*Hani says — there are always risks, but I hope that my study will show people the humane side of it, and that it’s not abuse.
*Strong says — neither Hani nor I nor anyone else pretends there isn’ t some risk here, possibly serious risk. But it is worth noting that I don’ t believe the risk lies with Hani. I pride myself on being an accomplished sniffer of fakes and Feds, and I’ m betting she’s neither. Nevertheless, as you all seem to know, you don’ t have 100% protection. Yes, you will take an enormous risk receiving the questionnaire, and I don’ t think anyone would hold it against you if you chose to abstain from the survey for that very reason. There is more, though. This is also, to some extent, about sacrifice. In taking this risk, you would be contributing to the first ever serious research about zoophilia.
*Active says — people who don’ t know about places like [[alt.sex.bestiality]] and the Forest are probably worse off than any of us.
*Strong says — this is your chance to make a difference. There is, of course, the distinct possibility that Hani will be an unwilling and/or unwitting participant in an FBI operation. They can tap her phones, search her files, raid her records, on a whim. They can decide to use the information to arrest us all, or just keep it for... a rainy day, as it were. They can, of course, do the same to each of us should they want to badly enough. Of course, I don’ t know what would happen to non-Americans, but I would expect it would be similar in Canada, and possibly the UK. However, that risk has always been present
*Jim says — I don’ t think the Feds are in the habit of raiding university psych labs.
*Bobby says — 🐾
*Active says — 🐾
*Kevin passes the mic over to Bobby
*Bobby says — quite a few questions related to professional things. First, do you have a pre-approved committee? You cannot conduct psychological research or experimentation without committee approval. It is illegal. Without this approval, your doctoral thesis will be disqualified.
*Hani says — I already have an approval
*Bobby says — is the institution accredited, and if so, by who?
*Beverly says — Hani is looking up the accreditation and will be right back. Good questions!
*Tammy says — how is she holding up?
*Beverly says — I’ m more tired than she is. She’s excited about the people being willing to help and this whole new medium.
*Hani says — I’ m back. The school has full educational approval as a California degree granting institution by the California State Department of Education, Private Post-secondary Education Division
*Bobby says — okay. Which research model are you using? And what statistical method of tabulation?
*Hani says — It’s too soon. I don’ t know yet. I am still gathering data and trying to find out how many people will volunteer for the research. I have professional researchers who volunteered to help me with it.
*Bobby says — is not trying to give you the 5th degree, just verifying validity :)
*Hani says — I appreciate it
*Active says — Hani, would you consider a chi-square analysis of 90% to be statistically significant?
*Hani says — I have to go back to my statistics books for that one :)
*Active says — okay :)
*Tammy smiles and says — I think this is it
*GW says — 🐾
*Hani says — GW, what was your question?
*GW — I was just wondering if there was anyway I could talk to you outside the usual business hours, as I work and I can’ t talk at work. We are very much monitored.
*Hani says — yes, call me and just leave your number and a good time to catch you, and I’ ll call you.
*GW says — thanks, I appreciate it. And thanks for taking the time to answer one last question
*Hani says — thank you.
*Bobby huggles Hani for her patience
*Whitedog grabs Tammy and does the tango!
*Hani says — and I want to thank everyone for their cooperation and, maybe even, trust in me
*Active says — you’re welcome, Hani
*GW says — you’re welcome, and come back and visit again
*Pope applauds Hani and especially the Wizards for their excellent crowd control
*Mike says — I would like to thank Hani for doing this research project and wish her good luck
*Whitedog says — you’ ll most likely be getting a call from me, Hani
*Active agrees with Whitedog
*GW says — also thanks to Beverly for giving Hani and us an opportunity to talk
*Mike says — I’ ll be calling too
*GW says — Tammy, how long did the meeting run approximately?
*Tammy says — about 250 minutes :)
*Bobby says — wow!
*Hani says — wow!
*GW offers fresh popcorn to everyone
*Mike grabs a donut and fires up the espresso machine
*Hani says — good night everyone. We are going to sleep :)
</blockquote>
{{Home}}
[[Category:Research]]
[[Category:People]]

Hani Miletski

2026-07-21T23:31:37Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

'''Hani Miletski''', Ph.D., M.S.W., (born 1962) is a [[Wikipedia:sexology|sexologist]], and [[Wikipedia:Sex therapy|sex therapist]] living in [[Wikipedia:Bethesda, Maryland|Bethesda, Maryland]], United States. She specializes as a trainer and supervisor in the field, in [[Wikipedia:Sex addiction|sex addiction]], and also works within the [[Wikipedia:Criminal justice|criminal justice]] system. She is a certified Clinical Social Worker with a Master's degree in Social Work from the Catholic University of America, National School of Social Service, in Washington, DC. She studied at The Catholic University of America and gained her doctorate at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality

[[File:Hani miletksi.png|thumb|Hani Miletski]]

==Early life==
Miletski was born in Israel, and according to her website, moved to the United States as part of the Israeli embassy staff as Assistant Senior Representative of the Defense Mission to the U.S. for [[Wikipedia:Strategic Defense Initiative|Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI) Programs.

Hani came to the United States from her native Israel in 1987 at the age of 25. She worked at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC as Assistant Senior Representative of the Israeli Mission for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). When she later completed her training, she continued to work in the press office there. During her graduate studies, she was employed as a sex therapist at the Fogel Foundation, Human Sexuality Institute, in Washington, DC. She then became a training consultant there and later director of the Human Sexuality Institute. In 2003, she left the Fogel Foundation to focus on her own practice in Bethesa, MD.

Hani was the first scientist to study zoophiles directly. Thanks to the newly emerged Internet, she was able to come into contact with “normal” zoophiles. Previous researchers only had access to legally or psychologically conspicuous people with zoosexual tendencies, which represented a negative selection that inevitably had a negative influence on the research results.

Her voluminous dissertation "Bestiality - Zoophilia: an exploratory study" resulted in the book Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia

==Published academic work==
Miletski published the first brief overview of mother-son [[Wikipedia:incest|incest]] research. She shows that mother-son incest is more common than is thought and that most mothers who commit incest are [[Wikipedia:insanity|sane]].

Miletski is notable for her self-published 1999 book on [[zoophilia]], [[Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia]], based mostly on her doctoral dissertation. Miletski successfully defended her dissertation, though it has never been published in any peer-reviewed journal. She once published a two-page abstract of her findings in the ''Scandinavian Journal of Sexology''.
The book compiles all discussion about sex with animals from academic sources throughout the 20th century, along with an historical overview of [[bestiality]] through the ages and in different cultures.

Miletski is notable for her 1999 book on [[zoophilia]],<ref>Review by [[Vern Bullough]] published in ''Journal of Sex Research,'' May 2003: ([http://www.dynomind.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518225 Online version])</ref> a comprehensive reference work and analysis combined with further research, which formally established whether a genuine [[Sexual orientation|orientation]] might exist (as opposed to a mere sexual fetish), and whether previous research in the field had erred in not fully recognizing this. Prior to her studies, the field was highly fragmented and reliable information for psychological purposes unclear.<ref name="cite1">Miletski states (p. 1) that there was information was sparse, often contradictory and not easily located, and no solid body of research or consensus in psychology, when she looked for information regarding a patient of hers who reported zoophilic interest. She described how:
<blockquote>
"Throughout the literature review, it is very obvious that authors perceive sexual relations with animals in very different ways. Definitions of various behaviors and attitudes are often conflicting, leaving the reader confused. Terms such as 'sodomy,' 'zoorasty,' 'zoosexuality,' as well as 'bestiality' and 'zoophilia' are often used, each having a different meaning depending on the author."
</blockquote>
The [http://www.dynomind.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518225 book review] states that
<blockquote>
"It seems clear from Miletski's summary of the existing literature that very little is actually known about bestiality and there is not anything approaching a consensus as to why animal-human sexual contacts occur... many of the existing reports and studies should be classified more as pseudo-science than serious research."</ref>

Miletski's study has never been published in any peer-reviewed journal. She once published a two-page abstract of her findings in the ''Scandinavian Journal of Sexology''.<ref>Miletski, H. (2000) ''Bestiality and Zoophilia: An Exploratory Study.'' ''Scandinavian Journal of Sexology''. Vol. 3 (4), pp 149–150: – Miletski's book "Understanding bestiality and zoophilia" (2002) was an expansion of her initial dissertation "Bestiality and Zoophilia: An exploratory study" (1999). An abstract of the latter was published in the Scandinavian Journal of Sexology (now discontinued), the official journal of the Nordic Association for Clinical Sexology (NACS). Peer review evidence according to Kinsey Institute of Sexology [http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/resources/journals.html#S] "...an international, peer-reviewed, quarterly journal in English..." The paper was cited by a UK government report into [[extreme pornography]] in 2007, ''Ministry of Justice Research Series 11/07'' [http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/280907.pdf]</ref>

Her voluminous dissertation "Bestiality - Zoophilia: an exploratory study" resulted in the book [[Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia By Hani Miletski Ph.D - 2002|Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia]]

She describes the genesis of this study in her article series The secret life of the zoophiles; Also known as The Hidden life of Zoophiles (Translated from a German Zoo Wiki)<ref>Zeta Pin Zoo wiki https://web.archive.org/web/20070519033738/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Hani_Miletski</ref>

==Books==
* ''Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia'' (pub. 2002) {{ISBN|0-9716917-0-3}} ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813759 book review])

* ''Mother-Son Incest: The Unthinkable Broken Taboo'' (a brief overview of findings, pub. 1999) {{ISBN|1-884444-31-8}}

==Articles==
* ''Zoophilia: Another Sexual Orientation?'' ''Archives of sexual behavior.'' 46.2017,1 Pages 39-42 Published online: 10 November 2016, [[doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0891-3]]
* ''A [[history]] of bestiality'' In: ''Bestiality And Zoophilia: Sexual Relations With Animals (Anthrozoos)'' Pages. 1-22 (2005) {{ISBN|978-1-55753-412-5}}
* ''Is zoophilia a [[sexual orientation]]? A study'' In: ''Bestiality And Zoophilia: Sexual Relations With Animals (Anthrozoos)'' Pages. 82-97 (2005) {{ISBN|978-1-55753-412-5}}
* ''Zoophilia-Implications for Therapy'' ''Journal of Sex Education and Therapy'' 26.2001,2 Pages 85-89 [[doi:10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387]]
* Hani Miletski: [[Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia|Understanding Bestiality and Zoophili]]<nowiki/>a, East-West Publishing, LLC, ISBN 0971691703
* Hani Miletski: Bestiality – Zoophilia: An exploratory study, Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. - San Francisco, CA, October, 1999
* Hani Miletski: Bestiality/Zoophilia: An Exploratory Study. (2000, December). In: Scandinavian Journal of Sexology. (4). 149-150.
* Hani Miletski: Mother-Son Incest: The Unthinkable Broken Taboo, Brandon, Vt: The Safer Society Foundation, Inc., 1995. 2nd ed. ISBN 1-884444-31-8

==See also==
* [[Wikipedia:Human sexuality|Human sexuality]]
* [[Wikipedia:Sex therapy|Sex therapy]]
* [[Wikipedia:Sexology|Sexology]]
* [[Zoophilia]]

==References==
<references />
==External links==
* [http://www.drmiletski.com Dr. Milteskis Website]
* [http://www.drmiletski.com/about_hani.html Biography page on her own Website]

{{People}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Research]]
[[Category:History]]

Guide to Zoophilia

2026-07-21T23:31:37Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{sex}}
{{Essay}}

Being a zoo is a hard fate. This guide will introduce you to [[zoophilia]] to take your fear from you.

Once recognized that you are [[zoophile]], you might wonder, "am I normal?" Yes, you are. "Am I alone?" No, you are not, there are countless other zoos like you with the same luck and the same problems as you have. So your question is how to meet them.

You beginners should go online cos the internet is the greatest forum for zoos. If you insist on protecting your identity from being discriminated, use a pseudonym instead of your civil name. Initially, you will feel disorientated; so many sites, but so few information.

Join a newsgroup, a community of like-minded people, and you will meet plenty of persons who will most probably share their common conviction with you, help you solve your problems and link you to some more or less comprehensive zoosites. You need to meet your fantasy for animal sex

Most of those sites containing different animalsex like stories, guides, pictures or movies are commercial ones. Albeit they dispose of the most extensive resources, they are nothing else than profit-greedy trash, if you do not want to pay for what you see.

Far more advisable than paysites are freesites, though, the best ones are generous zoo´s homepages that offer you free, partly rare material. Whichever of them you favor, before trading zoomaterial, check up whether you offend against any law by doing it.

Another possibility of getting to know someone else is global, national, regional or local message boards you can advertise and make contacts on.

But all the theoretical stuff is nothing comparing with you lover. Unfortunately, some of you are not allowed to keep an animal. To get one, look thru the World Wide Web or ask your friends. Of course, there are certain zoos like me who will never share their partners, however, you can count on those without this ethos.

Nonetheless, you best buy your favorite animal and build up a steady relationship to it. Although this may sound strange to you, took it serious cos caring for a creature implies [[love]], responsibility and trust. After fulfilling these essential conditions, you are able to begin training your fellow for copulating with you.

Remember the coitus just means the emotional climax of your love whose largest part always consists of the everyday coexistence. Too many so-called animal lovers forget their duty towards their dependant partners, send them off to the pound or even let them croak.

In case of that you are into exotic species, sea mammals or other wild animals, you either have to change your lifestyle or you need a lot more luck than I will ever able to wish you.

Good luck on your search for [[bestiality]], fortune, facts and friends, and have a lucky life with your lover!

===Your Guide===

Too many people know too less about us [[zoophiles]] so I will guide you to zoophilia.

*'''I. Definition'''
Zoophilia is either essential love of animals or love of animals including [[sexuality]] between humans and animals. Both definitions exclude all violence to animals, i. e. zoophilia is not to be confused with cruelty to animals nor with animal abuse. Every true zoophile does never harm an animal.
*'''II. Categorization'''
The zoophiles´ categories are as manifold as their favorite species. Some of them are exclusively into animals while others are hetero, homo and bisexual as well. The species they prefer are particularly dogs and horses, but also cats, cattle, dolphins, whales and a lot of other species count to their repertoire; the more exotic an animal the harder to approach to.
*'''III. Practice'''
In general, it is possible to do the same with animals as with other humans: cuddling, petting; vaginal, anal or oral copulation and so on. Furthermore, it depends on the respective species; do what you and your partner want.
*'''IV. Extent'''
As you still has to fear being persecuted by your conviction, there is no provable knowledge of how many zoophiles exist. All we know is they are numerous, and they are everywhere.
*'''V. [[History]]'''
The Greek word zoophilia solely means love of animals. Select animals within the Hellenistic culture were predestinated to have sexual intercourses with humans, e. g. the Aesculapian snake. The Romans adopted such customs and added their own ones so that there were diverse zoophile rituals with sacrificial animals in honor of Jupiter.
In the Middle Ages, the people saw animals only as utilizable objects; zoophilia was obscene.

That prudery changed a little, when they began respecting animals again. The famous lapdog, for instance, was nothing else than a small dog licking or penetrating his mistress´s lap, he virtually functioned as vibrator.

Even though many countries legalized it in the twentieth century, zoophilia has been remaining taboo till today almost everyplace in the world.

*'''VI. Law'''
The juridically most decisive question for zoophiles is their state of law that can be highly difficult cos it differs from one country to another.
Accordingly, in Germany, France, Spain and most of the European Union´s other member countries as well as in Switzerland, Poland and even Russia, zoophilia is legal whereas trading with zoophile material is forbidden in the greater part of those countries.

Contrarily, zoophilia is illegal in countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where it is punished with prison sentence for several years or for life.

In the United States of America, though, the situation varies throughout the states.

*'''VII. Morality'''
"And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall surely be upon them (Lev. 20.15 - 16)."
That is written in the Holy Bible. The Old Testament says zoophilies shall be put to death, psychologists define them as paraphile which means they behave sexually deviating from the social standard, and plenty of people call them perverted or sick and compare them with pedophiles.

Zoophiles wage a never ending war against prejudices and ignorance to convey their morality. Those who have heard nothing of zoophilia yet can hardly understand why a number of humans are used to having sex with animals. At first glance, it seems to be unnatural that certain men love animals more than anyone else, but if you look deeper, you should recognize since our forefathers commenced domesticating wild animals, our relationship has steadily been getting closer and closer.

Nowadays, most people accept animal lovers, blacks, homosexuals, Jews and other minorities as well as they ought to approve zoophiles who have nothing to do with child abusers cos there is an evident difference between making love to adult animals without damaging their minds and forcing minor persons to sex whereafter those children may be traumatized for all times.

And if you believe in the Lord whose prophets cursed zoophilia as a capital crime, consider that it is love, one of the Son´s [[Portal:Main|main]] messages.

= How to Get your Dream Animal =
A lucky zoo lives with his animal, an unlucky lives without. A lucky zoo´s question is how to love, an unlucky zoo´s one is how to get love.

This simple principle describes the contrary situation we zoos are in. Together we ask, how to zoo?

<s>To zoo means to do all the things zoos do like [[Loving Animals|loving animals]], mating them, dreaming of our favorite species and making our dream come true. In this way, we will see how to get your dream animal.</s>

<s>Initially, you must know what it is. A cat, a dog, a [[horse]] or a lion? After setting your goal, start reaching it.</s>

<s>You petlovers best buy the animal of your dreams. Petshops, pounds, newspapers and the internet are recommendable resources on your search.</s>

<s>As a lover of farm animals, you ought to seek a bit more actively. Go out, check your local offers. Some of you will be thinking at [[Fence Hopping|fence hopping]] now, however, entering someone else´s property without permission is prohibited. Instead, buy, rent or borrow your desired animal. The internet also can help you find what you are looking for.</s>

<s>If you are an exotic animal lover, you should have starkly different abilities cos living with wild animals requires good sense, courage and modesty. Work as a journalist, zoo keeper or scientist to obtain savage love.</s>

<s>Ultimately, when you have gotten your dream animal, you begin training it.</s>

Getting an animal in general can be either easy, or complicated. What we mean by that is if you're getting from a shelter, they mostly will be fixed. However, that doesn't mean "You're not a zoo" if your animal is not intact. The official term is "Lover of animals." Or "Attraction towards animals." One doesn't NEED sexual intercourse to be considered a zoophile.

As above of what was crossed out, we do not suggest renting an animal for your pleasure, nor finding stray animals to use (Including using animals you are pet sitting). This is considered just simply wrong, and abusing an animal.

===How to 'play' with your dream animal===

In the first part, we discussed how to get your dream animal, in the second one, we will learn giving them extra love.

Let us begin with domesticated animals. Your actions bases on trust as your lover considers you as his leader and confides in you wholly. Favorably, most pets, particularly cats and dogs, are keen on [[human sexuality]], and as they are also pretty frisky. Provide foreplay to your animal playingly, for example, by caressing its genitals, inviting it to fondle yours or arousing it however it likes. Its basic instinct, its faithfulness and its love to you will make it do its best to respond your tenderness as much as it can.

Savage animals, though, require a lot more efforts to be trained. It is questionable anyway, whether your animal is suggestible, The most advisable procedure is to get into its environment, to become its equal partner. Gaining its confidence, you will see how far you are allowed to go.

Do not forget training, care, treatment and education belong together. Eventually, you have to get to know how to keep your dream animal.

===How to Keep you Dream Animal===

You know how to get your dream animal. It is time to learn how to keep it.

Be aware of the three elements of the perfect keeping: love, responsibility, trust.

Now you may think nothing easier than loving your animal, but what would you do, if it disobeyed you, opposed you or even hurt you? Love it in good as well as in bad times.

Your responsibility for your animal goes beyond love, it also means care and education. We humans made many species dependent on us so we have to care for them as long as they live. And how?

<s>Fundamentally, you ought to keep it adequately. As this can vary from an ant to a whale, divide them once more into domesticated and savage species.</s>

<s>If your animal is tame, you may keep it in your house, although an appropriate pen is a lot more recommendable, and if yours is wild, it either lives in an enclosure or in the wilderness, however, they all need your care.</s>

Every species is able to be trained. Nonetheless, the best method to educate your lover differs from one individual to another. In short, the brighter your animal, the shorter your way.

Your complete effort is futile in case of its mistrust. Or can you love someone you do not confide in? Gain your animal´s trust by sympathy, empathy, patience, and keep it in your heavenly relationship.

I wish you a lucky life with your dream animal.
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:The Guide to Animal Relationships]]

Giardia

2026-07-21T23:31:36Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{short description|Genus of flagellate intestinal eukayotes parasitic in various vertebrate}}
{{About|the parasite|the disease|Giardiasis}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2013}}
{{Taxobox
| image = Giardia lamblia SEM 8698 lores.jpg
| image_caption = ''Giardia'' [[trophozoite]], [[Scanning electron microscope|SEM]]
| domain = [[Eukaryota]]
| unranked_regnum = [[Excavata]]
| phylum = [[Metamonad]]a
| ordo = [[Diplomonad]]ida
| familia = [[Hexamitidae]]
| subfamilia = [[Giardiinae]]
| genus = '''''Giardia'''''
| genus_authority = Künstler, 1882<ref>{{cite journal|author=Künstler, J.|year=1882|title=Sur cinq protozoaires parasites nouveaux|journal=C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris|volume=95|pages=347–349|url=https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k30518/f347.item}}</ref>
| synonyms ={{Genus list
|Lamblia|R. Blanchard, 1888<ref>{{cite journal|author=Blanchard, R.|year=1888|title=Remarques sur le megastome intestinal|journal=Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr.|volume=30|pages=18–19|url=https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5439498p/f43.item}}</ref>
}}
| subdivision_ranks = Species
| subdivision =
''[[Giardia agilis]]'' 
''[[Giardia ardeae]]'' 
''[[Giardia lamblia]]'' 
''[[Giardia microti]]'' 
''[[Giardia muris]]'' 
''[[Giardia psittaci]]''
}}

'''''Giardia''''' ({{IPAc-en|dʒ|iː|ˈ|ɑr|d|i|ə}} or {{IPAc-en|ˈ|dʒ|ɑr|d|i|ə}}) is a [[genus]] of [[Anaerobic organism|anaerobic]] [[flagellate]]d [[protozoa]]n [[Human parasite|parasite]]s of the phylum [[metamonada]] that colonise and reproduce in the small intestines of several [[vertebrates]], causing [[giardiasis]]. Their life cycle alternates between a swimming [[trophozoite]] and an infective, resistant [[Microbial cyst|cyst]]. ''Giardia'' were first described by the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[microscopist]] [[Antonie van Leeuwenhoek]] in 1681.<ref name="ErlandsenMeyer1984">{{cite book|author1=Stanley L. Erlandsen|author2=Ernest A. Meyer|title=Giardia and Giardiasis: Biology, Pathogenesis, and Epidemiology|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F8IIzx8PaWAC&pg=PA131|date=1 March 1984|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-0-306-41539-5|pages=131–}}</ref> The genus is named after French [[zoologist]] [[Alfred Mathieu Giard]].<ref name=Adam01>{{cite journal |author=Adam RD |title=Biology of ''Giardia lamblia'' |journal=Clin. Microbiol. Rev. |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=447–75 |date=July 2001 |pmid=11432808 |pmc=88984 |doi=10.1128/CMR.14.3.447-475.2001 }}</ref>

==Characteristics==
Like other [[diplomonad]]s, ''Giardia'' have two [[cell nucleus|nuclei]], each with four associated [[Flagellum|flagella]], and were thought to lack both [[mitochondrion|mitochondria]] and a [[Golgi apparatus]]. However they are now known to possess a complex endomembrane system as well as mitochondrial remnants, called [[mitosome]]s, through mitochondrial reduction.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Tovar|first1=Jorge|last2=León-Avila|first2=Gloria|last3=Sánchez|first3=Lidya|last4=Sutak|first4=Robert|last5=Tachezy|first5=Jan|last6=van der Giezen|first6=Mark|last7=Hernández|first7=Manuel|last8=Müller|first8=Miklós|last9=Lucocq|first9=John|date=2003|title=Mitochondrial remnant organelles of Giardia function in iron-sulphur protein maturation|journal=Nature|volume=426|issue=6963|pages=172–176|doi=10.1038/nature01945|pmid=14614504|bibcode=2003Natur.426..172T|s2cid=4402808}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal |
author= Anna Karnkowska|
title= A Eukaryote without a Mitochondrial Organelle |
journal= Current Biology|
date= May 2016|
url=http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30263-9|display-authors=etal |doi=10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.053 |
pmid= 27185558 |volume=26 |
issue= 10 |pages=1274–1284|
doi-access= free }}
</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Soltys BJ, Falah M, Gupta RS |title=Identification of endoplasmic reticulum in the primitive eukaryote ''Giardia lamblia'' using cryoelectron microscopy and antibody to Bip |journal=J. Cell Sci. |volume=109 |issue=Pt 7 |pages=1909–17 |date=July 1996 |doi=10.1242/jcs.109.7.1909 |pmid=8832413 |url=http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8832413}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author1=Dolezal P |author2=Smíd O |author3=Rada P |display-authors=etal |title=Giardia mitosomes and trichomonad hydrogenosomes share a common mode of protein targeting |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=102 |issue=31 |pages=10924–9 |date=August 2005 |pmid=16040811 |pmc=1182405 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0500349102 |bibcode=2005PNAS..10210924D }}</ref> The mitosomes are not used in [[Adenosine triphosphate|ATP]] synthesis the way mitochondria are, but are involved in the maturation of [[iron-sulfur protein]]s.<ref name="Tovar2003">{{cite journal |vauthors=Tovar J, etal | year = 2003 | title = Mitochondrial remnant organelles of Giardia function in iron-sulphur protein maturation | journal = Nature | volume = 426 | issue = 6963 | pages = 172–6 | pmid = 14614504 | doi = 10.1038/nature01945 | bibcode = 2003Natur.426..172T | s2cid = 4402808 }}</ref> The [[synapomorphy|synapomorphies]] of genus ''Giardia'' include cells with duplicate organelles, absence of [[cytostome]]s, and ventral adhesive disc.<ref>{{cite web |last=Cepicka |first=Ivan |title=Fornicata |website=Tree of Life Web Project |date=September 2008 |url=http://tolweb.org/Fornicata/121182/2008.09.02}}</ref>

==Systematics==
About 40 species have been described from different animals, but many of them are probably [[Synonym (taxonomy)|synonyms]].<ref name="Meyer1979">{{cite journal |author1=Meyer E.A. |author2=Radulescu S. | year = 1979 | title = ''Giardia'' and Giardiasis | journal = Advances in Parasitology | volume = 17 | pages = 1–47 | pmid = 395833 | doi = 10.1016/S0065-308X(08)60548-5 | quote = no |isbn=9780120317172 }}</ref> Currently, five to six morphologically distinct species are recognised.<ref>{{cite book |first1=R.C. |last1=Brusca |first2=G.J. |last2=Brusca |title=Invertebrates |publisher=Sinauer Associates |edition=2nd |year=2003 |isbn=0878930973 }}</ref> ''[[Giardia lamblia]]'' (=''G. intestinalis'', =''G. duodenalis'') infect humans and other mammals, ''G. muris'' is found from other mammals, ''G. ardeae'' and ''G. psittaci'' from birds, ''G. agilis'' from amphibians and ''G. microti'' from [[vole]]s.<ref name=Adam01/> Other described (but not certainly valid), species include:<ref>{{cite web |title=Giardia Kunstler |date=September 2008 |work=Tree of Life Web Project |url=http://tolweb.org/Giardia/97370/2008.09.02}}</ref>
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
*''Giardia beckeri''
*''Giardia beltrani''
*''Giardia botauri''
*''Giardia bovis''
*''Giardia bradypi''
*''Giardia canis''
*''Giardia caprae''
*''Giardia cati''
*''Giardia caviae''
*''Giardia chinchillae''
*''Giardia dasi''
*''Giardia equii''
*''Giardia floridae''
*''Giardia hegneri''
*''Giardia herodiadis''
*''Giardia hyderabadensis''
*''Giardia irarae''
*''Giardia marginalis''
*''Giardia melospizae''
*''Giardia nycticori''
*''Giardia ondatrae''
*''Giardia otomyis''
*''Giardia pitymysi''
*''Giardia pseudoardeae''
*''Giardia recurvirostrae''
*''Giardia sanguinis''
*''Giardia serpentis''
*''Giardia simoni''
*''Giardia sturnellae''
*''Giardia suricatae''
*''Giardia tucani''
*''Giardia varani ''
*''Giardia viscaciae''
*''Giardia wenyoni''
{{div col end}}
Many different species of ''Giardia'' exist, so to differentiate between species, very specific PCR (Polymerase Chain Reactions) have been developed to detect specific ''Giardia'' spp. Gene probe-based detection is also used to differentiate between species of ''Giardia''. A more common and less time-consuming means of identifying different species of ''Giardia'' includes microscopy and immunofluorescence techniques.<ref>{{harvnb|Mahbubani|1992}}</ref>

Genetic and biochemical studies have revealed the heterogeneity of ''[[Giardia lamblia]]'', which contains probably at least eight lineages or [[cryptic species]].<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Thompson RC, Monis PT |title=Variation in Giardia: implications for taxonomy and epidemiology |journal=[[Adv. Parasitol.]] |volume=58 |pages=69–137 |year=2004 |pmid=15603762 |doi=10.1016/S0065-308X(04)58002-8 |series=Advances in Parasitology |isbn=9780120317585 }}</ref>

==Genome==
A ''Giardia'' isolate (WB) was the first [[diplomonad]] to have its [[genome]] sequenced. Its 11.7 million [[basepair]] genome is compact in structure and content with simplified basic cellular machineries and metabolism. Currently the genomes of several other ''Giardia'' isolates and diplomonads (the fish pathogens ''Spironucleus vortens'' and ''S. salmonicida'') are being sequenced.<ref name= Anderssonetal>{{Cite book|author= Andersson, JO| year=2010 |chapter=The Genome of Giardia and Other Diplomonads |title=Anaerobic Parasitic Protozoa: Genomics and Molecular Biology | publisher=[[Caister Academic Press]] | isbn= 978-1-904455-61-5|display-authors=etal}}</ref>

A second isolate (the B assemblage) from humans has been sequenced along with a species from a pig (the E assemblage).<ref name="Jerlström-Hultqvist2010">{{cite journal |vauthors=Jerlström-Hultqvist J, Ankarklev J, Svärd SG |title=Is human giardiasis caused by two different Giardia species? |journal=Gut Microbes |volume=1 |issue=6 |pages=379–82 |year=2010 |pmid=21468219 |pmc=3056102 |doi=10.4161/gmic.1.6.13608 |url=http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmic/abstract.php?id=13608}}</ref> There are ~5000 genes in the genome. The E assemblage is more closely related to the A assemblage than is the B. A number of chromosomal rearrangements are present.

==Infection==
[[File:Giardia-spp.--infected--gerbil-intestine.jpg|thumb|left|250px|An [[scanning electron micrograph|SEM micrograph]] of the [[small intestine]] of a [[gerbil]] infested with ''Giardia'' reveals a mucosa surface almost entirely obscured by attached [[trophozoites]]]]
{{Main|Giardiasis}}
''Giardia'' lives in the [[intestine]]s of infected humans or other animals, individuals of which become [[infection|infected]] by ingesting or coming into contact with contaminated foods, soil, or water tainted by the feces of an infected carrier.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Filice, F.P. |author-link=Francis P. Filice |title=Studies on the cytology and life history of a ''Giardia'' from the laboratory rat |journal=U. C. Publications in Zoology |volume=5sex7 |issue=2 |year=1952 |location=Berkeley CA |publisher=University of California Press}}</ref>

The symptoms of ''Giardia'', which may begin to appear 2 days after infection, include violent [[diarrhoea]], excess gas, stomach or abdominal cramps, upset stomach, and nausea. Resulting dehydration and nutritional loss may need immediate treatment. A typical infection can be slight, resolve without treatment, and last between 2–6 weeks, although it can sometimes last longer and/or be more severe. Coexistence with the parasite is possible (symptoms fade), but an infected individual can remain a carrier and transmit it to others. Medication containing [[tinidazole]] or [[metronidazole]] decreases symptoms and time to resolution. [[Albendazole]] is also used, and has an [[anthelmintic]] (anti-worm) property as well, ideal for certain compounded issues when a general vermicidal agent is preferred.
''Giardia'' causes a disease called [[giardiasis]], which causes the villi of the small intestine to atrophy and flatten, resulting in malabsorption in the intestine. Lactose intolerance can persist after the eradication of ''Giardia'' from the digestive tract.<ref>{{harvnb|LaCour|2003}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[List of parasites (human)]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*{{cite web |title=Giardia |date=March 2011 |work=Parasites |publisher=[[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] |url=https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/giardia/ |ref={{harvid|CDC Giardia|2011}}}}
*{{cite journal |vauthors=Mahbubani MH, Bej AK, Perlin MH, Schaefer FW, Jakubowski W, Atlas RM |title=Differentiation of ''Giardia duodenalis'' from other Giardia spp. by using polymerase chain reaction and gene probes |journal=J. Clin. Microbiol. |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=74–8 |date=January 1992 |doi=10.1128/JCM.30.1.74-78.1992 |pmid=1734070 |pmc=264999 |ref={{harvid|Mahbubani|1992}}}}
*{{cite web |last=LaCour |first=Michelle |title=Who Is Giardia? |date=2003 |work=GIARDIA |publisher=Stanford University |url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/parasites/ParaSites2003/Giardia/GIARDIA2.htm }}
*{{cite web |title=''Giardia'' |work=NCBI Taxonomy Browser |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=5740 |id=5740}}

{{Excavata}}
{{Antonie van Leeuwenhoek}}
{{Taxonbar|from=Q1469628}}

[[Category:Metamonads]]
[[Category:Excavata genera]]
[[Category:1681 in science]]

[[pt:Giárdia]]

Gerbilling

2026-07-21T23:31:35Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Sexual urban legends}}
{{imported}}

[[File:2008-02-16 Mongolian gerbil.jpg|thumb|right|Gerbils are the most common rodents to be allegedly inserted.]]

'''Gerbilling''', also known as '''gerbil stuffing''' or '''gerbil shooting''', is a rumoured [[human sexual behavior|sexual practice]] of inserting small live animals (usually [[gerbil]]s but also [[mouse|mice]], [[hamster]]s, [[rat]]s and various other [[rodents]]) into the human [[rectum]] to obtain stimulation. Some variations of reports suggest that the rodent be covered in a psychoactive substance such as cocaine prior to being inserted.

==Overview==
According to folklorist [[Jan Harold Brunvand]], accounts of gerbilling were first recorded in 1984 and initially were said to involve a mouse and an unidentified man. In subsequent versions of the story, the animal was a gerbil and the story applied to several male celebrities.<ref name="snopes">{{cite web |url=http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/gerbil.asp |title=From Gere to eternity |date=2001-11-18|author=Barbara and David P. Mikkelson|work=[[Urban Legends Reference Pages]]|publisher=[[snopes.com]]|accessdate=February 8, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Brunvand2001a">{{Cite encyclopedia|article=The Colo-Rectal Mouse|pages=[https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofur00janh_0/page/81 81]|author=[[Jan Harold Brunvand|Brunvand, Jan Harold]]|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Urban Legends|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|year=2001|isbn=978-1-57607-076-5|url=https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofur00janh_0/page/81}} {{ISBN|9781576070765}}</ref> Rumors surrounding various male celebrities engaging in gerbilling have become persistent urban legends.<ref name="snopes"/><ref name="Brunvand2001b">{{Cite encyclopedia|article=Gerbiling|pages=[https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofur00janh_0/page/166 166]|author=[[Jan Harold Brunvand|Brunvand, Jan Harold]]|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Urban Legends|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|year=2001|isbn=978-1-57607-076-5|url=https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofur00janh_0/page/166}} {{ISBN|9781576070765}}</ref><ref name="about">{{cite web |url=http://www.urbanlegends.about . com/library/blbyol4.htm |title=Gerbilling Mishap Injures Two |publisher=About . com |accessdate=September 28, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120428204012/http://urbanlegends.about . com/library/blbyol4.htm |archive-date=April 28, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

As of the mid-1980s, there were no reports in peer-reviewed medical [[literature]] describing gerbilling among the variety of [[rectal foreign object]]s removed from people's bodies.<ref name="Straight_Dope">Adams, Cecil (1986). "[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/478/is-it-true-what-they-say-about-gerbils Is It True What they Say About Gerbils?]" ''The Straight Dope'', March 28, 1986.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Busch | first1 = D. B.
| last2 = Starling | first2 = J. R.
| title = Rectal foreign bodies: case reports and a comprehensive review of the world's literature
| journal = Surgery
| volume = 100
| issue = 3
| pages = 512–519
| year = 1986
| pmid = 3738771
}}</ref>

Mike Walker, a ''[[National Enquirer]]'' gossip columnist, spent months attempting to verify the gerbilling rumors about a celebrity. "I've never worked harder on a story in my life," Walker told the ''[[Palm Beach Post]]'' in 1995. After much investigation, he was unable to find any evidence that a gerbilling incident ever happened: "I'm convinced that it's nothing more than an urban [[legend]]."<ref>{{cite book|title=L.A. Exposed: Strange Myths and Curious Legends in the City of Angels|last1=Young|first1=Paul|page=20|publisher=[[St. Martin's Griffin]]|year=2002|isbn=978-0312206468}}</ref>

[[Dan Savage]], a sex-advice columnist who frequently discusses unusual sexual practices, stated in 2013 that he has never received a first-hand or even a second-hand account of the practice.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=16295662 |title=Gerbils? Again? |date=March 20, 2013 |author=Dan Savage |publisher=thestranger.com}}</ref>

According to the editors of [[Snopes.com]], gerbilling is an unverified and persistent urban legend.<ref name="snopes"/>

In the song "Fack" from his 2005 album ''[[Curtain Call: The Hits]]'', rapper [[Eminem]] recites a verse about gerbilling. "Now see that gerbil, grab that tube/stick it up my butt/let that little rascal nibble on my asshole".<ref>[http://www.complex.com/music/2013/03/the-50-grossest-rap-lyrics/eminem-fack/ Top 50 Grossest Rap Lyrics] [[Complex.com]] (03/27/2013)</ref>

A February 2015 episode of ''[[Family Feud]]'' featured a woman who immediately answered "a gerbil" when host [[Steve Harvey]] asked "Name something a doctor would pull out of a person." The response produced prolonged laughter from the audience and a stunned silence from Harvey; even the other contestant at the podium burst out laughing over her response. The clip of the scene from the episode quickly went [[Viral video|viral]].<ref>[http://fox13now.com/2015/02/12/she-said-what-possibly-the-most-awkward-answer-ever-shouted-on-game-show/ She said what? Possibly the most awkward answer ever shouted on game show] [[KSTU]] (02/12/2015)</ref>

In their song ''[[Ich Tu Dir Weh]]'' from the album ''[[Liebe ist für Alle Da]]'', the German metal band [[Rammstein]] refers to this practice: "Wünsch' dir was ich sag' nicht nein / Und führ' dir Nagetiere ein." which translates into "What you wish, I don't say no / And insert rodents into you."<ref>https://lyricstranslate.com/fr/ich-tu-dir-weh-i-hurt-you.html</ref> Furthermore, while performing on stage, the band's singer [[Till Lindemann]] occasionally resorts to suggestive gestures that make the meaning of the lyrics quite explicit.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XfJEhGlCzc</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Sodomy]]
* [[Zoophilia]]

== References ==
<references/>

== Further reading ==
* {{cite journal|title=The Case of the Missing Gerbil|author=Norine Dresser|date=July 1994|volume=53|issue=3|pages=229–242|jstor=1499810|journal=Western Folklore}}
* {{cite web|url=http://snopes.com/risque/homosex/gerbil.asp|title=From Gere to Eternity|date=2001-11-18|author=Barbara and David P. Mikkelson|work=[[Urban Legends Reference Pages]]}}
* {{cite news|url=http://straightdope.com/columns/read/478/is-it-true-what-they-say-about-gerbils|title=Is it true what they say about gerbils?|date=1986-03-28|author=Cecil Adams|work=[[The Straight Dope]]}}
* {{cite journal|author=Becky Vorpagel|year=1988|title=A rodent by Any Other Name: Implications of a Contemporary Legend|journal=International Folklore Review|volume=6|pages=53–57}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.theawl.com/2012/11/a-complete-history-of-gerbiling-so-far|title=A Complete History Of Gerbiling So Far|date=2012-11-19|author=Jane Hu|work=[[The Awl]]}}
* Plaintiffs' Response, Conseco Services, L.L.C., v. Alexander, 2009 WL 2492186 (D.Kan.)(case where former employee created websites that suggested other employees utilized gerbils as a sexual prop). [https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv2130-169 Court Order]

==External links==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110606130455/http://larvatus.livejournal.com/234912.html A study of felching and gerbiling in language, culture, and popular imagination.]

[[Category:Anal eroticism]]
[[Category:Gerbils]]
[[Category:Sexual urban legends]]
[[Category:Zoophilia]]

Further

2026-07-21T23:31:35Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

<includeonly>{{#invoke:labelled list hatnote|labelledList|[[Further information]]{{#if:{{{topic|}}}| on {{{topic|}}}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}

</noinclude>

Furry bar

2026-07-21T23:31:34Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
{{Furry}}

A Furry bar is a drinking establishment that caters to an exclusively or predominantly furry (or often [[Zoosexual]]) clientele. While not always true, the term [[Furry]] is used as a broadly inclusive concept for Zoo communities.

Other names used to describe these establishments include Zeta bar, Zoosexual bar, and Fur club, depending on the niche communities that they served.

With the advent of the Internet and an increasing acceptance of Zoosexual and Durry people across the Western world, the relevance of gay bars in the Zoosexual and Furry communities has somewhat diminished. In areas without a furry bar, certain establishments may hold a Furry Night instead.

Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community (Deprecated)

2026-07-21T23:31:34Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

==Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community==

==Varka==

[[Varka]] has to be one of the staples of the furry community. He is a [[zoophile]] himself and it's interesting to see all of the accomplishments and value that they have brought to the fandom. Varka created [[Bad Dragon]], [[e621]], [[Furry Network]], [[Dragonfruit]] and [[Dragonfruit Printing]], as well as [[Herpy.net]], and [[twentypercentcooler.com]].

He also worked with [[Douglas "Fausty" Spink]] at his IT firm [[Baneki]] after the merger of their companies.

==[[Dragonfruit Printing]]==

==[[Furry Network]]==

==[[Bad Dragon]]==

==[[e621]]==

==[[Herpy.net]]==

A [[zoophilia]] community that went derelict ran by Varka the founder of Bad Dragon.

==[[twentypercentcooler.com]]==

Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community

2026-07-21T23:31:34Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Furry}}
The Furry Fandom and the Zoophile Community have had overlap since the fanom began. While many Furries attempt to distance themselves from [[Zoophiles]], the overlap is inarguable. Some Anti-Furs have historically been Anti-Fur for the reason that they have seen Furry as an expression of Zoophillia, and thus their Anti-Fur sentiment is actually an [[Anti-zoo|Anti-Zoo]] sentiment. Not all Furries are Zoophiles, and not all Zoophiles are Furries. The cross-over of Furries and Zoophiles has caused significant controversy in the past, throughout the [[history]] of both communities. This page details some significant Furry projects of note.

==Varka==

[[Varka]] has to be one of the staples of the furry community. He is a [[zoophile]] himself and it's interesting to see all of the accomplishments and value that they have brought to the fandom. Varka created [[Bad Dragon]], [[e621]], [[Furry Network]], [[Dragonfruit]] and [[Dragonfruit Printing]], as well as [[Herpy.net]], and [[twentypercentcooler.com]].

He also worked with [[Douglas "Fausty" Spink]] at his IT firm [[Baneki]] after the merger of their companies.

===Furry Network===
[[Furry Network]] is a social media site catering to Furries, hoping to be more modern than the previous standard, Furaffinity.

===Bad Dragon===
[[Bad Dragon]] is a fantasy sex toy company that is famous for creating mass-produced Dragon Dildos. Bad Dragon caters almost exclusively to the Furry Community. Due to their PR campaigns of the 2010s, Bad Dragon is now a meme and a household name. The company formerly played heavy into fantasy, with elaborate profile pages, ref sheets, and back stories for each Dildo (and penetrable) they would sell. In the time since they've become a staple of internet culture, they've removed these deeper fantasy aspects, and significantly toned-down their selection to make themselves appear more friendliness. Bad Dragon used to have a wider selection of dildos and penetrables than they presently now have, with many of them being very realistic to animal anatomy.

===e621===
[[e621]] is a booru site hosting pornography made by the Furry Fandom. e621 also has a non-pornographic, SFW variant site called e926.

===Herpy.net===

[[Herpy.net]] was a [[zoophilia]] community that went derelict ran by Varka the founder of Bad Dragon.

===twentypercentcooler.com===

==See also==
*[https://wikifur.com Wikifur] -- Wikifur, the Furry Encyclopedia

Furry Fandom

2026-07-21T23:31:34Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

#REDIRECT [[Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community]]

Furry

2026-07-21T23:31:34Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

#REDIRECT [[Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community]]

Forumzoone.com

2026-07-21T23:31:34Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{History}}
[[File:FZ1 logo.png|thumb|240px]]

Forumzoone was the largest German [[zoophilia]] forum in the world with over 15,000 users registered as of 15th of September 2020.

Appears defunct as of 29th of December 2025.
[[Category:History]]

Fortune Cookie

2026-07-21T23:31:34Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
==Fortune Cookie==

The bitch (female dog)’s vulva is sometimes called the ‘fortune cookie’ due to its somewhat triangular shape.
[[File:107735819 118637.jpg|440px|right]]
One will sometimes hear jokes (especially from male zoos) that they enjoy eating fortune cookies. Typically this will be a slang reference to the female canine sex organs.

==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/

{{Terms}}
[[Category:Terms]]

Formicophilia

2026-07-21T23:31:33Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

[[File:Formiga 050806 134.jpg|thumb|Ant on human flesh]]
'''Formicophilia''', a form of [[zoophilia]], is the sexual interest in being crawled upon or nibbled by insects, such as ants, or other small creatures.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Dewaraja | first = R | year = 1987 | title = Formicophilia, an unusual paraphilia, treated with counseling and behavior therapy | journal = American Journal of Psychotherapy | volume = 41 | pages = 593–597 | pmid = 3434651 | issue = 4}}</ref><ref name="money">{{cite journal | last = Dewaraja | first = R |author2=Money J |authorlink2=John Money | year = 1986 | title = Transcultural sexology: Formicophilia, a newly named paraphilia in a young Buddhist male | journal = Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy | volume = 12 | pages = 139–145 | pmid = 3723604 | issue = 2 | doi=10.1080/00926238608415401}}</ref> This [[paraphilia]] often involves the application of insects to the genitals, but other areas of the body may also be the focus. The desired effect may be a tickling, stinging or in the case of [[slugs]], slimy sensation, or the infliction of psychological distress on another person.<ref>{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices |last=Love |first=Brenda |authorlink=Brenda Love |year=1992 |publisher=Barricade Books |location=Fort Lee, NJ |isbn=1-56980-011-1 |page=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781569800119/page/301 301] |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781569800119/page/301 }}</ref> The term was coined by Ratnin Dewaraja and [[John Money]] in 1986 from the Latin ''formica'' (ant) + the Greek ''philia'' ([[love]]).<ref name="money" />

==Case studies==
In the first reported [[case study]], the patient had started keeping ants in a cupboard of his room as a hobby when he was nine. At this age he enjoyed "the ticklish feeling" of the ants crawling on his legs and thighs. At age ten, he had a sexual relationship with another boy, and was beaten when his father discovered this. By the age of 13 or 14, he had added [[snail]]s and [[cockroach]]es to his collection, and was becoming increasingly preoccupied with it. He had begun masturbating while the ants crawled on his legs. At age 28, he was masturbating several times a week while cockroaches crawled on his thighs and testicles, and snails crawled over his nipples and penis. Sometimes he would hold a frog against his penis and enjoy the vibrations as it tried to escape. The patient was disgusted by his habit, but derived no pleasure from normal sexual activities. John Money suggested that the paraphilia developed as an alternative outlet after his normal sexual expression became associated with the trauma of his father's punishment.<ref name="money" />

Another case was described in 2012. At the age of 14, the patient saw an ice-cream stick covered with ants, and wondered how it would feel if his penis was in place of the stick. He began letting ants crawl on his genitals, especially [[fire ant]]s, a practice he found sexually exciting and that continued into adulthood. The patient was socially and intellectually competent. He was also attracted to dogs and goats.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Spizzirri, G. |author2=Becher, G. |author3=Reis, J. |author4= Abdo, C. H. N.|last-author-amp=yes | year = 2012 | title = Proceedings of the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine, Chicago, USA, August 26-30 2012 | journal = The Journal of Sexual Medicine | volume = 9 | issue = supplement s4 | pages = 253–354 | doi = 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02863.x }} ("Formicophilia: A Case Report and [[Literature]] Review")</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{paraphilia}}
{{zoophilia}}

[[Category:Zoophilia]]
[[Category:Paraphilias]]

{{insect-stub}}
{{psych-stub}}
{{sex-stub}}

Flurb

2026-07-21T23:31:33Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}

Flurb is a toy-maker that creates animal related items as well as adult toys.

==External links==
* [https://flurb.me/ Official Website]

[[Category:Websites]]

Flare

2026-07-21T23:31:33Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
==Flare==
A stallion’s flare is the head of his penis, which enlarges 3-4x its original size when he has an orgasm. The shape is almost akin to a trapezoid at the tip of his penis, with the widest part furthest away from the horse’s body. Unlike the male dog’s [[knot]], a flare will not stay engorged for long periods of time.

The reason that this trait developed is believed to be so that the stallion’s enlarged glans will trap semen inside of the mare’s vagina while he breeds her and the two remain ‘locked’ together for a few moments (although nowhere near the length of time that dogs are able to tie). If the penis is pulled out before the flare subsides, it may injure both the male and female.
==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/

{{Terms}}
[[Category:Terms]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Flagging

2026-07-21T23:31:33Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
==Flagging==

Flagging is when a female dog pulls her tail to the side, exposing her genitals. This behavior is often associated with the female being in [[heat]], although she may also decide to do this out-of-season in order to solicit sex despite not being fertile at that time. She may flag any individual she is [[receptive]] toward, without regard to their species. This will most typically be other dogs or humans.

Aside from holding her tail to the side and putting herself on exhibition, she may also back up against her desired [[mate]], often looking back over her shoulder as if to [[further]] encourage them.

==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/

{{Terms}}
[[Category:Terms]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

First Church of Zoophilia

2026-07-21T23:31:32Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Culture}}
{{stub}}

The First Church of [[Zoophilia]] was a religious organization which married [[zoophile]] humans to their animal lovers, uniting them in holy matrimony.

They demanded the right to marry their sacred animals by saying that it was constitutionally allowed them due to being related to freedom of religion, however polygamy is also a marital institution called for by proponents’ religion, yet it has not been legally accepted in the United States and many other nations.

The First Church of Zoophilia was founded in the mid-90s.
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:History]]

Feral

2026-07-21T23:23:48Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
==Feral==
Feral has two definitions, with the first being used more among the furry community and the second having a widespread usage.

Among furries, feral is another term for quadruped – animals walking on all four legs, while anthropomorphic or the common abbreviation ‘anthro’ will refer to bipeds. Although many zoos [[love]] to look at art of both feral and even anthro creatures, many furries are opposed to feral artwork if it is of a suggestive or sexual nature (NSFW).

The other usage of the word feral is in reference to domesticated animals (dogs, cats, horses, etcetera) which no longer live under the guardianship of human beings and have reverted into a wild or semi-wild state. They are no longer fed by people but often scrounge human refuse for food and may learn to hunt for themselves, although not all will gain this skill and it seems to come much more easily to cats than dogs.
==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/
[[Category:Terms]]

Fence Hopping

2026-07-21T23:23:48Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{stub}}
{{Sources needed}}
{{sex}}
Under '''Fence-hopping''' (also known as fence jumping or FH) refers to the mostly nocturnal visits of foreign land and pastures around the animals (often sexually) to approach there. Since this is trespassing , fence hopping can be punishable by the country, state, or local jurisdiction.

Fence-hopping is having sex with any animal that belongs to someone other than you without that person’s permission and/or knowledge. It doesn’t matter whether they are your family member, friend, or neighbor.

Fence-hopping does not need to involve actually hopping over a fence or even trespassing – if you have sex with someone’s animal while pet-sitting, that is still considered fence-hopping.

This activity is generally discouraged because not only does it put you at risk of discovery and create bad publicity for all zoos, it also puts the animal at risk of castration, abandonment, or even potentially euthanasia if their [[Non-Zoo|non-zoo]] owner is upset by a change in the animal’s behavior and has them ‘put to sleep’ or simply abandons them at a kill-shelter, and this includes most ‘humane societies’.

For this reason it is preferred to play with your own pet, or if you cannot have your dream lover where you live then perhaps it is a good idea to make friends with an admirer or a fellow zoo who might share.
[[Category:Sexuality]]
==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/
[[Category:Terms]]

Fediverse zoo flag project (2023)

2026-07-21T23:23:48Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

This project was started by Null, the admin of a fediverse instance offkey.cat. On November 16, 2023, it made a post with the following text<ref>[https://offkey.cat/notice/AbqSrBTKaVXor6EUkK nullitope] on offkey.cat.</ref>:
<blockquote>'''Hey, pro-MYAP zoophiles: how about we design a new zoo pride flag?'''

The blue, white, and purple zoo flag is all well and good, but I can’t help but think the symbolism of the colors being gender-related is a little boring, and almost irrelevant to the actual zoophile experience, y’know? Meanwhile the zeta flag has a pretty decent aesthetic and great symbolism, but the movement it’s associated with is pretty staunchly against paraphile unity, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable with using it.

I know creating an entirely new flag for an identity that has two well-established designs already is kind of a fool’s errand and it’s unlikely to get super widespread, but I feel frustrated enough about this to try. If you wanna give it a shot too, maybe you can tag it with #NewZooFlag, and we can try combining different ideas together to really make it a community effort. :)

Let me know what you guys think!

 #zoopride #zoosexual #zoophilia</blockquote>

== Creations ==
In the following days several designs were created.

{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
! width="100px" | Name
! width="100px" | Design
! width="300px" | Meaning
! width="300px" | Additional information
|-
|'''R0tNCh0rd's first flag'''
|[[File:Zoo flag by R0tNCh0rd 1.png|thumb|150x150px|none]]
|[[File:Zoo flag by R0tNCh0rd 1 (definition).png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The author says: ''I wanted something more than just the basic "sky water earth" meanings and something that included those that often get left out without singling anyone out.''
|-
|'''R0tNCh0rd's second flag'''
|[[File:Zoo flag by R0tNCh0rd 2.png|none|thumb|150x150px]]
|
|The author says: ''Th[is] is one I enjoyed the look of but was unhappy with the color pallet.''
|-
|'''R0tNCh0rd's third flag'''
|[[File:Zoo flag by R0tNCh0rd 3.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|
|This is a mix of the previous two flags.
|-
|'''The original alef flag'''
|[[File:Alef zoo flag original.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The author says: ''Alef or 𐤀 is the first letter of Phoenician alphabet that literally means "bull". It also is the origin of the letter A, as in "animal". I use it instead of zeta to cut the ties with the zeta movement. The colors stand for animals of the sky, animals of the land, animals of the water, and animals of the underground accordingly.''
|
|-
|'''The warm tones alef flag'''
|[[File:Warm tones alef flag.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The meaning of the stripes is similar to the one of the original alef flag, but the water and land stripe switched places.
|
|-
|'''Alef with Zeta colors'''
|[[File:Alef with Zeta colors.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The meaning of the stripes is similar to the one of the original alef flag.
|This edit's color palette is almost identical to the one of the [[Zeta zoophile flags]].
|-
|'''The bright tones alef flag'''
|[[File:Bright tones alef flag.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The meaning of the stripes is similar to the one of the original alef flag.
|'''This is the final edit of the original alef flag.''' The author of the original flag says: ''I like the change from blue to green for water, because water life is predominantly sea and ocean life, and I like black for underground, because many underground animals are blind.''
|-
|'''Arrows flag'''
|[[File:Arrows zoo flag.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The author says: ''The design of this flag is an abstraction of the Assyrian version of the cuneiform "mu". It is the ending sound of two of the Assyrian words for animal "emammu" and "umāmu". It is also a reference to the greek character "μ," which is anglicized the same way, meant to be an inclusion of zoomaps. The Green stripe represents animals of the land and earth, while the teal represents animals of the sky and sea. The center red line is meant to represent those with sexual attraction to animals, and the other two lines are meant to represent identities that I think are sometimes excluded from zoo representation. The darker red representing zoosadists and the lighter red representing zooromantics. The horizontal arrow represents animal rights, and the vertical represents zoophile acceptance, something I believe are intersecting ideals for many zoos.''
|
|-
|'''Circled alef flag'''
|[[File:Circled alef zoo flag 1.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The author says: ''The aleph symbol <...> is the first letter of Phoenician alphabet, and literally means “bull,” while also being the origin of the letter “A.” Representing ourselves with the first letter of the alphabet when its origin is animalistic in nature feels like the perfect way to get away from the zeta symbol/movement, which is, of course, represented by the last letter of the alphabet. The circle around it represents the zoo community uniting in our passion for animals. <...> The deep red represents animals that live underground; the brown and green represent animals that live above the earth; the blues represent animals of the sea; yellow represents animals of the sky; the orange represents enthusiasm for animal rights, as well as our own rights as zoos; the red-orange represents passion for animals; and finally, the red represents attraction to animals. This unique rainbow overall represents the bizarre and beautiful variety of animals that share this planet with us.''
|This flag was inspired by several other flags presented here: '''R0tNCh0rd's second and third flags''', '''the original alef flag''', '''arrows flag'''.
|-
|'''Circled alef flag (simplified)'''
|[[File:Circled alef zoo flag simplified.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The meaning of the stripes is similar to the one of the flag above.
|
|-
|'''Nature-themed flag'''
|[[File:Nature themed zoo flag.png|thumb|'''Nature-themed flag''']]
|The author says: ''the black triangle at the bottom represents the void of space from which all life ultimately evolved from; this life is represented by the brown, blue, and green stripes (which stand for animals that live beneath the earth, animals that live in water, and animals that live above ground, respectively) that beam out from the center. The yellow represents the light animals bring into our lives, which becomes stronger and brighter when surrounded by our community, represented by the circled alef (which could be optionally removed if needed for simplification), which is red to represent our collective attraction to and passion for animals.''
|This flag takes direct inspiration from R0tNCh0rd's. It spawned the following chain of edits:[[File:Nature zoo flag edit.png|center|thumb|150x150px]][[File:Nature zoo flag edit 2.jpg|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|-
|'''Nature-themed flag (simplified)'''
|[[File:Nature themed zoo flag simplified.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The meaning of the stripes is similar to the one of the flag above.
|
|-
|'''Avery's flag'''
|[[File:Zoo flag by Avery.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The author says: ''the stripes up top stand for animals that reside on the land, animals that reside in the water, and animals that primarily reside in the air (birds, bats, etc.). all in order. the middle white stripe stands for unity within the zoo community as well as unity with the para community as a whole. the bottom stripes represent sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and other attractions (aesthetic, platonic, etc.)''
|The letter zeta is deliberately presented in a font, different from the standard one, to separate this flag from the ones made by the Zeta movement.
|-
|'''Rainbow zoo flag'''
|[[File:Rainbow zoo.jpg|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|
|
|-
|'''Alef in corner flag'''
|[[File:Alef in corner zoo flag.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The author says: ''the purple, blue, and green stand for animals underground, animals in water, animals on and above land accordingly. Black stands for the origins of life and everything else, and that's where I placed the alef, to show that zoophilia lies closely to our core. Yellow stands for the feelings animals cause in us. The flag is positioned sideways <...> to emphasize the diversity of life and of how we develop our attractions.''
|This flag is a combination of several other ideas, presented here: '''R0tNCh0rd's second and third flags''', '''the original alef flag''', '''arrows flag''', '''nature-themed flag'''.
|-
|'''4 pointed star alef flag'''
|[[File:Star alef zoo flag 1.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The colors stand for earth/sky/ocean/underground animals.
|The 4 pointed star is used in one of the Zeta flags.
|-
|'''4 pointed star alef flag (alternative)'''
|[[File:Star alef zoo flag 2.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The color meanings are similar to the flag above, with additional red for passion/love towards animals.
|
|-
|'''Leaf zoo flag'''
|[[File:Leaf aleph zoo.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|[[File:Leaf zoo meaning.png|center|thumb|150x150px]]
|The color codes:
Aleph/Paraphile Unity:

Cream: e7e4da

Blue Greens:

Zoo MYAP: 76be91

Therian Lover and Autophile: 167a58

Zoosexual: 167a58

Zoosadist: 053a28

Zoo Erotophonophile: 09261c

Yellow Greens:

Zooromantic: a4bf92

Self-Acceptance: 648f46

The Persecuted: 43642d

Zoomasochists: 294318

Necrozoo: 1a2a0f
|}

== Voting ==
A vote took place on November 22. Null created a multiple choice poll with 11 options. 50 participants voted a total of 101 times, and the '''leaf zoo flag''' was chosen as the most favorite by 46% of them.
<gallery>
File:Zoo flag vote entries.png|Vote entries
File:Zoo flag vote results.jpg|Vote results
</gallery>

== References ==
[[index.php?title=Category:2023 year]]
[[index.php?title=Category:Attraction]] [[index.php?title=Category:Zoophilia]]

Fausty

2026-07-21T23:23:43Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

#REDIRECT [[Douglas "Fausty" Spink]]

Experiment With An Animal

2026-07-21T23:23:43Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{sex}}
{{Essay}}

Can you Experiment sexually with an animal?

No, you can't! You should have a very intimate and trusting relationship with an animal and the corresponding [[zoosexual]] inclinations before you have sex with him/her.

After all, an animal is a living being with sensations and not an object that you can simply "try" and then put in the corner like a sex toy!

It is very important that the sex is consensual, that is, is also desired by the animal. In addition, you should proceed with great sensitivity and caution.

If the animal shows any discomfort or even pain, you have to Stop IMMEDIATELY. The animal is then simply not "suitable" to have sex with it.

Remember, this is about the fun of consensual sex, and not about venting from an impulse jam at the expense of a possibly suffering animal. You also take on a very big responsibility when you keep an animal. Owning an animal (from a human point of view) means that you have to take care of all the animal's needs. In addition to having sex, an animal also wants to be fed, and housed.
[[Category:Sexuality]]

==See also==
* [[ZETA Principles]]

==Reference==
https://web.archive.org/web/20070114033209/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Tier_ausprobieren%3F
[[Category:Zoophilia]]
[[Category:Resources]]

Exotic Erotics

2026-07-21T23:23:43Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

==Exotic Erotics==

Exotic-Erotics specializes in high quality silicone adult novelties. We are the only adult toy company making life cast products. These are high quality castings of live animals, which means that our toys are the most realistic adult novelties on the market. Whether you are looking to fulfill a fantasy or are simply wanting a more intense experience than many other companies can offer, you’ve come to the right place. In addition to our Life cast toys, we have a line of Sculpted Animal toys. Whether hand sculpted or 3D printed, we have striven to make the most realistic products possible. All of our animal sculpts are heavily researched, and then fine-tuned to make them as pleasurable as possible while maintaining a stunning amount of realism. And if you’re looking for something even more exotic, check out our Fantasy, High Fantasy and Exotic-Robotics lines. From amorous androids to wanton werewolves, we’ve got something to satisfy everyone and every hole.

==Reference==
www.exotic-erotics.com
[[Category:Websites]]

Execution of George Spencer

2026-07-21T23:23:43Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Imported}}

'''George Spencer''' ({{circa}} 1600 – April 8, 1642) was the first non-native person to be executed in Connecticut. Amongst his charges was [[sodomy]] after an alleged [[Zoophilia|sexual act with an animal]].

==Biography==
George Spencer is described as an ugly, balding servant with a glass eye.<ref name="Murrin">Murrin, John M. [http://dpubs.libraries.psu.edu/DPubS?service=Repository&version=1.0&verb=Disseminate&view=body&content-type=pdf_1&handle=psu.ph/1143738929# "Things Fearful to Name": Bestiality in Colonial America]. ''[[Princeton University]]''. Accessed November 1, 2011.</ref><ref name="Graham">Graham, Judith S. [https://books.google.com/books?id=NtBqFf4GEUMC&printsec=frontcover Puritan Family Life: The Diary of Samuel Sewall]. ''UPNE''. 2003. p.76. Accessed November 1, 2011.</ref> He is believed to have lived for a time in Boston and while there was found guilty of receiving stolen goods.<ref name="Murrin" /> His punishment was a flogging. He then moved to the New Haven Colony,<ref name="Murrin" /> and continued to be a "habitual troublemaker".<ref name="Graham" /> He was open about his lack of faith, never praying in the years of being in Connecticut and only reading the Bible when forced to by his master.<ref name="Murrin" /><ref name="Cressy">Cressy, David. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Zc2iPZ4jN2AC&printsec=frontcover Coming over: migration and communication between England and New England in the seventeenth century]. ''Cambridge University Press''. 1987. p.101. Accessed November 1, 2011.</ref>

== Trial and execution ==

When a sow gave birth to a malformed, one-eyed piglet it was considered a manifestation of God's proof of Spencer's sins. Spencer was arrested, and the Puritan authorities deemed the birth a work of God. They believed that this was irrefutable evidence that an act of [[bestiality]] had taken place.<ref name="Chapin">Chapin, Bradley. [https://books.google.com/books?id=XbJG5aKhXS4C&printsec=frontcover Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660]. ''University of Georgia Press''. 2010. pp.38–39. Accessed November 1, 2011.</ref> He was charged with "prophane, atheistical carriage, in unfaithfulness and stubbornness to his master, a course of notorious lying, filthiness, scoffing at the ordinances, ways and people of God".<ref name="Cressy" />

Spencer was told that "he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall finde mercie",<ref name="Murrin" /> but it was never made clear to him whether this mercy related to the proceedings of the court or those of God.<ref name="Chapin" /> Having witnessed a repentant child molester being whipped for his crime Spencer believed that his best option was to confess.<ref name="Murrin" /> On the realisation that this might lead to a death sentence he retracted his statement. He repeated this confession and retraction again, trying to find the best solution to his situation.<ref name="Murrin" /><ref name="Graham" /><ref name="Dikes">Dikes, Jason. [http://www.austincc.edu/jdikes/Sex%20Ways%20ALL.pdf Massachusetts Sex Ways: Puritan Ideas of Flesh and the Spirit] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181222205008/http://www.austincc.edu/jdikes/Sex%20Ways%20ALL.pdf |date=2018-12-22 }}. ''Austin Community College''. p.4. Accessed November 1, 2011.</ref>

When the trial began the magistrates knew the necessity of having two witnesses to the crime. They used Spencer's retracted confessions as one witness and the stillborn piglet as the other, ruling that this was sufficient to determine his guilt.<ref name="Murrin" /><ref name="Graham" /><ref name="Cressy" /><ref name="Dikes" /><ref name="Chapin" /> On April 8, 1642, the sow was put to death by the sword and Spencer was hanged.<ref name="Murrin" />

Spencer's death was early in the [[history]] of Connecticut and is reported to be only the second execution to take place in Connecticut and the first of a non-Native American.<ref>[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/ESPYyear.pdf Executions is the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY File]. ''Death Penalty Information Center''. p.1. Accessed November 1, 2011.</ref>

== Similar case ==

In 1645, [[Trial of Thomas Hogg|Thomas Hogg]], another servant in New Haven, was imprisoned for several months for very similar crimes. A sow gave birth to two deformed piglets that resembled Hogg. However, Hogg never confessed to the crime, and the requirement of finding two witnesses could not be met.<ref name="Murrin" />

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Spencer, George}}
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:People]]

Equine Vagina

2026-07-21T23:23:43Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

==Equine Vagina==
The equine vagina is visually quite similar to that of a human-female’s cameltoe, at least when compared with the vaginas of other animals, quadruped and biped alike. In fact, it would not be a stretch to say that the equine vagina is more similar to that of humans than those of our closest relatives, the primates (at least externally).

However that is about where the similarities end, and men have said that while the equine vagina is more spacious than that of a human, it is also reportedly like ‘liquid silk’ – very warm and very strong, more than capable of stimulating a man to orgasm.

Female equines enjoy foreplay quite a lot, and if one attempts to penetrate the mare before he has properly stimulated her, she is likely to simply step aside. However if one can get her sufficiently wet via cunnilingus and perhaps some digital penetration, she is likely to be very amenable to advances from an individual she knows and trusts.

Horses, like other ungulates, relieve themselves frequently so this is something that one should be aware of lest they have an unpleasant surprise. It is also advisable for the zoos engaged in activity with horses to clean the mare and themselves before continuing penetration, if such a thing should become necessary.
==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/

{{Terms}}
[[Category:Terms]]

Equine Penis

2026-07-21T23:23:42Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

The equine penis (especially when flaccid) looks fairly similar to a human penis. It has a glans which is wider than the rest and a shaft that is fairly straight along its length.

Despite these similarities, there are also a lot of differences. For one thing, the entirety of its length is typically drawn back into the body by the retractor muscle. In this way, the stallion’s penis is held out of the way and protected from dirt or damage.

When examining the penis itself, one will also notice several other differences. In the approximate center of the shaft’s length there is a ring wrapping around the circumference of the penis. This is known as the medial ring and may also sometimes be referred to as a preputial ring. Most stallions require stimulation here in order to reach climax. Simply stimulating the head of their penis (or the base, as with dogs) will not likely cause them to orgasm.

Further down at the ‘head’ of the penis, it may be noted that there is a projection about the size of a fingernail at the very tip of the penis. This is known as the urethral process and it sticks out from the glans. This area needs to be cleaned very thoroughly as it tends to accumulate debris and any blockage could obstruct the flow of urine.

When the [[horse]] nears orgasm, his glans will enlarge 3-4x, forming the [[flare]]. This enables him to ensure that his semen remain inside the mare for the duration of his erection and assists to increase the chances of successful impregnation.

==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/

{{Terms}}
[[index.php?title=Category:Terms]]

EqualityForAll

2026-07-21T23:23:42Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

==EqualityForAll aka EFA==

This is a group that is working on human-animal zoo rights and describes themselves as follows.

==Dear Friends and Animal Lovers==

We need animals and they need us! Throughout the ages, this was natural and obvious. The human and animal worlds were intermingled – we complemented and enriched each other. But two millennia of European culture were sufficient for human arrogance and selfishness to thoroughly suppress and tread drown the animal spirit. Thus mankind lost part of its own essence and, looking back at this block of [[history]], it is apparent that it was the better part of our essence that was lost. Delusional, Man “rose” to the top of the natural pyramid where he continues to swagger proudly, unable to recognize his own foolishness and loneliness. Man classified himself as Lord of all creation, thereby breaking the age-old natural order and, blinded by self-pride, is being driven towards the tragic end of human civilization.

We who recognize this absurd reality, this perverted natural progression, are unable to accept the current role of animals in our society. Human self-obsession has turned them into passive food, numb and cheap labor force, living targets, or detestable home pets.

We find this situation to be unacceptable! So let us join forces to remedy it! Indeed, we may be a small minority, scorned by the majority who may consider our movement to be immoral or perhaps even twisted. But who is truly twisted and immoral, those who yearn to live with animals as partners and [[love]] them as equal creatures, or those who violently abuse nature, raise themselves above the rest of creation, and, for their perverse comfort, destroy everything and everyone around them.

We cannot heal the entire world but we can try to remedy the small portion which directly affects us. E.F.A., Equality For All, is an organization that is trying to rehabilitate the Animal Spirit.

==References==
https://www.equalityforall.net/home/
[[Category:Websites]]

Enumclaw horse sex case

2026-07-21T23:23:42Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{short description|American legal case}}

{{Infobox event
| title = Enumclaw Horse Sex Case
| participants = Kenneth Pinyan (Mr. Hands),<ref name="vice.com">{{cite web|last1=Sokol |first1=Zach |title=The Strange, Sad Story of the Man Named Mr. Hands Who Died from Having Sex with a Horse |url=https://www.vice.com/read/ten-years-ago-mr-hands-got-fucked-to-death-by-a-horse-716 |work=[[Wikipedia:Vice (magazine)|Vice]] |accessdate=January 1, 2016 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6f7zktS4B?url=http://www.vice.com/read/ten-years-ago-mr-hands-got-fucked-to-death-by-a-horse-716 |archivedate=February 7, 2016 }}</ref> James Michael Tait, an unidentified male, and a stallion
| type = [[Zoophilia]]c
| deaths = 1 (Kenneth Pinyan)
| cause = Acute [[Wikipedia:peritonitis|peritonitis]] caused by traumatic perforation of the colon
| place = [[Wikipedia:unincorporated area|Unincorporated]] [[Wikipedia:King County, Washington|King County, Washington]], [[Wikipedia:United States|United States]] (near [[Wikipedia:Enumclaw, Washington|Enumclaw]])
| date = July 2, 2005
}}

The '''Enumclaw [[Horse]] Sex Case''' was a series of incidents in 2005 involving Kenneth Pinyan,<ref name="thestranger"/> an engineer who worked for [[Wikipedia:Boeing|Boeing]] and resided in [[Wikipedia:Gig Harbor, Washington|Gig Harbor, Washington]]; James Michael Tait, a truck driver; and other unidentified men. Pinyan and Tait filmed and distributed [[Zoophile|zoophilic]] pornography of Pinyan receiving anal sex from a stallion under the alias "'''Mr. Hands'''".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/movies/01lim.html|title=Zoo – Film|first=Dennis|last=Lim|date=April 1, 2007|publisher=|accessdate=February 13, 2019|via=NYTimes.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.popcrunch.com/7-people-who-took-animals-for-lovers/|title=Horse Riding Mr Hands, Washington|accessdate=February 13, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180926001255/http://www.popcrunch.com/7-people-who-took-animals-for-lovers/|archive-date=September 26, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> After engaging in this activity on multiple occasions over an unknown span of time, Pinyan received fatal internal injuries in one such incident.

The story was reported in ''[[Wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]'' and was one of that paper's most read stories of 2005.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/horse-sex-story-was-online-hit/|accessdate=May 11, 2016|title=Horse sex story was online hit|newspaper=The Seattle Times|date=December 30, 2005}}</ref> It was informally referred to as the "Enumclaw horse sex case".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Macdonald|first=Moira|url=http://old.seattletimes.com/html/entertainment/2003097374_horse03.html|accessdate=May 11, 2016|title=Infamous Enumclaw horse sex case to be made into movie|newspaper=[[Wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]|date=July 3, 2006}}</ref>

Pinyan's death rapidly prompted the passing of a bill in Washington prohibiting both [[Zoophilia|sex with animals]] and the videotaping of such an act. Under current Washington law, [[bestiality]] is now a [[Wikipedia:Class C felony|Class C felony]] punishable by up to five years in prison.<ref>{{cite web|first=Fifty-Ninth Legislature|last=State of Washington|title=Animal cruelty in the first degree|work=RCW 16.52.205|accessdate=January 17, 2015|date=March 8, 2006|url=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205}}</ref>

==Background==
In the 1970s, many statutes that had criminalized certain sex acts in various U.S. states were repealed, largely since they had criminalized some consensual sex acts between adults that were no longer considered appropriate to forbid (e.g., criminalizing all oral and anal sex).<ref>{{cite web|author=Hay, Mark|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yvwj7j/they-fuck-horses-dont-they|title=Nobody Wants to Talk About Bestiality Until Someone Fucks a Horse|work=[[Wikipedia:Vice (magazine)|Vice]]|date=March 7, 2014|accessdate=December 29, 2018|quote=And the offenses that ''were'' in place were stricken from the books in the 1970s, when "Crimes against Nature" laws that had lumped bestiality in with consensual sexual acts between adults once labeled as illegal—like sodomy—were deleted wholesale.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/washington.htm#fn132|title=The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States – Washington|website=www.glapn.org|accessdate=February 13, 2019}}</ref> In [[Wikipedia:Washington (state)|Washington state]], a law was repealed on July 1, 1976, that had said that:
{{quote|Every person who shall carnally know in any manner any animal or bird, or who shall carnally know any male or female person by the anus or with the mouth or tongue; or who shall voluntarily submit to such knowledge; or who shall attempt sexual intercourse with a dead body, shall be guilty of sodomy...|9.79.100 of the 1974 [[Wikipedia:Revised Code of Washington|Revised Code of Washington]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/RCWArchive/Documents/1974/Vol1a.pdf|title=9.79.100}}</ref>}}
An effect of the repeal was that bestiality became legal in the state of [[Wikipedia:Washington (state)|Washington]].

Kenneth Pinyan had worked for Boeing for eight years.<ref name="thestranger">{{Cite news|url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30811|accessdate=April 30, 2006|last=Mudede|first=Charles|title=The Animal In You|website=[[Wikipedia:The Stranger (newspaper)|The Stranger]]|date=February 23, 2006}}</ref> He had previously been married to a woman and had children with her. He had moved from Seattle to [[Wikipedia:Oak Harbor, Washington|Oak Harbor, Washington]].<ref name=Mudededoesntwanttotalk>[[Wikipedia:Charles Mudede|Mudede, Charles]]. "[http://www.thestranger.com/features/feature/2015/07/22/22580444/ten-years-later-the-town-of-enumclaw-still-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-you-know-what Revisiting the Town of the Most Famous Horse Sex Death in Recorded History ]." ''[[Wikipedia:The Stranger (newspaper)|The Stranger]]''. July 22, 2015. Retrieved on April 11, 2016.</ref> Before his death, Pinyan had been building a new house and a barn that he planned to keep a horse in, along the Key Peninsula Highway in [[Wikipedia:Gig Harbor, Washington|Gig Harbor, Washington]]. He was about to begin making payments on the property's mortgage.<ref name="thestranger"/>

Pinyan had previously lost the ability to experience certain sensations after a motorcycle accident, and he had begun to seek out increasingly extreme sexual acts – such as insertion of extremely large [[Wikipedia:Dildo|dildos]], [[Wikipedia:fisting|fisting]], and [[receptive]] anal sex with horses. In the early 2000s, he found a group of men online, [[Zoophilia|zoophiles]], who began meeting at a farm in an [[Wikipedia:unincorporated area|unincorporated area]] in [[Wikipedia:King County, Washington|King County, Washington]], for communal weekends: they filmed one other being anally penetrated by horses, and sometimes engaged in sex with each other afterwards (which was also filmed). This was all later posted online. According to [[Wikipedia:Charles Mudede|Charles Mudede]], co-writer of the 2007 documentary film ''[[Zoo (2007 film)|Zoo]]'', the men got the horses to penetrate them by stripping, applying a horse breeding pheromone, and bending over.<ref name="vice.com"/> In 2015, Mudede wrote that the men had a sexual fixation on large penises "that may have had nothing to do with horses."<ref name="vice.com"/> He also believed Pinyan did not truly [[love]] horses and was not a true zoophile.<ref name="vice.com"/> Pinyan had a [[Wikipedia:Casting|cast]] created of the penis of his favorite horse, Strut.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.standard.co.uk/go/london/film/a-stable-relationship-7406907.html|title=A stable relationship?|date=May 29, 2008|website=Evening Standard|accessdate=February 13, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/listversecomsult0000frat|url-access=registration|page=[https://archive.org/details/listversecomsult0000frat/page/107 107]|title=Listverse.com's Ultimate Book of Bizarre Lists: Fascinating Facts and Shocking Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More|first=Jamie|last=Frater|date=November 1, 2010|publisher=Ulysses Press|accessdate=February 13, 2019|via=Internet Archive}}</ref>

==Pinyan's death==
The incident that killed Pinyan occurred at a {{convert|40|acre|ha|adj=on}} farm,<ref name="seattle1">{{Cite news|url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/videotapes-show-bestiality-enumclaw-police-say/|accessdate=May 11, 2016|title=Videotapes show bestiality, Enumclaw police say|newspaper=The Seattle Times|date=July 15, 2005 | first=Jennifer | last=Sullivan}}</ref> located in an unincorporated area in King County, Washington,<ref name="AndersonBarn1">{{Cite news|author=Rick Anderson|url=http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-11-09/news/closing-the-barn-door/|title=Closing the Barn Door|newspaper=[[Wikipedia:Seattle Weekly|Seattle Weekly]]|date=November 9, 2005}} "Tait, a truck driver who lives near the Southeast 444th Street farm where the death occurred, "</ref> five miles northwest of the city of [[Wikipedia:Enumclaw|Enumclaw]].<ref name="seattle1"/> Sgt. John Urquhart of the Sheriff's Office said that "typically," men were having sex with a horse on the property of James Michael Tait, a truck driver who lived in a trailer next to the farm, "but on this particular night it is my understanding that horse wasn't particularly receptive." So Pinyan, Tait, and a third unidentified man sneaked into the barn of the Southeast 444th Street farm that night. The men would often visit that farm for sexual purposes. Either Pinyan or the unidentified man recorded Tait being anally penetrated by a stallion known as Big Dick. After finishing, Tait then filmed Pinyan being anally penetrated by the same horse. During this incident, Pinyan sustained internal injuries including a [[Wikipedia:perforated colon|perforated colon]].<ref name="thestranger"/><ref name="Closing the Barn Door">{{cite web |author1=Rick Anderson |title=Closing the Barn Door |url=https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/closing-the-barn-door |website=Seattle Weekly |accessdate=November 3, 2019 |date=October 9, 2006}}</ref>

Pinyan was anonymously dropped off at the Enumclaw Community Hospital.<ref name="seattle1"/><ref>{{cite news | last = Keegan | first = Rebecca Winters | url = http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1583009,00.html |title=Have You Seen the Horse Sex Movie? | work = [[Wikipedia:Time (magazine)|Time]] | date = January 28, 2007 | accessdate = September 17, 2010}}</ref> On July 2, 2005, a man asked hospital staff for medical assistance for his companion. Pinyan was found dead in the [[Wikipedia:emergency department|emergency room]], aged 45. The man who brought Pinyan into the hospital had disappeared by the time hospital staff came to contact him.<ref name="seattle1"/> According to the Medical Examiner's Office, Pinyan "died of acute [[Wikipedia:peritonitis|peritonitis]] due to perforation of the colon",<ref name="seattle1"/> and the death was ruled accidental.<ref name="seattle2">{{Cite news|url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/enumclaw-area-animal-sex-case-investigated/|accessdate=May 11, 2016|title=Enumclaw-area animal-sex case investigated|newspaper=The Seattle Times|date=July 15, 2005 | first=Jennifer | last=Sullivan}}</ref>

==Investigation==
After Pinyan died, the authorities used his [[Wikipedia:driver's license|driver's license]] to find acquaintances and relatives. Earlier news reports stated that the authorities had used [[Wikipedia:Closed-circuit television|surveillance camera]] footage to track down Pinyan's companion. Using the contacts, the authorities found the farm where the incident occurred. The police tracked down the rural Enumclaw-area farm, which was known in [[zoophile]] chat rooms as a destination for people wanting to have sex with livestock, and seized 100 [[Wikipedia:VHS|VHS]] tapes and [[Wikipedia:DVD|DVD]]s, amounting to hundreds of hours of video of men engaging in bestiality. One of the videotapes featured Kenneth Pinyan shortly before he died on July 2.<ref name="seattle1"/><ref name="Closing the Barn Door" />

Prosecutors later determined that the horse had not been injured.<ref name="AndersonBarn1"/><ref>Foundas, Scott. "[https://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932505.html?categoryId=2471&cs=1 Zoo]." ''[[Wikipedia:Variety (magazine)|Variety]]''. Friday May 18, 2007. Retrieved on September 17, 2010.</ref>

{{quote|It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue [...] The prosecutor's office wanted to charge Tait with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely fucking a horse, the prosecutors could only charge Tait with trespassing.|[[Wikipedia:Charles Mudede|Charles Mudede]], [[Wikipedia:The Stranger (newspaper)|''The Stranger'']]<ref name="thestranger"/>}}

{{quote|The prosecutor's office says no animal cruelty charges were filed because there was no evidence of injury to the horses.|''[[Wikipedia:Associated Press|Associated Press]]'' in ''[[Wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]''<ref name="seattle3">{{cite news|url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/charge-filed-in-connection-with-man-who-died-having-horse-sex/|accessdate=May 11, 2016|title=Charge filed in connection with man who died having horse sex|newspaper=The Seattle Times|date=October 18, 2005|agency=Associated Press}}</ref>}}

==Media reporting==
Jennifer Sullivan, a ''[[Wikipedia:Seattle Times|Seattle Times]]'' staff reporter, said that originally the King County Sheriff's Department did not expect the newspaper to report on the event, because "it was too gruesome." After an ''[[Wikipedia:Associated Press|Associated Press]]'' report stated that the farm where the event occurred attracted "a significant number of people" who wanted to partake in bestiality, the ''Seattle Times'' decided that it needed to write articles about the case, since multiple people were involved.<ref name="WhattodoMesser">{{cite news|last=Messer|first=Lesley|date=July 18, 2005|title=When a Man Dies in a Sex Act with a Horse – What's a Reporter to Do?|work=[[Wikipedia:Editor & Publisher|Editor & Publisher]]|url=https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/when-a-man-dies-in-a-sex-act-with-a-horse-whats-a-reporter-to-do,31187?|url-status=live|accessdate=May 11, 2016}}</ref>

==Criminal charges, guilty plea, and sentencing==
The videographer, 54-year-old James Michael Tait,<ref name="AndersonBarn1"/> was charged with criminal [[Wikipedia:trespass|trespass]] in the first degree – the owners of the farm, a third party, were not aware that the men had entered the property to engage in bestiality. The third man was not charged since he was not visible in the videos seized by investigators.<ref name="thestranger"/> On November 29, 2005, Tait entered an [[Wikipedia:Alford plea|Alford plea]], which is a form of guilty plea in which the accused maintains that they are factually innocent but acknowledges that the evidence would likely lead to conviction and thus accept being convicted.<ref>"[http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-in-infamous-enumclaw-horse-sex-case-faces-new-charges-in-tennessee/ Man in infamous Enumclaw horse-sex case faces new charges in Tennessee ]". ''[[Wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]''. October 20, 2009. Updated October 21, 2009. Retrieved on February 7, 2016.</ref> Judge David Christie gave him a suspended one-year sentence, a $300 fine, and one day of community service, and ordered Tait never to visit the farm again.<ref name="thestranger"/>

==Aftermath==
Mudede wrote that at the time of the incident the residents of Enumclaw were shocked and angered by the event. In 2015, ten years after the incident, Mudede wrote that Enumclaw residents were unwilling to acknowledge it.<ref name=Mudededoesntwanttotalk/>

==="2 Guys 1 Horse"===
After Pinyan's death, a video circulated on the internet of Kenneth Pinyan engaging in receptive anal intercourse with a horse. The video was nicknamed "Mr. Hands" or "2 Guys 1 Horse". The video, intended originally to sexually gratify the viewer, became one of the first [[Wikipedia:Viral video|viral]] [[Wikipedia:reaction video|reaction video]]s. This video is featured in the documentary ''Zoo''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d_Z1qnWuIg0C&pg=PA516#v=onepage|title=Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being|first1=David Glen|last1=Mick|first2=Simone|last2=Pettigrew|first3=Cornelia (Connie)|last3=Pechmann|first4=Julie L.|last4=Ozanne|date=January 26, 2012|publisher=Routledge|accessdate=February 13, 2019|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref name="vice.com"/><ref>Lim, Dennis. [https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E2DD1330F932A35757C0A9619C8B63 FILM — A Lyrical Approach to a Subject That Shocks]. ''[[Wikipedia:The New York Times|The New York Times]]''. April 1, 2007. Retrieved on October 13, 2010. "The sex in ''Zoo'' is merely glimpsed and barely discernible in a few seconds of a video that the police had confiscated and that was circulated on the Internet after Mr. Pinyan's death."</ref> On episode 68 of ''[[Wikipedia:The Joe Rogan Experience|The Joe Rogan Experience]]'', [[Wikipedia:Joe Rogan|Joe Rogan]] had [[Wikipedia:Iliza Shlesinger|Iliza Shlesinger]] react to Mr. Hands.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11822882/highlight/138467|title=Iliza has to take off her sweater for 2 guys 1 horse|publisher=|accessdate=February 13, 2019|via=www.ustream.tv}}</ref> On episode 796 of the Joe Rogan Experience, Joe Rogan had [[Wikipedia:Josh Zepps|Josh Zepps]] react to Mr. Hands.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aYWcAaEPr4|title=Joe Rogan Shows Josh Zepps "Mr. Hands." (from Joe Rogan Experience #796)|first=|last=PowerfulJRE|date=May 16, 2016|publisher=|accessdate=13 February 2019|via=YouTube}}</ref>

===''Zoo''===
{{main|Zoo (2007 film)}}
A documentary of the life and death of Pinyan, and the lives led by those who came to the farm near Enumclaw, debuted at the 2007 [[Wikipedia:Sundance Film Festival|Sundance Film Festival]] under the title ''Zoo''. It was one of 16 winners out of 856 candidates for the festival,<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/new-movie-is-the-spawn-of-horse-sex/ | work=The Seattle Times | title=New movie is the spawn of horse sex | date=December 3, 2006 | first=Danny | last=Westneat}}</ref> and played at numerous regional festivals in the U.S. thereafter.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.indiewire.com/mattdentler/archives/013464.html |title=Matt Dentler's Blog: Cannes Countdown: Directors' Fortnight Lineup Impresses |first=Matt |last=Dentler |publisher= |date=May 4, 2007 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929090146/http://blogs.indiewire.com/mattdentler/archives/013464.html |archivedate = September 29, 2007 |accessdate=October 28, 2010}}</ref> Following Sundance, it was also selected as one of the top five American films to be presented at the prestigious Directors Fortnight [[Module:Sidebar|sidebar]] at the 2007 [[Wikipedia:Cannes Film Festival|Cannes Film Festival]].<ref>"''Zoo'', which opens today in NY and LA, has just been selected as one of the features of the prestigious Directors Fortnight [[Module:Sidebar|sidebar]] at this year's Cannes Film Festival". [http://emanuellevy.com/comment/popuar-articles-zoo-inside-the-controversial-documentary-about-bestiality/ Zoo: Inside the Controversial Documentary about Bestiality]</ref><ref>Eugene Hernandez, "[https://www.indiewire.com/article/cannes_07_slate_set_for_49th_directors_fortnight_corbijns_control_opening_s '07: Slate Set for 49th Directors' Fortnight]", IndieWIRE, May 3, 2007.</ref>

===James Michael Tait and later events of 2009–2010 ===
Some time after the events in Washington, James Michael Tait moved to [[Wikipedia:Maury County, Tennessee|Maury County, Tennessee]], onto a farm owned by a man named Kenny Thomason housing horses, pigs, goats and dogs. On October 13, 2009, a woman associated with them, Christy D. Morris, was arrested and charged with three counts of animal cruelty.<ref name=WKRNaccused/> Two days later, an anonymous person e-mailed investigators a photo of a man having sex with a Shetland pony from Thomason's farm; Tait and Thomason were arrested that same day. Tait was charged with three counts of felony animal cruelty, while Thomason was charged with two. According to Tait's arrest warrant, he had been engaging in sex acts with a stud horse over a span of several months. Tait and Thomason admitted to engaging in sex acts with a horse.<ref name=WKRNaccused>{{cite news | url=https://www.wkrn.com/2009/10/19/3-accused-of-having-sex-with-animals-in-maury-co | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605121119/https://www.wkrn.com/2009/10/19/3-accused-of-having-sex-with-animals-in-maury-co | archivedate=2016-06-05 | title=3 accused of having sex with animals in Maury Co |website=[[Wikipedia:WKRN|WKRN]] | date=October 19, 2009 | accessdate=May 11, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-in-infamous-enumclaw-horse-sex-case-faces-new-charges-in-tennessee/|title=Man in infamous Enumclaw horse-sex case faces new charges in Tennessee |newspaper=[[Wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]|date=October 20, 2009|accessdate=June 11, 2017}} "James Tait, 58, was arrested and charged Thursday with three counts of felony animal cruelty in Maury County, Tenn."</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lite-news.com/us-man-filmed-friends-having-sex-with-horses/|title=US Farmer in horse-sex arrest|publisher=|accessdate=February 13, 2019}}</ref> In January 2010, Tait pleaded guilty in a Tennessee court to engaging in sexual acts with animals, and was placed on probation.<ref>{{cite news | last=Sullivan | first=Jennifer | url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/felon-accused-of-running-animal-sex-farm-in-whatcom-county/ | title=Felon accused of running animal-sex farm in Whatcom County | work=[[Wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]] | date=April 16, 2010 | accessdate=May 11, 2016}} "Tait, 58, pleaded guilty in January in Tennessee to engaging in sexual activity with animals and was released on probation."</ref>

===Section 16.52.205 of the Revised Code of Washington ===
After Pinyan died,<ref name="thestranger"/> [[Wikipedia:Pam Roach|Pam Roach]], a member of the [[Wikipedia:Washington State Senate|Washington State Senate]] and a Republican from [[Wikipedia:Auburn, Washington|Auburn]], crafted a bill to ban bestiality in Washington State.<ref name="WhattodoMesser"/> Senate Bill 6417, which made bestiality a Class C felony, passed on February 11, 2006, with 36 state senators voting in favor. The vote record was "passed; yeas, 36; nays, 0; absent, 0; excused, 13", meaning that 13 of 49 total senators refrained from going on record about the matter. Mudede wrote "It was an almost comically easy law to pass."<ref name="thestranger"/> Bestiality had no political support in the state, and no group in the state advocated for bestiality.<ref name="thestranger"/> The law is [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205 RCW 16.52.205](3). Mudede wrote that reading RCW 16.52.205 "is very much like reading hardcore porn."<ref name="thestranger"/> In addition, the law prohibits "videotap[ing] a person engaged in a sexual act or sexual contact with an animal" that is "either alive or dead". Because of the provision against videotaping, Mudede stated that the law "points an angry finger directly at James Tait."<ref name="thestranger"/> In 2015, Mudede said that he was unaware of any bestiality arrests in Washington State since the Pinyan incident.<ref>Sokol, Zach. "[https://www.vice.com/read/ten-years-ago-mr-hands-got-fucked-to-death-by-a-horse-716 The Strange, Sad Story of the Man Named Mr. Hands Who Died from Having Sex with a Horse]" ([https://www.webcitation.org/6f7zktS4B?url=http://www.vice.com/read/ten-years-ago-mr-hands-got-fucked-to-death-by-a-horse-716 Archive]). ''[[Wikipedia:Vice (magazine)|Vice]]''. July 16, 2015. Retrieved on February 7, 2016.</ref>

===In popular culture ===
* The episode "Game Over" from ''[[Wikipedia:Broad City|Broad City]]'' third season contains a plotline where [[Wikipedia:Ilana Glazer|Ilana]] decides to share the Mr. Hands video on her company's Twitter, resulting in her getting fired.
* [[Wikipedia:Chuck Palahniuk|Chuck Palahniuk]]'s collection of short stories, ''[[Wikipedia:Make Something Up|Make Something Up]]'', contains a story titled ''Red Sultan's Big Boy'', which follows the aftermath of an event extremely similar to the Mr. Hands incident.

== See also ==
{{Portal bar|Biography|Horses|Human sexuality}}
* [[Legality of bestiality in the United States]]
* [[Wikipedia:List of horse accidents|List of horse accidents]]
* [[Wikipedia:List of unusual deaths|List of unusual deaths]]

{{Clear}}

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
*{{cite news | url = http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/trespassing-charged-in-horse-sex-case/ | title = Trespassing charged in horse-sex case | first = Jennifer | last = Sullivan | work = [[Wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]] | date = October 19, 2005}}
*[http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/september/i_im.html Boeing In Memoriam, September 2005]
[[Category:History]]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

2026-07-21T23:23:41Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Imported}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{short description|Parody-themed wiki website}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2018}}
{{Infobox website
| name = Encyclopedia Dramatica
| logo = File:Encyclopedia Dramatica (logo).png
| logo_size = 160px
| screenshot = EncyclopediaDramatica.png
| caption = Encyclopedia Dramatica's front page on August 6, 2019.
| collapsible = yes
| url = <nowiki>https://encyclopediadramatica.wiki</nowiki> <nowiki>https://encyclopediadramatica.online</nowiki>
| current_status = Online
| commercial = No
| type = Wiki, forums and parody
| registration = Optional (required to edit pages: need to be promoted to EDitor status manually)
| language = English
| owner = .com: Sherrod DeGrippo & [[weev|Andrew Auernheimer]]<ref name=JNS /> 
.ch: Ryan Cleary 
.se: Garrett Moore & Brian Zaiger<ref>[https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-zaiger-63902554 LinkedIn profile] - [https://www.scamexposure.com/scam-report/brian-richard-zaiger-srsvps-aka-encyclopedia-dramatica-c136387.html Article 1] - [https://www.dailydot.com/debug/encyclopedia-dramatica-copyright-lawsuit/ Article 2]</ref> 
.rs: Conrad Rockenhaus & Brian Zaiger 
.wiki: Jacob Stellmach<ref name="Stellmach">{{Cite web|title=Encyclopedia Dramatica LLC :: Nevada (US)|url=https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_nv/E4292822020-1|url-status=live|access-date=2021-04-16|website=[[OpenCorporates]]|via=[[Nevada Secretary of State]]'s Office}}</ref> 
.online: Unknown 
| creator = Sherrod DeGrippo<ref name="ed:about" /> & Andrew Auernheimer<ref name=JNS/> 
| revenue = Advertising and donations
| launch_date = .com: {{Start date and age|2004|12|10}}<ref name="ed:about">{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://edpublic.rockenhaus.com/ED:About |title=About Encyclopedia Dramatica |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Dramatica |access-date=January 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180106065038/https://edpublic.rockenhaus.com/ED:About |archive-date=January 6, 2018 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all |quote=Encyclopædia Dramatica was created December 8-10th 2004 while girlvinyl was impatiently awaiting the delivery of her new [[iBook|ibook]] {{sic}}}}</ref><ref name="EDdotComWhois">{{cite web |website=[[DomainTools.com]] |url=http://whois.domaintools.com/encyclopediadramatica.com |title=EncyclopediaDramatica.com WHOIS, DNS, & Domain Info – DomainTools |access-date=25 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181106142104/http://whois.domaintools.com/encyclopediadramatica.com |archive-date=November 6, 2018 |url-status=dead |quote=Creation Date: 2004-12-08T18:01:34+00:00}} using [[WHOIS]] function</ref> 
.ch: April 2011 
.se: March 2012 
.es: September 2013 
.rs: March 2017 
'''.wiki: January 2020''' 
.fyi: April 2020 
.xyz: September 2020 
'''.online: December 2020''' 
}}
'''Encyclopedia Dramatica''' ('''ED''';<ref name="mar09_2010_ninemsn_article">{{cite news |last=Paget |first=Henri |title=Interview: Encyclopedia Dramatica moderator | url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1025127/interview-with-top-encyclopedia-dramatica-moderator |work= ninemsn |date = March 9, 2010 |access-date=March 10, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121001175054/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1025127/interview-with-top-encyclopedia-dramatica-moderator |archive-date=October 1, 2012 }}</ref> also spelled '''Encyclopædia Dramatica'''; or referred to otherwise by the standalone [[Ligature (typography)|ligature]] '''[[æ]]'''<ref group="note">In e.g. [[Danish language|Danish]], ''æ'' is a letter, but in archaic English spellings of words it is a ligature of "ae".</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Jardin|first=Xeni|author-link=Xeni Jardin|date=2012-06-02|title=Canadian politician: My internet spying bill would help us catch serial killers like Luka Magnotta|url=https://boingboing.net/2012/06/02/canadian-politician-my-intern.html|url-status=live|access-date=2021-04-16|website=[[Boing Boing]]|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Kaplan|first=Merrill|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/book/23562|title=Tradition in the Twenty-First Century: Locating the Role of the Past in the Present|date=2013|publisher=Utah State University Press|isbn=978-0-87421-900-5|editor-last=Howard|editor-first=Robert Glenn|location=Logan|pages=143–144, 148|chapter=Curation and Tradition on Web 2.0|oclc=851156855|quote=æ: Encyclopedia Dramatica.|chapter-url=https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/41687270/Curation_and_Tradition.pdf}}</ref> prominently featured in its logo) is an [[online community]] centered around a [[wiki]]<ref name="West">{{cite journal|url=https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1731&context=cis_papers|date=January 2012|title=Trust in collaborative web applications|volume=28|issue=8|journal=Future Generation Computer Systems|last1=West|first1=Andrew G|last2=Chang|first2=Jian|last3=Venkatasubramanian|first3=Krishna|last4=Lee|first4=Insup|page=1245 (7)|doi=10.1016/j.future.2011.02.007}}</ref> that acts as a "troll archive".<ref name="schwartz"/> It first opened under the [[domain name]] '''encyclopediadramatica.com''' on December 10, 2004.<ref name="EDdotComWhois"/>

Its articles [[Parody|lampoon]] topics and [[current events]] related or relevant to contemporary [[internet culture]] in an encyclopedic fashion. It often serves as a repository of information and a means of discussion for the internet [[subculture]] known as [[Anonymous (group)|Anonymous]].<ref name=9news/> Encyclopedia Dramatica celebrates a [[Counterculture|subversive]] "[[Not safe for work|NSFW]]" "[[Troll (Internet)|trolling]] [[Internet culture|culture]]"<ref name="assclown" /><ref name="Citron2014">{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/hatecri_cit_2014_00_5746|url-access=registration|title=Hate Crimes in Cyberspace|author=Danielle Keats Citron|date=22 September 2014|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-36829-3|pages=[https://archive.org/details/hatecri_cit_2014_00_5746/page/54 54]-55|via=[[Internet Archive]]}}</ref> and documents [[internet memes]], events such as mass organized pranks—trolling events called "raids", large-scale failures of [[internet security]], and criticism by those within its subculture of other [[internet communities]] which are accused of [[self-censorship]] in order to (in their view cynically) garner positive coverage from traditional and [[Old media|established media outlets]]. The site also hosts numerous [[pornographic]] images, along with content that is "[[Misogyny|misogynistic]], [[racist]], and [[homophobic]]".<ref name="Click2019">{{cite book|author=Melissa Click|title=Anti-Fandom: Dislike and Hate in the Digital Age|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Er11DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA50|date=8 January 2019|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-1-4798-5104-1|pages=49–50|via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref>

[[Julian Dibbell]], in ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'', described Encyclopedia Dramatica as the site "where the vast parallel universe of Anonymous in-jokes, catchphrases, and obsessions is lovingly annotated, and you will discover an elaborate trolling culture: [[Flaming (Internet)|flamingly]] [[Racism|racist]], [[homophobia|homophobic]] and [[Misogyny|misogynistic]] content lurks throughout, all of it calculated to offend."<ref name="assclown">{{citation
|last = Dibbell
|first = Julian
|title = The Assclown Offensive: How to Enrage the Church of Scientology
|url = https://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-10/mf_chanology?currentPage=all
|publisher = Wired Magazine
|access-date = November 27, 2009
|date = September 21, 2009
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20091207205117/http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-10/mf_chanology?currentPage=all
|archive-date = December 7, 2009
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> The site is also known for its pervasive [[clickbait]] advertisements, in addition to its having almost none of the [[Netiquete|rules]] expected on other similar communities. [[Ninemsn]] described Encyclopedia Dramatica as:

<blockquote>[[Wikipedia]]'s evil twin. It's a site where almost every article is biased, offensive, unsourced, and without the faintest trace of [[political correctness]]. A search through its archives will reveal animated images of people committing suicide, articles glorifying extreme racism and sexism, and a seemingly endless supply of twisted, shocking views on just about every major human tragedy in [[history]].<ref name="mar09_2010_ninemsn_article" /></blockquote>

On April 14, 2011, the original URL of the site was redirected to a new website named "'''Oh Internet'''" that bore little resemblance to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Parts of the ED community harshly criticized the changes.<ref name="msnbc">{{cite news|last=Popkin|first=Helen A.S.|title=Notorious NSFW website cleans up its act|url=http://digitallife.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/18/6489864-notorious-nsfw-website-cleans-up-its-act|newspaper=Digital Life on MSNBC|date=April 18, 2011|access-date=April 19, 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111101152109/http://digitallife.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/18/6489864-notorious-nsfw-website-cleans-up-its-act|archive-date=November 1, 2011|df=mdy-all}}</ref> On the night of the Encyclopedia Dramatica shutdown, regular ED visitors bombarded the 'Oh Internet' [[Facebook]] wall with hate messages.<ref name="gos">{{cite web | url=http://www.geekosystem.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-ohinternet/ | first=Robert | last=Quigley | title=Encyclopedia Dramatica Becomes OhInternet | work=Geekosystem | date=April 15, 2011 | access-date=April 15, 2011 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110417011425/http://www.geekosystem.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-ohinternet/ | archive-date=April 17, 2011 | url-status=live | df=mdy-all}}</ref> The Web Ecology Project published a downloadable archive of Encyclopedia Dramatica content's the next day.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.webecologyproject.org/2011/04/archiving-internet-subculture-encyclopedia-dramatica/ |title=Archiving Internet Subculture: Encyclopedia Dramatica |first=Alex |last=Leavitt |date=April 15, 2011 |work=Web Ecology Project |access-date=September 29, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111020124102/http://www.webecologyproject.org/2011/04/archiving-internet-subculture-encyclopedia-dramatica/ |archive-date=October 20, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref>{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=155}} Besides this archive, [[Fan (person)|fan]]-made [[torrent file|torrents]] and several [[mirror website|mirrors]] of the original site were subsequently generated.<ref name="digitaltrends">{{cite web|url=http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/encyclopedia-dramatica-evolving/|title=What? Encyclopedia Dramatica is evolving!|first=Jeff|last=Hughes|publisher=Digital Trends|date=April 19, 2011|access-date=April 26, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110426135924/http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/encyclopedia-dramatica-evolving/|archive-date=April 26, 2011|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Based on these archives, the site has repeatedly gone offline and come back under new domain names. As of April 2021, versions of the website are hosted at both '''encyclopediadramatica.online''' and '''encyclopediadramatica.wiki'''. Between 2013 and 2019, the website was hosted under various [[top level domains]]: [[.rs]], [[.ch]], [[.es]], and [[.se]],<ref name=":0">{{Citation|last=Mitchell|first=Liam|title="Because none of us are as cruel as all of us": Anonymity and Subjectivation|date=24 April 2013|url=https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/download/14794/5668?inline=1#_edn1|work=[[CTheory]]|volume=Theory Beyond the Codes|editor-last=Kroker|editor-first=Arthur|type=eJournal|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130701234006/http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=720|publisher=Pacific Centre for Technology and Culture|id=tbc051|access-date=16 April 2021|archive-date=1 July 2013|editor2-last=Kroker|editor2-first=Marilouise}}</ref> with each domain bearing the [[second-level domain]] "encyclopediadramatica".<ref name="thedailydot1" /><ref name="gawkerinterview" />

==History==
===DeGrippo (.com)===
[[File:Encyclopedia Dramatica historical logo (2005–2010).png|thumb|right|Encyclopedia Dramatica's historical logo (2005–2010))]]
Encyclopedia Dramatica was founded in 2004 by Sherrod DeGrippo, also known by the online [[pseudonym]] "Girlvinyl".<ref name="ed:about" /><ref name="schwartz">{{cite news |last= Schwartz |first= Mattathias |title= Malwebolence |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?pagewanted=all |work= The New York Times Magazine |date= August 3, 2008 |access-date= August 1, 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090418133749/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?pagewanted=all |archive-date= April 18, 2009 |url-status= live |df= mdy-all }}</ref> DeGrippo joined [[LiveJournal]] in 2000 and became enthralled by the behavior of some of its members:

<blockquote>People were accessible and it was bidirectional. Voyeurs and exhibitionists were able to interact in a way that was normalized. That’s why I started ED. It was mostly just personalities that were just so nuts and fascinating.{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=137–139}}</blockquote>

She became involved in the LJdrama community, which covered stories on LiveJournal gossip. When the community was banned from LiveJournal, they created their own website. In 2002, two LiveJournal users, Joshua Williams (aka mediacrat) and Andrewpants, became intimately involved with each other. After they broke off their relationship, LJdrama decided to document the resulting drama. Unflattering photographs of Williams were spread on the web, and Williams considered this to be harassment. He threatened legal action, traveled to Portland, Oregon, in order to speak to LiveJournal's abuse team, and reported the alleged harassment to a local TV news station.{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=137-139}} DeGrippo created Encyclopedia Dramatica in order to "house some information from livejournal and some drama about hackers [[Theo de Raadt|Theo DeRaadt]] and Darren Reed."<ref name="gawkerinterview">{{cite web |last=Read |first=Max |title=What Happened to Encyclopedia Dramatica? |url=http://gawker.com/5792738/what-happened-to-encyclopedia-dramatica |publisher=Gawker |date=April 16, 2011 |access-date=April 19, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514145854/http://gawker.com/5792738/what-happened-to-encyclopedia-dramatica |archive-date=May 14, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref>

Encyclopedia Dramatica characterized itself as being "In the spirit of [[Ambrose Bierce]]'s ''[[The Devil's Dictionary]]''."<ref name="ed:about" /> ''[[The New York Times Magazine]]'' recognized the wiki as "an online compendium of troll humor and troll lore"<ref name="schwartz" /> that it labeled a "troll archive".<ref name="schwartz" /> ''[[C't]]'', a European magazine for [[Information technology|IT]] professionals, noted the site's role in introducing newcomers to the culture of [[4chan#/b/ imageboard|4chan's /b/]], a notorious Internet imageboard.<ref name="himmelein" /> Encyclopedia Dramatica defines trolling in terms of doing things "for the ''[[lulz]]''" (for laughs),<ref name="tsosis" /> a phrase that it qualifies as "a catchall explanation for any trolling you do."<ref name="tsosis">{{citation
|last = Tsotsis
|first = Alexia
|title = My Date With Anonymous: A Rare Interview With the Elusive Internet Troublemakers
|url = http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-05/columns/my-date-with-anonymous-a-rare-interview-with-the-illusive-internet-troublemakers/
|periodical = LA Weekly
|access-date = August 11, 2009
|date = February 4, 2009
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090612031524/http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-05/columns/my-date-with-anonymous-a-rare-interview-with-the-illusive-internet-troublemakers/
|archive-date = June 12, 2009
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref>

The targets of this trolling come from "every pocket of the Web",<ref name="dibbell">{{citation
|last = Dibbell
|first = Julian
|date = January 18, 2008
|access-date = August 11, 2009
|title = Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World
|periodical = Wired
|volume = 16
|issue = 2
|url = https://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-02/mf_goons?currentPage=all
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090512194229/http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-02/mf_goons?currentPage=all
|archive-date = May 12, 2009
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> to include not only the non-[[wikt:corporeal|corporeal]] aspects of [[List of Internet phenomena|Internet phenomena]], (e.g. online catchphrases, fan pages, forums, and [[Viral phenomenon|viral phenomena]]), but also real people (e.g. amateur celebrities, identifiable [[internet drama]] participants and even Encyclopedia Dramatica's own forum members).<ref name="dibbell" /><ref name="dee" /> These are derided in a manner described variously as "coarse", "offensive", "obscene",<ref name="mitchell" /><ref>{{citation
| author = Staff Writer
| title = 2 Do: Monday, December 26
| periodical = Chicago Tribune RedEye Edition
| page = 2
| date = December 16, 2005}}.</ref> "irreverent, obtuse, [[political correctness|politically incorrect]]",<ref name="davies" /> "crude but hilarious",<ref name="dibbell" /> and "crude and abusive".<ref name="peckham">{{citation
|first = Charles H.
|last = Peckham
|title = Encyclopedia Dramatica
|url = http://www.newsreview.com/chico/encyclopedia-dramatica/content?oid=620760
|periodical = Chico News & Review
|date = February 7, 2008
|access-date = May 16, 2008
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141206010824/http://www.newsreview.com/chico/encyclopedia-dramatica/content?oid=620760
|archive-date = December 6, 2014
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> The material is presented to appear comprehensive, with extensive use of [[shock value|shock-value]] prose, drawings, photographs, and the like. The emotional responses are then added to the articles, often in similarly derogatory or inflammatory manner, with the purpose of provoking [[further]] emotional response. Adherents of the practice assert that visitors to the website "shouldn't take anything said on Dramatica seriously."<ref name="davies" />

Articles at Encyclopedia Dramatica are particularly critical of [[MySpace]]<ref name="mitchell">{{citation
| last = Mitchell | first = John
| title = Megabits and Pieces: The Latest Teen Hangout
| periodical = North Adams Transcript
| date = May 20, 2006}}.</ref> as well as users on [[YouTube]], LiveJournal, [[DeviantART]], [[Tumblr]], and Wikipedia. In ''The New York Times Magazine'', journalist Jonathan Dee described it as a "[[wikt:snarky|snarky]] Wikipedia anti-fansite".<ref name="dee">{{citation
|first = Jonathan
|last = Dee
|title = All the News That's Fit to Print Out
|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?pagewanted=5
|periodical = The New York Times Magazine
|page = 5
|access-date = August 11, 2009
|date = July 1, 2007
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141206011023/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?pagewanted=5
|archive-date = December 6, 2014
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> Shaun Davies of Australia's ''[[Nine Network]]'' called it "Wikipedia's bastard child, a compendium of internet trends and culture which lampoons every subject it touches."<ref name="davies">{{citation
|url = http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/459249/critics-point-finger-at-satirical-website
|title = Critics point finger at satirical website
|periodical = 9-News
|last = Davies
|first = Shaun
|access-date = August 11, 2009
|date = May 8, 2008
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110605124923/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/459249/critics-point-finger-at-satirical-website
|archive-date = June 5, 2011
|url-status = dead
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> The site "is run like Wikipedia, but its style is the opposite; most of its information is biased and opinionated, not to mention racist, homophobic, and spiteful, but on the upside its snide attitude makes it spot-on about most Internet memes it covers."<ref name="douglas">{{citation
|url=http://gawker.com/346385/what-the-hell-are-4chan-ed-something-awful-and-b
|title=What The Hell Are 4chan, ED, Something Awful, And 'b'?
|periodical=ValleyWag
|access-date=August 25, 2008
|last=Douglas
|first=Nick
|date=January 18, 2008
|publisher=gawker.com
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724081826/http://gawker.com/346385/what-the-hell-are-4chan-ed-something-awful-and-b
|archive-date=July 24, 2008
|df=mdy
}}.</ref> This coverage of [[Internet jargon]] and memes had been acknowledged in the ''[[New Statesman]]'',<ref>{{citation
|url = http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2008/06/cat-pidgin-language-hai
|title = A lesson in hai culture
|last = Hogge
|first = Betty
|date = June 5, 2008
|access-date = June 11, 2008
|periodical = The New Statesman
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080612165551/http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2008/06/cat-pidgin-language-hai
|archive-date = June 12, 2008
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> on [[Language Log]],<ref>{{citation
|url = http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004508.html
|contribution = Lol-lexicography
|title = Language Log
|access-date = August 25, 2008
|last = Zimmer
|first = Benjamin
|date = May 18, 2007
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080610060846/http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004508.html
|archive-date = June 10, 2008
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> in ''[[C't]]'' magazine,<ref name="himmelein">{{citation
| last = Himmelein
| first = Gerald
| title = Das Trollparadies
| periodical = C't
| pages = 100–101
| date = February 28, 2008}} [http://epicwins.blogspot.com/2008/03/trolls-paradise.html online copy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100529152810/http://epicwins.blogspot.com/2008/03/trolls-paradise.html |date=May 29, 2010 }}.</ref> and in [[Wired (magazine)|''Wired'']] magazine.<ref name="dibbell" />

According to Sherrod DeGrippo,

<blockquote>As long as something wasn’t submitted as illegal or an abuse complaint, I didn’t even see it. Wikis are something that you either closely, closely monitor and manage, or you just let it go.{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=140}}</blockquote>

Predating sites like the former [[Cheezburger Network]] (now known as [[Know Your Meme]]) by several years, Encyclopedia Dramatica was the first encyclopedia dedicated to the memes and "mean-spirited trolling"{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=¶12.30}} of 4chan culture.{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=¶12.11|ps=For several years, Encyclopedia Dramatica was the only place to go to read about 4chan culture.}}

===2010 ownership by Evers===
In March 2010, a "Joseph Evers" was recognized as the owner by ABC News, reporting on the site being blacklisted by the [[Australian Communications and Media Authority]].<ref>{{cite news |work=ABC |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-18/dramatica-owner-refuses-to-remove-racist-content/370030 |date=18 March 2010 |title=Dramatica owner refuses to remove 'racist' content |quote=The site's owner, Joseph Evers, has blogged that Encyclopedia Dramatica will "never be censored in any way". Mr Evers says the site's owners "laughed" when they discovered they were on the Australian Communications and Media Authority's list of websites to be banned under the Government's planned internet filter.}}</ref>

The [[Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]] (aka [[HREOC]]) contacted Evers threatening him with charges under Australian law.<ref name=9news>
{{cite news |work=[[9news]] |url=https://www.9news.com.au/technology/dramatica-owner-could-face-charges/f62bc3d3-cfa2-4a4c-a856-301371817b7a |title=Dramatica owner could face charges |date=16 March 2010}} 
{{citation
| title = Dramatica owner could face charges
| publisher = ninemsn
| first = Henri
| last = Paget
| url = http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1028037/encyclopedia-dramatica-owner-could-face-charges
| date = March 16, 2010
| access-date = March 16, 2010
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100322191406/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1028037/encyclopedia-dramatica-owner-could-face-charges
| archive-date=March 22, 2010 }}.</ref>

On December 8, 2010, Encyclopedia Dramatica deleted its article on [[Operation Payback]].<ref name="gawkernoose">{{cite web|url=http://gawker.com/5709789/noose-closes-around-pro+wikileaks-vigilantes |title=Noose Closes Around Pro-Wikileaks Vigilantes |first=Ryan |last=Tate |date=December 8, 2010 |work=Gawker |access-date=July 30, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110812065510/http://gawker.com/5709789/noose-closes-around-pro+wikileaks-vigilantes |archive-date=August 12, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref> On the same day, Facebook deleted its Operation Payback page, and Twitter suspended Operation Payback's account.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeisaac/2010/12/08/facebook-and-twitter-suspend-operation-payback-accounts/ |title=Facebook and Twitter Suspend Operation Payback Accounts |first=Mike |last=Isaac |date=December 8, 2010 |work=Forbes |access-date=July 30, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110814131955/http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeisaac/2010/12/08/facebook-and-twitter-suspend-operation-payback-accounts/ |archive-date=August 14, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> An anonymous source told [[Gawker]] that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted as the result of court orders.<ref name="gawkernoose" />

In June 2020 it was reported by [[Canary Mission]] that [[Andrew "weev" Auernheimer]] is both the "{{Mono|weev}}" who "[[Zoombombed]]" a March 2020 chat for Jewish teens, and the "Joseph Evers" who owned and co-created the 2010 instance of ED and who has been wanted by the [[Australian Human Rights Commission]] since.<ref>{{Cite web|date=7 March 2021|title=Andrew Auernheimer|url=https://canarymission.org/individual/Andrew_Auernheimer|url-status=live|access-date=2021-04-16|website=[[Canary Mission]]}}</ref><ref name="JNS">{{cite news|date=8 June 2020|title=New evidence links white supremacist 'Zoombomber' to man wanted in Australia|work=Jewish News Syndicate|url=https://www.jns.org/australia-commission-aims-to-ban-white-supremacist-who-disrupted-teen-webinar/|quote=New evidence uncovered by the Canary Mission, an anti-Semitism watchdog site, has revealed that Auernhaimer has another pseudonym, “Joseph Evers,” who was listed as the owner and creator of a racist website and Wikipedia parody site called Encyclopedia Dramatica created in 2010. Since 2010, Evers has been wanted by Australia’s Human Rights Commission for violating the country’s Racial Discrimination Act in connection to his creation of the racist website.}}</ref>

===2011 establishment of Oh Internet===
{{anchor|ohinternet}}
[[File:Oh Internet homepage screenshot.png|thumb|Oh Internet main page]]

DeGrippo reportedly "came to hate" Encyclopedia Dramatica.{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=142}} She had hoped that ED would return to its roots and focus on LiveJournal drama.{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=141}} Furthermore, according to her, Encyclopedia Dramatica never turned a profit during the time she owned it due to its content which put off advertisers.{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=¶12.31}}

On April 14, 2011, the [[URL]] encyclopediadramatica.com was redirected to "Oh Internet",<ref name="msnbc" /> an entirely different [[safe-for-work]] website that DeGrippo had created.<ref name="msnbc" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.inquisitr.com/104161/encyclopedia-dramatica-gone-for-good/ |title=Encyclopedia Dramatica gone for good |first=Kim |last=LaCapria |date=April 15, 2011 |work=The Inquisitr |access-date=May 28, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110419190246/http://www.inquisitr.com/104161/encyclopedia-dramatica-gone-for-good/ |archive-date=April 19, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> The name "Oh Internet" is meant to convey "Oh, Internet, you are so crazy!"{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=142}} DeGrippo stated that "Shock for shock's sake is old at this point [...] ." Some regular users of Encyclopedia Dramatica were displeased by the change and attacked the website's official [[Facebook]] fan page<ref name="gos" /> with "hate messages and pornography".<ref name="msnbc" />

In a question and answer session at the [[ROFLCon]] summit in October 2011, DeGrippo was asked why Encyclopedia Dramatica was closed and replaced with Oh Internet. She replied: "We were unable to stop the degradation of the content. It just kept getting longer and longer and dumber and dumber and less and less coherent over time."<ref>{{cite AV media | date =November 11, 2011 | title =ROFLCon Summit – Internet Underground – Part 2 | url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfQBN9oGAxI | access-date = November 16, 2011 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20160504061239/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfQBN9oGAxI| time = 1:47 | archive-date =May 4, 2016 | publisher = ROFLCONsummit | via = [[YouTube]]}} {{Dead link|date=February 2020}}</ref> She also explained why she had not released the site as an archive, saying that she "didn't want to", and suggesting that this would have made her personally responsible for any [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]] and privacy violations that it contained.<ref>{{cite AV media | date =November 11, 2011 | title =ROFLCon Summit – Internet Underground – Part 3 | url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhjtocipcRU | access-date = November 16, 2011 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20160522085723/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhjtocipcRU | archive-date =May 22, 2016 | publisher = ROFLCONsummit | time =4:41 | via = [[YouTube]]}} {{Dead link|date=February 2020}}</ref> She also stated that hosting Encyclopedia Dramatica caused her to have troubles involving the [[FBI]].<ref>{{cite AV media | date =November 11, 2011 | title =ROFLCon Summit – Internet Underground – Part 4 | url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R_xl2onS24 | access-date = February 18, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120811141330/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R_xl2onS24 | archive-date =August 11, 2012 | publisher = ROFLCONsummit | time = 0:31 | via = [[YouTube]]}} {{Dead link|date=February 2020}}</ref>

===Cleary (.ch)===
Since April 2011<ref>https://archive.is/WkQrd/</ref> Ryan Cleary hosted a [[Fork (software development)|fork]] of Encyclopedia Dramatica at encyclopediadramatica.ch.<ref name="thedailydot1" /><ref name="crncomau">{{cite news |title=Anonymous DDoSed by mutineer |first=Darren |last=Pauli |url=http://www.crn.com.au/News/257022,anonymous-ddosed-by-mutineer.aspx |newspaper=[[CRN Magazine]] |date=May 10, 2011 |access-date=June 1, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513083151/http://www.crn.com.au/News/257022,anonymous-ddosed-by-mutineer.aspx |archive-date=May 13, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Members of this project gathered text and images from [[Google cache|Google's web cache]] and other backups, and a script was created to upload cached information.<ref name="thedailydot1" /> On June 21, 2011, [[Scotland Yard]] arrested Ryan Cleary based on alleged connections to online attacks on [[Sony]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13859868 |title=Teenager arrested on suspicion of hacking |date=July 21, 2011 |work=BBC News |access-date=July 28, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726141348/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13859868 |archive-date=July 26, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="cnn1">{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-22/world/uk.sony.hack.arrest_1_group-tweeted-denial-of-service-attacks-hacker |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130119093823/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-22/world/uk.sony.hack.arrest_1_group-tweeted-denial-of-service-attacks-hacker |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 19, 2013 |title=Hacker group LulzSec downplays arrest, claims Brazil attack |first=Richard Allen |last=Greene |date=June 22, 2011 |work=CNN |access-date=February 4, 2012 }}</ref> The arrest temporarily disrupted operation of the wiki, but other members were able to resume Cleary's duties.<ref name="thedailydot1" />

===Moore (.se)===
Garrett E. Moore later became the fork's owner.<ref name="thedailydot1" /> Moore reported difficulties in securing a host for the website.<ref name="thedailydot1" /><ref name="thedailydot2" />

On March 19, 2012, encyclopediadramatica.ch was shut down for a short time due to a "[[Domain Name System|DNS]] block". On March 21, 2012, the site moved to a Swedish domain name, at encyclopediadramatica.se, instead of a domain in Switzerland as before. The site's Facebook account later addressed the block, stating that it was because "we didn't keep up our end of the nic.ch user agreement contract stating that we had to keep a mailing address and phone number in Switzerland."<ref>{{cite news |title=Encyclopedia Dramatica suffers minor outage |author=Fruzsina Eördögh |url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/encyclopedia-dramatica-suffers-minor-outage/ |newspaper=[[The Daily Dot]] |date=March 21, 2012 |access-date=March 21, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130225025001/http://www.dailydot.com/news/encyclopedia-dramatica-suffers-minor-outage/ |archive-date=February 25, 2013 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

Moore told an interviewer for ''[[The Daily Dot]]'' in July 2011:
<blockquote>People take themselves too seriously, they can't laugh at anything. We make fun of everything. I make fun of skinny white computer nerds, but I am one.<ref name="thedailydot1">{{cite web |url=http://www.dailydot.com/culture/encyclopedia-dramatica-returns/ |title=Encyclopedia Dramatica's seething satire is back |first=Fruzsina |last=Eordogh |date=July 26, 2011 |work=The Daily Dot |access-date=July 28, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425034336/http://www.dailydot.com/culture/encyclopedia-dramatica-returns/ |archive-date=April 25, 2012 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref></blockquote>

When asked about "abusive content", Moore stated that he removes it when he sees it, then further explained:
<blockquote>I'm not going to leave a 14-year-old girl's address up on a page cause some dipshit got mad at her and made an article. But if you dress up like a fox and wear diapers and then take pictures of it? That's fair game, sir.<ref name="thedailydot1" /></blockquote>

In a September 2011interview with ''The Daily Dot'', Moore defended his community's belief in [[free speech]].<ref name="thedailydot2">{{cite web |url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/encyclopedia-dramatica-outage/ |title=Encyclopedia Dramatica is back up but still experiencing drama |first=Fruzsina |last=Eordogh |date=September 6, 2011 |work=The Daily Dot |access-date=September 9, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331085427/http://www.dailydot.com/news/encyclopedia-dramatica-outage/ |archive-date=March 31, 2012 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

===Gizmo games===
In January 2013, a video game created by user "gizmo01942" came to the attention of the media. The game, ''Bullet to the Head of the NRA'', was controversial because the player could take aim and shoot at members of the [[National Rifle Association]].<ref name="Kotaku BTHOTNRA">{{cite web|last=Schreier|first=Jason|url=http://kotaku.com/5976372/someone-made-a-game-in-which-you-shoot-the-head-of-the-nra|title=Someone Made A Game In Which You Shoot The Head Of The NRA|website=[[Kotaku]]|date=January 16, 2013|access-date=October 26, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160824080711/http://kotaku.com/5976372/someone-made-a-game-in-which-you-shoot-the-head-of-the-nra|archive-date=August 24, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all |quote=A member of the Encyclopedia Dramatica forums has created a game called Bullet to the Head of the NRA, a rudimentary first-person shooter that lets you shoot NRA boss Wayne LaPierre. Released yesterday, Bullet to the Head of the NRA seems to have been designed just to piss people off. "Share this everywhere, especially gun-nut and anti-game websites," creator and forum user gizmo01942 writes. "Also see if you can't send it in to the NRA somehow, like through the feedback on their website or something." ED forum user gizmo01942 is also developing a game based on the Sandy Hook shooting, he says, in which you'd go into the Connecticut school and shoot kids. This NRA game is a demo, he writes. It will be a bonus level in the Sandy Hook shooter.}}</ref> In February 2015, ''Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015'', another video game by the same user, attracted further controversy because of the recent [[Charlie Hebdo shooting|''Charlie Hebdo'' shooting]].<ref name="Vice MSS2015">{{cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/an-idiot-made-a-game-called-muhammad-sex-simulator|title=An Idiot Made a Game Called 'Muhammad Sex Simulator|last=Akers|first=Royce|website=vice.com|location=United Kingdom|date=February 9, 2015|access-date=April 13, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150418054210/http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/an-idiot-made-a-game-called-muhammad-sex-simulator|archive-date=April 18, 2015|url-status=live|df=mdy-all |quote=Is Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 the same sort of "satire"? In a statement on internet forum Encyclopedia Dramatica, gizmo01942 took responsibility for the game}}</ref>

===2013–2020 revivals (.es, .rs, .se)===
{{Unreferenced section|date=April 2021}}

* In September 2013, the site changed its domain to a [[.es|Spanish domain name]], encyclopediadramatica.es.{{fact|date=December 2020}}

* In October 2014, the site returned to the [[.se]] domain.{{fact|date=December 2020}}

* In January 2018, the site changed its domain to a [[.rs|Serbian domain name]], encyclopediadramatica.rs.{{fact|date=December 2020}}

*In October 2019,{{when|date=December 2020}} the official Twitter page{{where|date=December 2020}}{{According to whom|date=April 2021}} announced that the site had once again returned to the .se domain.{{fact|date=December 2020}}

*In December 2020, the site changed it's domain to a [[.online| generic domain name]] {{fact|date=December 2020}}
==Reception==
The website received mainstream media attention after Jason Fortuny used Encyclopedia Dramatica to post photographs, e-mails and phone numbers from 176 responses to a [[Craigslist]] advertisement he posted in 2006, in which he posed as a woman seeking sexual encounters with dominant men.<ref name="neva">{{citation
|first = Neva
|last = Chonin
|title = Sex and the City
|url = http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Sex-and-the-City-2551618.php
|periodical = San Francisco Chronicle
|page = 20
|access-date = August 11, 2009
|date = September 17, 2006
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120918192604/http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Sex-and-the-City-2551618.php
|archive-date = September 18, 2012
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref><ref name="schwartz" /> The incident was addressed in a [[blog]] hosted at ''[[Wired News]]'', where the [[blog]]ger proposes that Encyclopedia Dramatica may be the "world's lamest wiki".<ref>{{cite news |publisher=Wired.com |url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2006/09/craigslist/ |title=Craigslist |date=September 8, 2006 |access-date=January 12, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100111042246/http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2006/09/craigslist |archive-date=January 11, 2010 |df=mdy }}</ref>

In 2006, "a well-known band of trolls"<ref name="schwartz" /> emailed Encyclopedia Dramatica's creator, DeGrippo, demanding edits to the protected (i.e. locked) article describing them. After she refused to do so, the trolls ordered taxis, pizzas, escort services and sent death threats and threats of rape to DeGrippo's apartment.<ref name="schwartz" />

Encyclopedia Dramatica became a "favourite target for critics, who accuse Anonymous of propagating hate,"<ref name="davies" /> for allowing alleged members of the group to sometimes use the website as a [[Platformism|platform]]. Through this association, Encyclopedia Dramatica received incidental coverage when actions by members of Anonymous led to the arrest of an alleged pedophile,<ref>{{citation
|last = Kim
|first = Gus
|title = Anonymous operation leads to arrest of alleged pedophile
|url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHohvluf3mc
|periodical = Global Television Network News
|date = July 12, 2007
|access-date = May 14, 2011
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110222075802/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHohvluf3mc
|archive-date = February 22, 2011
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> when they demonstrated against [[Scientology]] in London;<ref name="whipple">{{citation
| last = Whipple | first = Tom
| title = Scientology: the Anonymous protestors
| url = http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4173635.ece
| periodical = The Times
| access-date= May 14, 2011
| date = June 20, 2008
| location=London
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615182345/http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4173635.ece
|archive-date=June 15, 2011 }}.</ref><ref>{{citation
|last = Lee
|first = Joe
|date = February 11, 2008
|title = Anonymous Protests Outside Scientology Sites
|url = http://londonist.com/2008/02/they_came_they.php
|periodical = Londonist
|access-date = August 25, 2008
|publisher = londonist.com
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080401054452/http://londonist.com/2008/02/they_came_they.php
|archive-date = April 1, 2008
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> when a member of the group broke into the e-mail account of former [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] vice-presidential nominee [[Sarah Palin]],<ref name="singel">{{citation
|last = Singel
|first = Ryan 
|date = September 19, 2008
|title = Palin Hacker Group's All-Time Greatest Hits
|url = https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-hacker-gr/
|periodical = Wired
|access-date = August 25, 2008
|publisher = blog.wired.com
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090502034437/http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-hacker-gr
|archive-date = May 2, 2009
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> and when a member of Anonymous claimed credit for an attack on the virtual ''[[Second Life]]'' headquarters of former presidential candidate [[John Edwards]].<ref name="cassel">{{citation
| last = Cabron | first = Lou
| date = March 8, 2007
| title = John Edwards' Virtual Attackers Unmasked
| url = http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48989/
| periodical = AlterNet
| access-date = May 14, 2011
| publisher = alternet.org
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110629141202/http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48989/
| archive-date = June 29, 2011}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/03/05/john-edwards-virtual-attackers-unmasked/ |title=John Edwards' Virtual Attackers Unmasked |first=Lou |last=Cabron |date=March 5, 2007 |publisher=10 Zen Monkeys |access-date=November 10, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111120050942/http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/03/05/john-edwards-virtual-attackers-unmasked/ |archive-date=November 20, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> The convergence of Encyclopedia Dramatica with the anti-Scientology campaign of [[Project Chanology]] was noted by technology journalist Julian Dibbell.<ref>{{citation
|first = Julian
|last = Dibbell
|date = July 11, 2008
|chapter = Sympathy for the Griefer: MOOrape, Lulz Cubes, and Other Lessons From the First 2 Decades of Online Sociopathy
|title = GLS Conference 4.0
|publisher = Games, Learning and Society Group
|location = Madison, Wisconsin
|chapter-url = http://hosted4.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=9d1cf257-52ff-4704-9cb5-37de2ecca35b
|access-date = November 7, 2008
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110714064724/http://hosted4.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=9d1cf257-52ff-4704-9cb5-37de2ecca35b
|archive-date = July 14, 2011
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref>

The celebration and archival of the "raids" organized on [[/b/]] on Encyclopedia Dramatica, which acted as a "troll [[hall of fame]]" when used this way,{{sfn|Stryker|2011|p=¶12.28}} has been seen by some scholars, among them Liam Mitchell of [[Trent University]], as acting as a way to assuage the guilt that trolls feel for harming their victims and being confronted with evidence of this harm. By celebrating on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and archiving that which would make an individual member guilty, trolls collectively engage in a type of [[mob mentality]] where the idea that "none of us is as cruel as all of us" minimizes the actions they take individually: "[[Crowd psychology|One cannot reason with a multitude]], let alone [[Appeal to emotion|appeal to its conscience]]. If any of its members are not susceptible to [[reason]] or [[conscience]]{{Em dash}}the province of the [[ego ideal]], and therefore of the divide that characterizes [[subjectivity]]{{Em dash}}then the trolling will proceed."<ref name=":0" />

On December 16, 2008, Encyclopedia Dramatica won the ''People's Choice Winners'' category for favorite wiki in [[Mashable]]'s 2nd Annual Open Web Awards, with [[wikiHow]] as the runner-up and Wikipedia coming in 3rd.<ref>{{citation
|last = Cashmore
|first = Pete
|chapter-url = http://mashable.com/2008/12/16/open-web-awards-2-winners/
|chapter = People's Choice Winners
|title = Open Web Awards Winners
|date = December 16, 2008
|access-date = August 11, 2009
|publisher = mashable.com
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090826092048/http://mashable.com/2008/12/16/open-web-awards-2-winners/
|archive-date = August 26, 2009
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref>

In December 2008, a message on Encyclopedia Dramatica asked for donations and claimed that the website was under attack and had lost its advertisers.<ref name="thestandardshutdown">{{cite news |last= Golson |first= Jordan |title= Briefly: Encyclopedia Dramatica threatens shutdown | url=http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/11/briefly-encyclopedia-dramatica-threatens-shutdown |work= [[The Industry Standard]] |date = November 8, 2008 |access-date=May 14, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090515143019/http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/11/briefly-encyclopedia-dramatica-threatens-shutdown |archive-date=May 15, 2009 }}</ref>

In January 2010, the Encyclopedia Dramatica article ''Aboriginal'' was removed from the search engine results of [[Google Search|Google Australia]], after a lawyer filed a complaint with the [[Australian Human Rights Commission]] saying its content was racist.<ref>{{citation
|title = Google agrees to take down racist site
|publisher = [[Sydney Morning Herald]]
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/google-agrees-to-take-down-racist-site-20100115-maxd.html
|access-date = May 14, 2011
|date = January 15, 2010
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110605030457/http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/google-agrees-to-take-down-racist-site-20100115-maxd.html
|archive-date = June 5, 2011
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> A search on terms related to the article produced a message that one of the results has been removed after a legal request relating to Australia's [[Racial Discrimination Act 1975|Racial Discrimination Act (RDA)]].<ref>{{citation
|title = Aus Media Gets Encyclopedia Dramatica Story Wrong, Only Some Search Links Removed
|publisher = The Inquisitr
|first = Duncan
|last = Riley
|url = http://www.inquisitr.com/57105/aus-media-gets-ed-story-wrong/
|date = January 14, 2010
|access-date = January 15, 2010
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100119021719/http://www.inquisitr.com/57105/aus-media-gets-ed-story-wrong/
|archive-date = January 19, 2010
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref><ref>{{citation
|title = Australian Anti Discrimination Act Complaint
|publisher = [[Chilling Effects (group)|Chilling Effects]]
|url = http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=17460
|access-date = January 15, 2010
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100118084049/http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=17460
|archive-date = January 18, 2010
|url-status = live
|df = mdy-all
}}.</ref> The publicity surrounding this served to [[Streisand effect|raise the profile of the site]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hungrybeast/stories/google-australia-censors-search-results-wtf/ |title=Google Australia censors search results. WTF? |first=Elmo |last=Keep |date=January 18, 2011 |work=Hungry Beast |publisher=ABC |access-date=May 28, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120626042430/http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hungrybeast/stories/google-australia-censors-search-results-wtf/ |archive-date=June 26, 2012 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref> In March 2010, it was reported that the Australian Human Rights Commission had notified the site by e-mail that according to Australian law, the article ''Aboriginal'' could be in breach of Sections 18C and 18D of its RDA.<ref name=9news />

== Lawsuits ==
In 2016, a [[United Kingdom]] court determined an ED user must pay £10,000 in [[English defamation law|libel]] damages for making false statements about Samuel Collingwood Smith, a former Labour councillor.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/29/encyclopedia_dramatica_dynastia_likeicare_samuel_smith_10k_libel_case/ |website=[[theregister.co.uk]] |title=Encyclopedia Dramatica user hit with £10k damages after calling ex-councillor a 'paedo' |date=July 29, 2016 |first=Gareth |last=Corfield |access-date=November 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201043312/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/29/encyclopedia_dramatica_dynastia_likeicare_samuel_smith_10k_libel_case/ |archive-date=December 1, 2017 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

In 2017, a suit was launched against the website seeking US$750,000 for alleged [[copyright infringement]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/encyclopedia-dramatica-copyright-lawsuit/ |website=[[dailydot.com]] |first=David |last=Gilmour |title=The lawsuit that could kill Encyclopedia Dramatica |date=July 5, 2017 |quote=Monsarrat is now suing Encyclopedia Dramatica for alleged copyright infringement and seeking a total of $750,000 in damages. |access-date=November 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171002191141/https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/encyclopedia-dramatica-copyright-lawsuit/ |archive-date=October 2, 2017 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> The "life-threatening"<ref>{{cite web |url=https://theoutline.com/post/2369/everipedia-is-the-wikipedia-for-being-wrong |website=[[theoutline.com]] |date=October 4, 2017 |first=Jon |last=Christian |title=Everipedia is the Wikipedia for being wrong |quote=Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is currently facing a life-threatening copyright lawsuit, is an ad-supported cesspool of surreal troll humor founded by online provocateur Sherrod DeGrippo in 2004. |access-date=November 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180102012909/https://theoutline.com/post/2369/everipedia-is-the-wikipedia-for-being-wrong |archive-date=January 2, 2018 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> suit is by millionaire Jonathan Monsarrat.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/the-pedobear-motion-practice-youve-been-waiting-for/ |website=[[abovethelaw.com]] |title=The Pedobear Motion Practice You've Been Waiting For |first=Elie |last=Mystal |date=October 25, 2017 |quote=Out there in meme-culture, a major lawsuit is happening. Encyclopedia Dramatica, "Wikipedia’s evil twin," is being sued by Jonathan Monsarrat, an eccentric millionaire. |access-date=November 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20171201071720/https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/the-pedobear-motion-practice-youve-been-waiting-for/ |archive-date=December 1, 2017 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Monsarrat's suit was dismissed in December 2017, with the judge ruling that the three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement had expired before the lawsuit was filed.<ref>{{cite web |title=Judge rules man waited too long to sue Web site that transformed a photo of him as a beaver into a photo of him as a pedobear |url=https://www.universalhub.com/2017/judge-rules-man-waited-too-long-sue-web-site |website=Universal Hub |access-date=18 October 2020}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Internet|Comedy}}
* [[4chan]]
* [[Internet meme]]
* [[Kiwi Farms]]
* [[List of Internet phenomena]]
* [[Lurkmore.ru]]
* [[Uncyclopedia]]

== Footnotes ==
=== Notes ===
{{Reflist|group=note}}
=== References ===
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite book |title=Epic Win for Anonymous: How 4chan's Army Conquered the Web |last= Stryker|first= Cole|year=2011|publisher=[[Overlook Press]] |location=New York |isbn=978-1590207109|ref={{sfnRef|Stryker|2011}}}}

== External links ==
* {{Commonscatinline}}
*{{wikiquote-inline}}
{{Anonymous and the Internet}}

[[Category:Internet]]

ElypseArt

2026-07-21T23:23:40Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

A company dedicated to "Meticulously hand crafted, canine (K9, dog, animal shaped) dildos individually fashioned by skilled artisans using the highest quality materials and medical grade silicone. Completely latex free.
Highest quality, most realistic animal dildos available. Squirting ONLY versions of all our models are also available at the same price as our Inflatable models, just email sales@elypseart.com"

Website here http://www.elypseart.com/
[[Category:Websites]]

Echinococcosis

2026-07-21T23:23:35Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Short description|Parasitic disease of tapeworms of the Echinococcus type}}
{{About|the disease|the organism|Echinococcus}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2020}}
{{Infobox medical condition (new)
| name = Echinococcosis
| synonyms = Hydatid disease, hydatidosis, echinococcal disease, hydatid cyst
| image = Echinococcus Life Cycle.svg
| caption = ''Echinococcus granulosa'' life cycle (click to enlarge)
| field = [[Infectious disease (medical specialty)|Infectious disease]]
| symptoms = Variable<ref name=WHO2014/>
| complications =
| onset =
| duration =
| causes = [[Tapeworm]] of the ''[[Echinococcus]]'' type<ref name=WHO2014/>
| risks =
| diagnosis = [[Medical imaging]], blood tests<ref name=WHO2014/>
| differential =
| prevention = Vaccination of sheep, treating infected dogs<ref name=WHO2014/>
| treatment = [[conservative treatment|Conservative]], medications, surgery<ref name=WHO2014/><ref name=CDCTx2013/>
| medication = [[Albendazole]]<ref name=WHO2014/>
| prognosis =
| frequency = 1.4 million (cystic form, 2015)<ref name=GBD2015Pre>{{cite journal|last1=GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence|first1=Collaborators.|title=Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015.|journal=Lancet|date=8 October 2016|volume=388|issue=10053|pages=1545–1602|pmid=27733282|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6|pmc=5055577}}</ref>
| deaths = 1,200 (cystic form, 2015)<ref name=GBD2015De/>
}}

'''Echinococcosis''' is a [[parasitic disease]] of [[tapeworm]]s of the ''[[Echinococcus]]'' type.<ref name=WHO2014/> The two [[Portal:Main|main]] types of the disease are ''cystic echinococcosis'' and ''[[alveolar echinococcosis]]''.<ref name=WHO2014/> Less common forms include ''polycystic echinococcosis'' and ''unicystic echinococcosis''.<ref name=WHO2014/>

The disease often starts without symptoms and this may last for years.<ref name=WHO2014/> The symptoms and signs that occur depend on the cyst's location and size.<ref name=WHO2014/> ''Alveolar'' disease usually begins in the liver, but can spread to other parts of the body, such as the lungs or brain.<ref name=WHO2014/> When the [[liver]] is affected, the patient may experience [[abdominal pain]], weight loss, along with yellow-toned skin discoloration from developed [[jaundice]].<ref name=WHO2014/> Lung disease may cause pain in the chest, [[shortness of breath]], and coughing.<ref name=WHO2014>{{cite web|title=Echinococcosis Fact sheet N°377|url=https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs377/en/|work=World Health Organization|access-date=19 March 2014|date=March 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221184309/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs377/en/|archive-date=21 February 2014}}</ref>


The infection is spread when food or water that contains the eggs of the parasite is ingested or by close contact with an infected animal.<ref name=WHO2014/> The eggs are released in the stool of meat-eating animals that are infected by the parasite.<ref name=CDC2013>{{cite web|title=Echinococcosis [Echinococcus granulosus] [Echinococcus multilocularis] [Echinococcus oligarthrus] [Echinococcus vogeli]|url=https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/echinococcosis/index.html|work=CDC|access-date=20 March 2014|date=29 November 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140320100116/http://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/echinococcosis/index.html|archive-date=20 March 2014}}</ref> Commonly infected animals include dogs, foxes, and wolves.<ref name=CDC2013/> For these animals to become infected they must eat the [[organ (anatomy)|organs]] of an animal that contains the cysts such as sheep or rodents.<ref name=CDC2013/> The type of disease that occurs in human patients depends on the type of ''Echinococcus'' causing the infection.<ref name=WHO2014/> Diagnosis is usually by [[ultrasound]] though [[computer tomography]] (CT) or [[magnetic resonance imaging]] (MRI) may also be used.<ref name=WHO2014/> Blood tests looking for [[antibodies]] against the parasite may be helpful as may [[biopsy]].<ref name=WHO2014/>


Prevention of cystic disease is by treating dogs that may carry the disease and vaccination of sheep.<ref name=WHO2014/> Treatment is often difficult.<ref name=WHO2014/> The cystic disease may be drained through the skin, followed by medication.<ref name=WHO2014/> Sometimes this type of disease is just watched.<ref name=CDCTx2013>{{cite web|title=Echinococcosis Treatment Information|url=https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/echinococcosis/tx.html|work=CDC|access-date=20 March 2014|date=29 November 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140320100026/http://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/echinococcosis/tx.html|archive-date=20 March 2014}}</ref> The ''alveolar'' form often requires surgical intervention, followed by medications.<ref name=WHO2014/> The medication used is [[albendazole]], which may be needed for years.<ref name=WHO2014/><ref name=CDCTx2013/> The ''alveolar'' disease may result in death.<ref name=WHO2014/>


The disease occurs in most areas of the world and currently affects about one million people.<ref name=WHO2014/> In some areas of South America, Africa, and Asia, up to 10% of the certain populations are affected.<ref name=WHO2014/> In 2015, the cystic form caused about 1,200 deaths; down from 2000 in 1990.<ref name=GBD2015De>{{cite journal|last1=GBD 2015 Mortality and Causes of Death|first1=Collaborators.|title=Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015.|journal=Lancet|date=8 October 2016|volume=388|issue=10053|pages=1459–1544|pmid=27733281|doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31012-1|pmc=5388903}}</ref><ref name=Loz2012>{{cite journal|last=Lozano|first=R|title=Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.|journal=Lancet|date=15 December 2012|volume=380|issue=9859|pages=2095–128|pmid=23245604|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61728-0|hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30050819|s2cid=1541253|url=https://zenodo.org/record/2557786|hdl-access=free}}</ref> The economic cost of the disease is estimated to be around US$3 billion a year.<ref name=WHO2014/> It is classified as a [[neglected tropical disease]] (NTD) and belongs to the group of diseases known as [[helminthiases]] (worm infections).<ref name=NTD2017>{{cite web|title=Neglected Tropical Diseases|url=https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/ntd/diseases/index.html|website=cdc.gov|access-date=28 November 2014|date=6 June 2011|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141204084219/http://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/ntd/diseases/index.html|archive-date=4 December 2014}}</ref> It can affect other animals such as pigs, cows and horses.<ref name=WHO2014/>


Terminology used in this field is crucial, since ''echinococcosis'' requires the involvement of specialists from nearly all disciplines. In 2020, an international effort of scientists, from 16 countries, lead to a detailed consensus on terms to be used or rejected for the genetics, epidemiology, biology, immunology and clinical aspects of ''echinococcosis''.<ref name="VuittonMcManus2020">{{cite journal|last1=Vuitton|first1=Dominique A.|last2=McManus|first2=Donald P.|last3=Rogan|first3=Michael T.|last4=Romig|first4=Thomas|last5=Gottstein|first5=Bruno|last6=Naidich|first6=Ariel|last7=Tuxun|first7=Tuerhongjiang|last8=Wen|first8=Hao|last9=Menezes da Silva|first9=Antonio|last10=Vuitton|first10=Dominique A.|last11=McManus|first11=Donald P.|last12=Romig|first12=Thomas|last13=Rogan|first13=Michael R.|last14=Gottstein|first14=Bruno|last15=Menezes da Silva|first15=Antonio|last16=Wen|first16=Hao|last17=Naidich|first17=Ariel|last18=Tuxun|first18=Tuerhongjiang|last19=Avcioglu|first19=Amza|last20=Boufana|first20=Belgees|last21=Budke|first21=Christine|last22=Casulli|first22=Adriano|last23=Güven|first23=Esin|last24=Hillenbrand|first24=Andreas|last25=Jalousian|first25=Fateme|last26=Jemli|first26=Mohamed Habib|last27=Knapp|first27=Jenny|last28=Laatamna|first28=Abdelkarim|last29=Lahmar|first29=Samia|last30=Naidich|first30=Ariel|last31=Rogan|first31=Michael T.|last32=Sadjjadi|first32=Seyed Mahmoud|last33=Schmidberger|first33=Julian|last34=Amri|first34=Manel|last35=Bellanger|first35=Anne-Pauline|last36=Benazzouz|first36=Sara|last37=Brehm|first37=Klaus|last38=Hillenbrand|first38=Andreas|last39=Jalousian|first39=Fateme|last40=Kachani|first40=Malika|last41=Labsi|first41=Moussa|last42=Masala|first42=Giovanna|last43=Menezes da Silva|first43=Antonio|last44=Sadjjadi Seyed|first44=Mahmoud|last45=Soufli|first45=Imene|last46=Touil-Boukoffa|first46=Chafia|last47=Wang|first47=Junhua|last48=Zeyhle|first48=Eberhard|last49=Aji|first49=Tuerganaili|last50=Akhan|first50=Okan|last51=Bresson-Hadni|first51=Solange|last52=Dziri|first52=Chadli|last53=Gräter|first53=Tilmann|last54=Grüner|first54=Beate|last55=Haïf|first55=Assia|last56=Hillenbrand|first56=Andreas|last57=Koch|first57=Stéphane|last58=Rogan|first58=Michael T.|last59=Tamarozzi|first59=Francesca|last60=Tuxun|first60=Tuerhongjiang|last61=Giraudoux|first61=Patrick|last62=Torgerson|first62=Paul|last63=Vizcaychipi|first63=Katherina|last64=Xiao|first64=Ning|last65=Altintas|first65=Nazmiye|last66=Lin|first66=Renyong|last67=Millon|first67=Laurence|last68=Zhang|first68=Wenbao|last69=Achour|first69=Karima|last70=Fan|first70=Haining|last71=Junghanss|first71=Thomas|last72=Mantion|first72=Georges A.|title=International consensus on terminology to be used in the field of echinococcoses|journal=Parasite|volume=27|year=2020|pages=41|issn=1776-1042|doi=10.1051/parasite/2020024|url= |pmid=32500855|pmc=7273836|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref>

==Signs and symptoms==
[[File:Parasite180022-4-olm Cystic echinococcosis in a cat.ogg|thumb|Removal of cysts (here, from a definitive host, a cat)]]
[[Image:Cotton rat infected with Echinococcus multilocularis 3MG0020 lores.jpg|thumb|Cysts in a [[cotton rat]]]]
[[Image:Laminated liver cyst wall - high mag.jpg|thumb|[[Micrograph]] showing the characteristic laminated cyst wall.[[H&E stain]].]]

In the human manifestation of the disease, ''E. granulosus'', ''E. multilocularis'', ''E. oligarthrus'' and ''E. vogeli'' are localized in the liver (in 75% of cases), the lungs (in 5–15% of cases) and other organs in the body such as the spleen, brain, heart, and kidneys (in 10–20% of cases). In people who are infected with ''E. granulosus'' and therefore have cystic echinococcosis, the disease develops as a slow-growing mass in the body. These slow-growing masses, often called cysts, are also found in people that are infected with alveolar and polycystic echinococcosis.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

The cysts found in those with cystic echinococcosis are usually filled with a clear fluid called hydatid fluid, are spherical, and typically consist of one compartment and are usually only found in one area of the body. While the cysts found in those with alveolar and polycystic echinococcosis are similar to those found in those with cystic echinococcosis, the alveolar and polycystic echinococcosis cysts usually have multiple compartments and have infiltrative as opposed to expansive growth.<ref name="TappeDennis" /><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Canda MS, Canda T, Astarcioglu H, Güray M |title=The Pathology of Echinococcosis and the Current Echinococcosis Problem in Western Turkey |journal=Turk J Med Sci |volume=33 |pages=369–374 |year=2003 |url=http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/medical/issues/sag-03-33-6/sag-33-6-5-0209-8.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928075250/http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/medical/issues/sag-03-33-6/sag-33-6-5-0209-8.pdf |archive-date=28 September 2011 }}</ref>

Depending on the location of the cyst in the body, the person could be asymptomatic even though the cysts have grown to be very large, or be symptomatic even if the cysts are absolutely tiny. If the person is symptomatic, the symptoms will depend largely on where the cysts are located. For instance, if the person has cysts in the lungs and is symptomatic, they will have a cough, shortness of breath and/or pain in the chest.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

On the other hand, if the person has cysts in the liver and is symptomatic, they will suffer from abdominal pain, abnormal abdominal tenderness, hepatomegaly with an abdominal mass, jaundice, fever and/or anaphylactic reaction. In addition, if the cysts were to rupture while in the body, whether during surgical extraction of the cysts or by trauma to the body, the person would most likely go into anaphylactic shock and suffer from high fever, pruritus (itching), edema (swelling) of the lips and eyelids, dyspnea, stridor and rhinorrhea.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bitton M, Kleiner-Baumgarten A, Peiser J, Barki Y, Sukenik S |title=Anaphylactic shock after traumatic rupture of a splenic echinococcal cyst |language=he |journal=Harefuah |volume=122 |issue=4 |pages=226–8 |date=February 1992 |pmid=1563683 }}</ref>

Unlike intermediate hosts, definitive hosts are usually not hurt very much by the infection. Sometimes, a lack of certain vitamins and minerals can be caused in the host by the very high demand of the parasite.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

The incubation period for all species of ''Echinococcus'' can be months to years, or even decades.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Kemp C, Roberts A |title=Infectious diseases: echinococcosis (hydatid disease) |journal=J Am Acad Nurse Pract |volume=13 |issue=8 |pages=346–7 |date=August 2001 |pmid=11930567 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-7599.2001.tb00047.x}}</ref> It largely depends on the location of the cyst in the body and how fast the cyst is growing.<ref name=Eckert04 />

==Cause==
Also like many other parasite infections, the course of ''Echinococcus'' infection is complex. The worm has a life cycle that requires [[intermediate host|definitive hosts]] and [[intermediate host]]s. Definitive hosts are normally [[carnivores]] such as dogs, while intermediate hosts are usually [[herbivores]] such as sheep and cattle. Humans function as accidental
hosts, because they are usually a dead end for the parasitic infection cycle.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

===Hosts===
[[File:Renardrouxcampagnol.jpg|thumb|Red fox with rodent]]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Organism !! Definitive Hosts!! Intermediate Hosts
|-
|''E. granulosus''|| dogs and other canidae || sheep, goats, cattle, camel, buffalo, swine, kangaroos, and other wild herbivores
|-
|''E. multilocularis''|| foxes, dogs, other canidae and cats || small rodents
|-
|''E. vogeli''|| bush dogs and dogs || rodents
|-
|''E. oligarthrus''||wild felids<ref name="dpd" /><ref name="Sréter03"/> || small rodents<ref name="dpd" /><ref name="Sréter03" />
|}

===Life cycle===
An adult worm resides in the small intestine of a definitive host. A single gravid proglottid releases eggs that are passed in the feces of the definitive host. The egg is then ingested by an intermediate host. The egg then hatches in the small intestine of the intermediate host and releases an oncosphere that penetrates the intestinal wall and moves through the circulatory system into different organs, in particular the liver and lungs. Once it has invaded these organs, the oncosphere develops into a cyst. The cyst then slowly enlarges, creating protoscolices (juvenile [[Cestoda#Scolex|scolices]]), and daughter cysts within the cyst. The definitive host then becomes infected after ingesting the cyst-containing organs of the infected intermediate host. After ingestion, the protoscolices attach to the intestine. They then develop into adult worms and the cycle starts all over again.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

===Eggs===
[[Image:Echinococcus Egg.jpg|thumb|''Echinococcus'' egg in feces]]
[[Image:Echinococcus Proscolices.jpg|thumb|Protoscolices being released from a hydatid cyst]]
''Echinococcus'' eggs contain an embryo that is called an [[oncosphere]] or hexcanth. The name of this embryo stems from the fact that these embryos have six hooklets. The eggs are passed through the feces of the definitive host and it is the ingestion of these eggs that lead to infection in the intermediate host.<ref name="JohnDavid" />

===Larval/hydatid cyst stage===
From the embryo released from an egg develops a ''hydatid cyst'', which grows to about 5–10 cm within the first year and is able to survive within organs for years.<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Ch. 290 |editor1-first=Gerald L. |editor1-last=Mandell |editor2-first=John Eugene |editor2-last=Bennett |editor3-first=Raphael |editor3-last=Dolin |title=Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases |publisher=Elsevier |year=2010 |isbn=978-0443068393 |edition=7th}}</ref> Cysts sometimes grow to be so large that by the end of several years or even decades, they can contain several liters of fluid. Once a cyst has reached a diameter of 1 cm, its wall differentiates into a thick outer, non-cellular membrane, which covers the thin germinal epithelium. From this epithelium, cells begin to grow within the cyst. These cells then become vacuolated, and are known as brood capsules, which are the parts of the parasite from which protoscolices bud. Often, daughter cysts also form within cysts.<ref name="JohnDavid" />

===Adult worm===
''Echinococcus'' adult worms develop from protoscolices and are typically 6 mm or less in length and have a scolex, neck and typically three proglottids, one of which is immature, another of which is mature and the third of which is gravid (or containing eggs).<ref name="JohnDavid" /> The scolex of the adult worm contains four suckers and a [[Rostellum (helminth)|rostellum]] that has about 25–50 hooks.<ref>{{cite web |title=Echinococcosis |date= 17 April 2019|work=DPDx. Parasite Image Library |publisher=CDC |url=http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/ImageLibrary/Echinococcosis_il.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100304141540/http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/ImageLibrary/Echinococcosis_il.htm |archive-date=4 March 2010 }}</ref>

===Morphological differences===
The major morphological difference among different species of ''Echinococcus'' is the length of the tapeworm. ''E. granulosus'' is approximately 2 to 7 mm while ''E. multilocularis'' is often smaller and is 4 mm or less.<ref name=Eckert04>{{cite journal |vauthors=Eckert J, Deplazes P |title=Biological, epidemiological, and clinical aspects of echinococcosis, a zoonosis of increasing concern |journal=Clin. Microbiol. Rev. |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=107–35 |date=January 2004 |pmid=14726458 |pmc=321468 |doi=10.1128/cmr.17.1.107-135.2004 }}</ref> On the other hand, ''E. vogeli'' is found to be up to 5.6 mm long and ''E. oligarthrus'' is found to be up to 2.9 mm long.<ref name="dpd" /> In addition to the difference in length, there are also differences in the hydatid cysts of the different species. For instance, in ''E. multilocularis'', the cysts have an ultra thin limiting membrane and the germinal epithelium may bud externally. Furthermore, ''E. granulosus'' cysts are unilocular and full of fluid while ''E. multilocularis'' cysts contain little fluid and are multilocular. For ''E. vogeli'', its hydatid cysts are large and are actually polycystic since the germinal membrane of the hydatid cyst actually proliferates both inward, to create septa that divide the hydatid into sections, and outward, to create new cysts. Like ''E. granulosus'' cysts, ''E. vogeli'' cysts are filled with fluid.<ref name="JohnDavid" />

===Transmission===
As one can see from the life cycles illustrated above, all disease-causing species of ''Echinococcus'' are transmitted to intermediate hosts via the ingestion of eggs and are transmitted to definitive hosts by means of eating infected, cyst-containing organs. Humans are accidental intermediate hosts that become infected by handling soil, dirt or animal hair that contains eggs.<ref name=Eckert04 />

While there are no biological or mechanical vectors for the adult or larval form of any ''Echinococcus'' species, coprophagic flies, carrion birds and arthropods can act as mechanical vectors for the eggs.<ref>{{cite web |title=''Echinococcus granulosus'' |date=2001 |work=Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) |publisher=Public Healthy Agency of Canada |url=http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/msds-ftss/msds54e-eng.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100305181917/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/msds-ftss/msds54e-eng.php |archive-date=5 March 2010 }}</ref>

===Aberrant cases===
There are a few aberrant cases in which carnivores play the role of the intermediate hosts. Examples are domestic cats with hydatid cysts of ''E. granulosus.''<ref name="BonelliMasu2018">{{cite journal|last1=Bonelli|first1=Piero|last2=Masu|first2=Gabriella|last3=Giudici|first3=Silvia Dei|last4=Pintus|first4=Davide|last5=Peruzzu|first5=Angela|last6=Piseddu|first6=Toni|last7=Santucciu|first7=Cinzia|last8=Cossu|first8=Assunta|last9=Demurtas|first9=Nicola|last10=Masala|first10=Giovanna|title=Cystic echinococcosis in a domestic cat (''Felis catus'') in Italy|journal=Parasite|volume=25|year=2018|pages=25|issn=1776-1042|doi=10.1051/parasite/2018027|pmid=29727269|pmc=5935470}} {{open access}}</ref>

==Diagnosis==
[[File:Polycystic echinococcosis affecting the left side of the liver.jpg|thumbnail|right|Computed tomography (A) and magnetic resonance (B) images of the liver of a 72-year-old man from French Guiana with polycystic echinococcosis affecting the left side of the liver. White arrows indicate the multicystic liver lesion.]]
[[File:İndirekt Hemaglütinasyon Deneyi.jpg|thumb|Indirect hemagglutination assay for human echinococcosis. Different serum samples diluted from the left to the right. Seropositivity was suspected in Sample 179]]

===Classification===
The most common form found in humans is cystic echinococcosis (also known as unilocular echinococcosis), which is caused by ''[[Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato]]''. The second most common form is [[alveolar hydatid disease|alveolar echinococcosis]] (also known as alveolar colloid of the liver, alveolar hydatid disease, alveolococcosis, multilocular echinococcosis, "small fox tapeworm"), which is caused by ''[[Echinococcus multilocularis]]'' and the third is polycystic echinococcosis (also known as human polycystic hydatid disease, neotropical echinococcosis), which is caused by ''[[Echinococcus vogeli]]'' and very rarely, ''[[Echinococcus oligarthrus]]''. Alveolar and polycystic echinococcosis are rarely diagnosed in humans and are not as widespread as cystic echinococcosis, but polycystic echinococcosis is relatively new on the medical scene and is often left out of conversations dealing with echinococcosis, and alveolar echinococcosis is a serious disease that has not only a significantly high fatality rate, but the potential to become an emerging disease in many countries.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

===Cystic===
A formal diagnosis of any type of echinococcosis requires a combination of tools that involve imaging techniques, histopathology, or nucleic acid detection and serology. For cystic echinococcosis diagnosis, imaging is the main method—while serology tests (such as indirect hemogglutination, ELISA (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay), immunoblots or latex agglutination) that use antigens specific for ''E. granulosus'' verify the imaging results. The imaging technique of choice for cystic echinococcosis is ultrasonography, since it is not only able to visualize the cysts in the body's organs,<ref name="BrunettiEnrico">{{cite journal |vauthors=Brunetti E, Kern P, Vuitton DA |title=Expert consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of cystic and alveolar echinococcosis in humans |journal=Acta Trop. |volume=114 |issue=1 |pages=1–16 |date=April 2010 |pmid=19931502 |doi=10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.11.001 |doi-access=free }}</ref> but it is also inexpensive, non-invasive and gives instant results.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Macpherson CN, Milner R |title=Performance characteristics and quality control of community based ultrasound surveys for cystic and alveolar echinococcosis |journal=Acta Trop. |volume=85 |issue=2 |pages=203–9 |date=February 2003 |pmid=12606098 |doi=10.1016/s0001-706x(02)00224-3}}</ref> In addition to ultrasonography, both MRI and CT scans can and are often used although an MRI is often preferred to CT scans when diagnosing cystic echinococcosis since it gives better visualization of liquid areas within the tissue.<ref name="BrunettiEnrico" />

===Alveolar===
As with cystic echinococcosis, ultrasonography is the imaging technique of choice for alveolar echinococcosis and is usually complemented by CT scans since CT scans are able to detect the largest number of lesions and calcifications that are characteristic of alveolar echinococcosis. MRIs are also used in combination with ultrasonography though CT scans are preferred. Like cystic echinococcosis, imaging is the major method used for the diagnosis of alveolar echinococcosis while the same types of serologic tests (except now specific for ''E. multilocularis'' antigens) are used to verify the imaging results. It is also important to note that serologic tests are more valuable for the diagnosis of alveolar echinococcosis than for cystic echinococcosis since they tend to be more reliable for alveolar echinococcosis since more antigens specific for ''E. multilocularis'' are available.<ref name=Eckert04 /> In addition to imaging and serology, identification of ''E. multilocularis'' infection via PCR or a histological examination of a tissue biopsy from the person is another way to diagnose alveolar echinococcosis.<ref name="BrunettiEnrico" />

===Polycystic===
Similar to the diagnosis of alveolar echinococcosis and cystic echinococcosis, the diagnosis of polycystic echinococcosis uses imaging techniques, in particular ultrasonography and CT scans, to detect polycystic structures within the person's body. However, imaging is not the preferred method of diagnosis since the method that is currently considered the standard is the isolation of protoscoleces during surgery or after the person's death and the identification of definitive features of ''E. oligarthrus'' and ''E. vogeli'' in these isolated protoscoleces. This is the main way that PE is diagnosed, but some current studies show that PCR may identify ''E. oligarthrus'' and ''E. vogeli'' in people's tissues.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Knapp J, Chirica M, Simonnet C, etal |title=''Echinococcus vogeli'' infection in a hunter, French Guiana |journal=Emerging Infect. Dis. |volume=15 |issue=12 |pages=2029–31 |date=December 2009 |pmid=19961693 |pmc=3044547 |doi=10.3201/eid1512.090940 }}</ref> The only drawback of using PCR to diagnose polycystic echinococcosis is that there aren't many genetic sequences that can be used for PCR that are specific only ''E. oligarthrus'' or ''E. vogeli''.<ref name=Eckert04 />

==Prevention==
[[File:Parasite140085-fig1 Boiling sheep livers containing hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus).tif|thumb|Boiling sheep livers containing hydatid cysts for 30 minutes kills the cestode larvae – a simple method for prevention in remote areas<ref name="LiWu2014"/>]]

===Cystic echinococcosis===
There are several different strategies that are currently being used to prevent and control cystic echinococcosis (CE). Most of these various methods try to prevent and control CE by targeting the major risk factors for the disease and the way it is transmitted. For instance, health education programs focused on cystic echinococcosis and its agents, and improved water sanitation attempt to target poor education and poor drinking water sources, which are both risk factors for contracting echinococcosis. Furthermore, since humans often come into contact with ''Echinococcus'' eggs via touching contaminated soil, animal feces and animal hair, another prevention strategy is improved hygiene. In addition to targeting risk factors and transmission, control and prevention strategies of cystic echinococcosis also aim at intervening at certain points of the parasite's life cycle, in particular, the infection of hosts (especially dogs) that reside with or near humans. For example, many countries endemic to echinococcosis have implemented programs geared at de-worming dogs and vaccinating dogs and other livestock, such as sheep, that also act as hosts for ''E. granulosus''.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

Proper disposal of carcasses and offal after home slaughter is difficult in poor and remote communities and therefore dogs readily have access to offal from livestock, thus completing the parasite cycle of ''Echinococcus granulosus'' and putting communities at risk of cystic echinococcosis. Boiling livers and lungs that contain hydatid cysts for 30 minutes has been proposed as a simple, efficient and energy- and time-saving way to kill the infectious larvae.<ref name="LiWu2014">{{cite journal|last1=Li|first1=Jun|last2=Wu|first2=Chuanchuan|last3=Wang|first3=Hui|last4=Liu|first4=Huanyuan|last5=Vuitton|first5=Dominique A.|last6=Wen|first6=Hao|last7=Zhang|first7=Wenbao|title=Boiling sheep liver or lung for 30 minutes is necessary and sufficient to kill ''Echinococcus granulosus'' protoscoleces in hydatid cysts|journal=Parasite|volume=21|year=2014|pages=64|issn=1776-1042|doi=10.1051/parasite/2014064|pmid=25456565|pmc=4251422}}{{open access}}</ref>

===Alveolar echinococcosis===
A number of strategies are geared towards prevention and control of alveolar echinococcosis—most of which are similar to those for cystic echinococcosis. For instance, health education programs, improved water sanitation, improved hygiene and de-worming of hosts (particularly red foxes) are all effective to prevent and control the spread of alveolar echinococcosis. Unlike cystic echinococcosis, however, where there is a vaccine against ''E. granulosus'', there is currently no canidae or livestock vaccine against ''E. multilocularis''.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Craig PS, McManus DP, Lightowlers MW, etal |title=Prevention and control of cystic echinococcosis |journal=Lancet Infect Dis |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=385–94 |date=June 2007 |pmid=17521591 |doi=10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70134-2 }}</ref>

===Polycystic echinococcosis===
While a number of control and prevention strategies deal with cystic and alveolar echinococcosis, there are few methods to control and prevent polycystic echinococcosis. This is probably due to the fact that polycystic echinococcosis is restricted to Central and South America, and that the way that humans become accidental hosts of ''E. oligarthrus'' and ''E. vogeli'' is still not completely understood.<ref name=Eckert04 />

===Human vaccines===
Currently there are no human vaccines against any form of echinococcosis. However, there are studies being conducted that are looking at possible vaccine candidates for an effective human vaccine against echinococcosis.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Dang Z, Yagi K, Oku Y, etal |title=Evaluation of ''Echinococcus multilocularis'' tetraspanins as vaccine candidates against primary alveolar echinococcosis |journal=Vaccine |volume=27 |issue=52 |pages=7339–45 |date=December 2009 |pmid=19782112 |doi=10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.09.045 |citeseerx=10.1.1.539.7799 }}</ref>

==Treatment==

===Cystic===
[[File:Vuitton et al - International consensus on terminology - parasite200043-fig3.png|thumb|left|International consensus on nomenclature framework for cystic echinococcosis surgery]]

For simple cases of cystic echinococcosis, the most common form of treatment is open surgical removal of the cysts combined with chemotherapy using [[albendazole]] and/or [[mebendazole]] before and after surgery. However, if there are cysts in multiple organs or tissues, or the cysts are in risky locations, surgery becomes impractical. For inoperable cases such as these, chemotherapy and/or [[PAIR (puncture-aspiration-injection-reaspiration)]] become alternative options of treatment.<ref name=Eckert04 /> In the case of alternative treatment using just chemotherapy, albendazole is preferred twice a day for 1–5 months.<ref name=DPDxTapeworm>{{cite web |title=The Medical Letter (Drugs for Parasitic Infections) |date=20 July 2009 |publisher=DPDx, CDC |url=http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/hTML/PDF_Files/MedLetter/TapewormInfection.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100304174546/http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/PDF_Files/MedLetter/TapewormInfection.pdf |archive-date=4 March 2010 }}</ref> An alternative to albendazole is mebendazole for at least 3 to 6 months. The other alternative to surgery is PAIR with chemotherapy. PAIR is a minimally invasive procedure that involves three steps: puncture and needle aspiration of the cyst, injection of a [[scolicidal]] solution for 20–30 min, and cyst-re-aspiration and final irrigation. People who undergo PAIR typically take albendazole or mebendazole from 7 days before the procedure until 28 days after the procedure.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

While open surgery still remains as the standard for cystic echinococcosis treatment, there have been a number of studies that suggest that PAIR with chemotherapy is more effective than surgery in terms of disease recurrence, and morbidity and mortality.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Park KH, Jung SI, Jang HC, Shin JH |title=First successful puncture, aspiration, injection, and re-aspiration of hydatid cyst in the liver presenting with anaphylactic shock in Korea |journal=Yonsei Med. J. |volume=50 |issue=5 |pages=717–20 |date=October 2009 |pmid=19881979 |pmc=2768250 |doi=10.3349/ymj.2009.50.5.717 }}</ref> In addition to the three above mentioned treatments, there is currently research and studies looking at new treatment involving percutaneous thermal ablation (PTA) of the germinal layer in the cyst by means of a radiofrequency ablation device. This form of treatment is still relatively new and requires much more testing before being widely used.<ref name=Eckert04 /> An alternative to open surgery is laparoscopic surgery, which provides excellent cure rates with minimal morbidity and mortality.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Jani K |title=Spillage-free laparoscopic management of hepatic hydatid disease using the hydatid trocar canula |journal=J Minim Access Surg |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=113–8 |date=July 2014 |pmid=25013326 |pmc=4083542 |doi=10.4103/0972-9941.134873 }}</ref>

===Alveolar===
For alveolar echinococcosis, surgical removal of cysts combined with chemotherapy (using albendazole and/or mebendazole) for up to two years after surgery is the only sure way to completely cure the disease.<ref name=DPDxTapeworm/> However, in inoperable cases, chemotherapy by itself can also be used. In treatment using just chemotherapy, one could use either mebendazole in three doses or albendazole in two doses. Since chemotherapy on its own is not guaranteed to completely rid of the disease, people are often kept on the drugs for extended periods of times (i.e. more than 6 months, years). In addition to surgery and chemotherapy, liver transplants are being looked into as a form of treatment for alveolar echinococcosis although it is seen as incredibly risky since it often leads to echinococcosis re-infection in the person afterwards.<ref name=Eckert04 />

===Polycystic===
Since polycystic echinococcosis is constrained to such a particular area of the world and is not well described or found in many people, treatment of polycystic echinococcosis is less defined than that of cystic and alveolar echinococcosis. While surgical removal of cysts was the treatment of choice for the previous two types of echinococcosis, chemotherapy is the recommended treatment approach for polycystic echinococcosis. While albendazole is the preferred drug, mebendazole can also be used if the treatment is to be for an extended period of time. Only if chemotherapy fails or if the lesions are very small is surgery advised.<ref name=Eckert04 />

==Epidemiology==
[[File:Populations at Risk for Alveolar Echinococcosis, France.jpg|thumb|Location of people, controls, and areas in France where persons are at risk for alveolar echinococcosis. See legend below the image.]]

=== Regions ===
Very few countries are considered to be completely free of ''E. granulosus''.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Budke CM, Deplazes P, Torgerson PR |title=Global socioeconomic impact of cystic echinococcosis |journal=Emerging Infect. Dis. |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=296–303 |date=February 2006 |pmid=16494758 |pmc=3373106 |doi=10.3201/eid1202.050499 }}</ref> Areas of the world where there is a high rate of infection often coincide with rural, grazing areas where dogs are able to ingest organs from infected animals.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

''E. multilocularis'' mainly occurs in the Northern hemisphere, including central Europe and the northern parts of Europe, Asia, and North America.<ref name="MassoloLiccioli2014">{{cite journal|last1=Massolo|first1=Alessandro|last2=Liccioli|first2=Stefano|last3=Budke|first3=Christine|last4=Klein|first4=Claudia|title=''Echinococcus multilocularis'' in North America: the great unknown|journal=Parasite|volume=21|year=2014|pages=73|issn=1776-1042|doi=10.1051/parasite/2014069|pmid=25531581|pmc=4273702|url=}}</ref> However, its distribution was not always like this.<ref name="dpd">{{ cite web | author = CDC | title = Parasites and Health: Echinococcosis | publisher = CDC | year = 2010 | url = http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/DPDx/html/Echinococcosis.htm | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100304104002/http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Echinococcosis.htm | archive-date = 4 March 2010 | df = dmy-all }}</ref> For instance, until the end of the 1980s, ''E. multilocularis'' endemic areas in Europe were known to exist only in France, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. But during the 1990s and early 2000s, there was a shift in the distribution of ''E. multilocularis'' as the infection rate of foxes escalated in certain parts of France and Germany.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

As a result, several new endemic areas were found in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria and surrounding countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, and Italy. There is also evidence showing that the Baltic Countries are endemic areas.<ref name=lassen>{{cite journal | last1 = Lassen| first1 = B. | last2 = Janson| first2 = M. | last3 = Viltrop| first3 = A. | last4 = Neare | first4 = K. | last5 = Hütt | first5 = P. | last6 = Golovljova | first6 = I. | last7 = Tummeleht | first7 = L. | last8 = Jokelainen| first8 = P. | year = 2016 | title = Serological Evidence of Exposure to Globally Relevant Zoonotic Parasites in the Estonian Population | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0164142 | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 11 | issue = 10 | pages =e0164142 | pmid = 27723790 | pmc = 5056716 | bibcode = 2016PLoSO..1164142L }}</ref><ref name="Marcinkutė" >{{cite journal | last1 = Marcinkutė | first1 = A. | last2 = Moks | first2 = E. | last3 = Saarma | first3 = U. | last4 = Jokelainen | first4 = P. | last5 = Bagrade | first5 = G. | last6 = Laivacuma | first6 = S. | last7 = Strupas | first7 = K. | last8 = Sokolovas | first8 = V. | last9 = Deplazes | first9 = P. | year = 2015 | title = Echinococcus infections in the Baltic region | doi = 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.07.032 | journal = Vet Par | volume = 213| issue = 3–4 | pages =121–31 | pmid = 26324242| doi-access = free }}</ref>

While alveolar echinococcosis is not extremely common, it is believed that in the coming years it will be an emerging or re-emerging disease in certain countries as a result of ''E. multilocularis''’ ability to spread.<ref name="Sréter03">{{cite journal |vauthors=Sréter T, Széll Z, Egyed Z, Varga I | title = ''Echinococcus multilocularis'': an Emerging Pathogen in Hungary and Central Eastern Europe | journal = Emerging Infectious Diseases | year = 2003 | volume = 9 | issue = 3 | pages = 384–6 | pmid = 12643838 | pmc = 2958538 | doi=10.3201/eid0903.020320}}</ref>{{update after|2015|7|8}}

Unlike the previous two species of ''Echinococcus'', ''E. vogeli'' and ''E. oligarthrus'' are limited to Central and South America. Furthermore, infections by ''E. vogeli'' and ''E. oligarthrus'' (polycystic echinococcosis) are considered to be the rarest form of echinococcosis.<ref name="JohnDavid">{{cite book |first1=David T. |last1=John |first2=William A. |last2=William Petri |first3=Edward K. |last3=Markell |first4=Marietta |last4=Voge |title=Markell and Voge's Medical Parasitology |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-QSZD783cdsC&pg=PA224 |date=January 2006 |publisher=Elsevier Health Sciences |isbn=978-0-7216-4793-7 |pages=224–231 |edition=9th |chapter=7: The Cestodes: ''Echinococcus granulosus'', ''E. multiloularis'' and ''E. vogeli'' (Hyatid Disease) |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908220823/https://books.google.com/books?id=-QSZD783cdsC&pg=PA224 |archive-date=8 September 2017 }}</ref>

=== Deaths ===
As of 2010 it caused about 1200 deaths, down from 2000 in 1990.<ref name="Loz2012" />

==Largest discovery==
The largest hydatid cyst discovered contained 37 litres of fluid and was removed from an 80-year-old at the King Fahd Central Hospital in [[Jizan]], [[Saudi Arabia]], on 12 January 2005. The main cyst had multiple daughter cysts attached and was found in his [[abdomen]].<ref>{{Cite web |url = http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-hydatid-cyst |title = Largest hydatid cyst |website = Guinness World Records |access-date = 25 February 2016 |url-status = live |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160305231321/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-hydatid-cyst |archive-date = 5 March 2016 |df = dmy-all}}</ref>

==History==
[[File:Parasite130094-fig2 Cysts and laminated layer.tif|thumb|Laminated layer of a cyst found in a corpse in a grave from the late Roman period in France, interpreted<ref name=Mowlavi>{{Cite journal |last1=Mowlavi |first1=G. |last2=Kacki |first2=S. |last3=Dupouy-Camet |first3=J. |last4=Mobedi |first4=I. |last5=Makki |first5=M. |last6=Harandi |first6=MF. |last7=Naddaf |first7=SR. |title=Probable hepatic capillariosis and hydatidosis in an adolescent from the late Roman period buried in Amiens (France) |journal=Parasite |volume=21 |at=Article no. 9 |year=2014 |doi=10.1051/parasite/2014010 |pmid=24572211 |pmc=3936287 }}</ref> as a probable hydatidosis cyst]]

Echinococcosis is a disease that has been recognized by humans for centuries. There has been mention of it in the [[Talmud]]. It was also recognized by ancient scholars such as [[Hippocrates]], [[Aretaeus]], [[Galen]] and [[Rhazes]]. Although echinococcosis has been well known for the past two thousand years, it was not until the past couple of hundred years that real progress was made in determining and describing its parasitic origin. The first step towards figuring out the cause of echinococcosis occurred during the 17th century when [[Francesco Redi]] illustrated that the hydatid cysts of echinococcosis were of "animal" origin. Then, in 1766, [[Pierre Simon Pallas]] predicted that these hydatid cysts found in infected humans were actually larval stages of tapeworms.{{cn|date=May 2021}}

A few decades afterwards, in 1782, [[Johann August Ephraim Goeze|Goeze]] accurately described the cysts and the tapeworm heads, while in 1786 ''E. granulosus'' was accurately described by [[August Batsch|Batsch]]. Half a century later, during the 1850s, [[Karl Theodor Ernst von Siebold|Karl von Siebold]] showed through a series of experiments that ''Echinococcus'' cysts do cause adult tapeworms in dogs. Shortly after this, in 1863, ''E. multilocularis'' was identified by [[Rudolf Leuckart]]. Then, during the early to mid 1900s, the more distinct features of ''E. granulosus'' and ''E. multilocularis'', their life cycles and how they cause disease were more fully described as more and more people began researching and performing experiments and studies. While ''E. granulosus'' and ''E. multilocularis'' were both linked to human echinococcosis before or shortly after the 20th century, it was not until the mid 1900s that ''E. oligarthrus'' and ''E. vogeli'' were identified as and shown as being causes of human echinococcosis.<ref name="TappeDennis">{{cite journal |vauthors=Tappe D, Stich A, Frosch M |title=Emergence of polycystic neotropical echinococcosis |journal=Emerging Infect. Dis. |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=292–7 |date=February 2008 |pmid=18258123 |pmc=2600197 |doi=10.3201/eid1402.070742 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Howorth MB |title=Echinococcosis Of Bone |journal=J Bone Joint Surg Am |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=401–411 |date=July 1945 |url=http://jbjs.org/content/27/3/401 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160924162716/http://jbjs.org/content/27/3/401 |archive-date=24 September 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Connolly |first=Stephanie |title=Echinococcosis |date=2006 |url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/parasites/ParaSites2006/Echinococcus/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081210161319/http://www.stanford.edu/group/parasites/ParaSites2006/Echinococcus/index.html |archive-date=10 December 2008 }}</ref>

Two calcified objects recovered from a 3rd- to 4th-century grave of an adolescent in Amiens (Northern France) were interpreted as probable hydatid cysts.<ref name=Mowlavi/> A study of remains from two 8,000-year-old cemeteries in Siberia showed presence of echinococcosis.<ref>Viegas, Jennifer [http://news.discovery.com/animals/dogs-and-women-140718.htm "Dogs Were a Prehistoric Woman's Best Friend, Too"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141218104345/http://news.discovery.com/animals/dogs-and-women-140718.htm |date=18 December 2014 }} ''[[Discovery Communications]]'', 17 July 2014. Retrieved on 25 November 2014.</ref>
{{Clear}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
* {{Cite book|author1=Alimuddin I. Zumla|author-link=Alimuddin Zumla|author2=Gordon C. Cook|author3=Patrick Manson|title=Manson's tropical diseases |publisher=Saunders |location=Philadelphia |year=2003 |chapter=Section 10: Helminthic Infections 83. Echinococcosis/Hydatidosis |isbn=978-0-7020-2640-9 }}
* {{cite journal |vauthors=Vuitton DA, Millon L, Gottstein B, Giraudoux P |title=Proceedings of the international symposium — innovation for the management of echinococcosis. Besançon, March 27–29, 2014 |journal=Parasite |volume=21 |page=28 |year=2014 |doi=10.1051/parasite/2014024 |pmc=4071351 }}{{open access}}

==External links==
{{offline|med}}
* [https://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/diseases/echinococcosis/en/ WHO Echinococcosis Page]
* [https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/echinococcosis/index.html CDC Echinococcosis Page]
* [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/ImageLibrary/A-F/Echinococcosis/body_Echinococcosis_il1.htm Images of Echinococcus at CDC]
* [http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Media_Center/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/ECHI-EN.pdf Disease card from World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)]
{{Medical condition classification and resources|
ICD10 = {{ICD10|B|67||b|65}} |
ICD9 = {{ICD9|122.4}}, {{ICD9|122}} |
ICDO = |
OMIM = |
DiseasesDB = 4048 |
MedlinePlus = |
eMedicineSubj = med |
eMedicineTopic = 629 |
eMedicine_mult = {{eMedicine2|med|1046}} |
MeshID = D004443
}}
{{Helminthiases}}
{{Dog nav}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Dog diseases]]
[[Category:Neglected tropical diseases]]
[[Category:Tropical diseases]]
[[Category:Helminthiases]]
[[Category:Zoonoses]]
[[Category:Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites of the skin]]
[[Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate]]
[[Category:RTTID]]

DragonMoor

2026-07-21T23:23:21Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Infobox website
| name = DragonMoor
| logo = Banner-derpy2_100px.png
| company_type = Marketplace
| website_type = Forum
| founded = {{Start date and age|2019}}
| dissolved = 2025
| url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20250318011235/https://dragonmoor.com/index.php dragonmoor.com]
}}
'''DragonMoor''' was a website that offered a marketplace for the reselling of animal-related adult toys by members that no longer needed them. The site closed in 2025 and the domain name has since been usurped by a known malware publisher; extreme caution is advised when visiting the domain.

[[Category:Websites]]

Doxxed

2026-07-21T23:23:21Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

#REDIRECT [[Outing]]

Douglas "Fausty" Spink

2026-07-21T23:23:20Z

Wiki: 1 revision imported

{{Infobox person
| name = Douglas Spink
| other_names = "Fausty"
| image = Fausty hiking with dogs.webp
| image_size = 360
| alt = Douglas Spink photographed outdoors, crouching with both arms resting on a dog at each side
| caption = Spink hiking with two of his dogs in Washington State
| birth_name = Douglas Bryan LeConte-Spink
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1971|3|17}}
| birth_place = [[wikipedia:Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2020|1|23|1971|3|17}}
| death_place = [[wikipedia:Harmony, Pennsylvania|Harmony, Pennsylvania]]
| death_cause = [[wikipedia:Lymphoma|Lymphoma]]
| citizenship = [[wikipedia:United States of America|United States]]
| education = {{Unbulleted indent list|[[wikipedia:Reed College|Reed College]] {{Nowrap|(1993, [[wikipedia:Bachelor of Arts|B.A.]] [[wikipedia:Cultural anthropology|Cultural anthropology]])}}|[[wikipedia:University of Chicago|University of Chicago]] {{Nowrap|([[wikipedia:Master of Business Administration|M.B.A.]] [[wikipedia:Marketing management|Marketing management]])}}}}
| occupation = {{Hlist|Entrepreneur|[[Zoophile]] advocate}}
| known_for = {{Hlist|[[Baneki]]|Cross Species Alliance}}
| years_active = 2002–2020
| spouse = Judy Spink (née Slayton), 1994–2003
| father = Jack Derry Spink
| mother = Claire Spink
}}
'''Douglas "Fausty" Spink''' ({{#formatdate:1971-03-17|mdy}} – {{#formatdate:2020-01-23|mdy}}) was a famous [[Zoophilia|zoophile]] and a central character in the book [[Uniquely Dangerous]]. He also co-founded the podcast [[Zooier Than Thou]] in 2019, which continues to produce new episodes following his death from [[wikipedia:Lymphoma|lymphoma]] in January 2020.

== Early life ==
Douglas was born to parents Jack Derry and Claire Spink on {{#formatdate:1971-03-17|mdy}} in [[wikipedia:Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh]], [[wikipedia:Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania]], their second and final child. Raised in the nearby suburb of [[wikipedia:Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania|Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania]], he spent his early years (ages 2-4) pony riding and fox hunting. By the age of 12, he had won two young pony hunter championships. After completing his secondary education at a private academy, he attended [[wikipedia:Reed College|Reed College]] in [[wikipedia:Portland, Oregon|Portland, Oregon]], where he often brought his [[wikipedia:Golden Retriever|Golden Retriever]] ''Gifford'' to class with him.

In 1993, Spink was awarded a Bachelor of Arts in Cultural Anthropology from Reed. Later that summer, he found work at a dog breeding service and it was there that he had his first sexual experience with a canine. The next year he relocated to Chicago where he became married and started a career at the local office of Boston Consulting Group, rising to the position of Financial Director of Safecard Services. At that time he was also accepted into the [[wikipedia:University of Chicago|University of Chicago]]'s Graduate School of Business, from which he earned a [[wikipedia:Master of Business Administration|Master of Business Administration]] (MBA) degree in [[wikipedia:Marketing management|Marketing management]] just 14 months after matriculating there. In recognition of his exemplary performance at the school and qualifying score on the [[wikipedia:Law School Admission Test|LSAT]], he was offered entry into the school's dual J.D./M.B.A. program, but ultimately opted to defer admission at the time.<ref name="malloney">{{Cite book|last=Maloney|first=Carreen|year=2018|title=Uniquely Dangerous|url=https://uniquelydangerous.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/uniquelydangerous_carreenmaloney-rev1-0.pdf|format=PDF|url-status=live|publisher=Carreen Maloney|page=44|archive-url=http://archive.today/2025.12.24-164428/https://uniquelydangerous.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/uniquelydangerous_carreenmaloney-rev1-0.pdf|archive-date=2025-12-24|isbn=9781732065406|access-date=2025-12-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In 1996, Spink founded the company Timberline Direct, which he sold two years later for US$5.4 million. He used a portion of this money to purchase Capone I,<ref name="capone">{{Cite web|title=Capone I|url=https://jumpinghorses.org/capone-i|website=Dejan Krunic Sporthorses|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251224183706if_/https://jumpinghorses.org/capone-i|archive-date=2025-12-24|access-date=2025-12-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref> a [[wikipedia:Holsteiner|Holsteiner]] {{Convert|1.60|m|ft|abbr=on|sp=us}} [[wikipedia:Show jumping|showjumper]] [[Horse|stallion]], for $27,000, and to found a new company, Timberline Farms, in the Portland suburb of Beaverton, Oregon. The organization imported and bred Grand Prix show jumping horses, requiring $30,000 per month to cover operating expenses. He also, along with his wife, ran a Golden Retriever rescue and breeding organisation. The white star Capone donned on his forehead was the inspiration for the identical tattoo on Spink's arm.

At some point in the late 90s, he was [[Outing|outed]] publicly by another zoophile. This perhaps led to the separation with his wife that began shortly afterward and lasted until 2001, though they remained business partners. In 2003, Spink filed to dissolve his marriage contemporaneously with gaining custody of another Golden Retriever, ''Rion''.

In 2000, Spink was admitted to the [[wikipedia:Complex system|complex systems science]] Ph.D. program at [[wikipedia:Portland State University|Portland State University]] with a research focus on quantitative [[wikipedia:Models of consciousness|theories of consciousness]],<ref name="sec_brighton1">{{Cite web|last=Spink|first=Douglas B.|date=2001-03-14|title=SEC Form PRE 14C: Preliminary information statement not related to a contested matter or merger/acquisition for Brighton Technologies Corp.|url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029140/000103883801000153/0001038838-01-000153-0001.txt|website=[[wikipedia:United States Securities and Exchange Commission|U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]]|format=TXT|url-status=live|archive-url=http://archive.today/2025.12.24-142436/https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029140/000103883801000153/0001038838-01-000153-0001.txt|archive-date=2025-12-24|archive-format=TXT|access-date=2025-12-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="sec_brighton2">{{Cite web|last=Spink|first=Douglas B.|date=2001-03-01|title=SEC Form 8-K: Events or changes between quarterly reports for Brighton Technologies Corp.|url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029140/000103883801000159/0001038838-01-000159-0001.txt|website=[[wikipedia:United States Securities and Exchange Commission|U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]]|format=TXT|url-status=live|archive-url=http://archive.today/2018.11.11-235331/https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029140/000103883801000159/0001038838-01-000159-0001.txt|archive-date=2018-11-11|archive-format=TXT|access-date=2025-12-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref> but his doctoral candidacy lapsed when he failed to submit a dissertation before the deadline for defense.<ref name="last_hope7">{{Cite web|last=Spink|first=Douglas B.|date=2008-07-20|title=The Last HOPE (2008): Home is Where the Heart Is? The Question of Jurisdiction|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4jzmtyPIew|website=[[wikipedia:YouTube|YouTube]]|location=[[wikipedia:New York City|New York City]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251224104619if_/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4jzmtyPIew|archive-date=2025-12-24|access-date=2025-12-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

== Family and personal life ==
Spink had one sister, Joy, who was his elder by three years.

Though once married to a woman, he was open about having romantic and sexual relationships with human partners of both genders.

In an interview, he indicated that he had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. He also indicated that he was "a lifelong (if imperfect) vegetarian" and animal rights activist.

== Career ==
Spink began his career as analyst with Boston Consulting Group, where he consulted with Fortune 100 companies.

In the mid- to late-1990s, he helped found and support several early Internet and technology companies in Oregon. Through the sale of several small businesses, he became a multimillionaire. Despite this, he declared bankruptcy in 2002.

== Criminal history ==
After declaring bankruptcy in 2002, Spink began smuggling cocaine and marijuana in and out of Canada for Robert Kesling,<ref name="carter">{{Cite news|last=Carter|first=Mike|date=2014-05-20|title=Man who promotes sex with animals is back in prison|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-who-promotes-sex-with-animals-is-back-in-prison/|newspaper=[[wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230531033328if_/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-who-promotes-sex-with-animals-is-back-in-prison/|archive-date=2023-05-31|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2023-10-27|df=mdy-all}}</ref> a regional drug lord. In 2005, he was apprehended when law enforcement stopped him while he was transporting nearly 375 pounds of cocaine, estimated at a value of $34 million.<ref name="ap">{{Cite news|author=Associated Press|date=2010-04-19|title=Coke kingpin Douglas Spink busted for running bestiality farm in Washington state|url=https://www.nydailynews.com/2010/04/19/coke-kingpin-douglas-spink-busted-for-running-bestiality-farm-in-washington-state/|website=[[wikipedia:New York Daily News|New York Daily News]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231027090325if_/https://www.nydailynews.com/2010/04/19/coke-kingpin-douglas-spink-busted-for-running-bestiality-farm-in-washington-state/|archive-date=2023-10-27|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2023-10-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Because of his cooperation with investigators, he received a three-year prison sentence. After release, he was placed on parole.<ref name="carter" />

During the 2005 traffic stop, investigators got the first hint that Spink was practicing bestiality. They noted “Spink was strangely protective of a female German shepherd that was with him”, Cmdr. Steve Clopp also clarified they “didn't bother” with the odd behavior due to their “more pressing concerns.” Most important of which was the 372 pounds of cocaine in the car.<ref name="cuniff">{{Cite news|last=Cuniff|first=Meghann|date=2010-04-20|title=Police saw signs smuggler liked bestiality|url=https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2010/apr/20/police-saw-signs-smuggler-liked-bestiality/|newspaper=[[wikipedia:The Spokesman-Review|The Spokesman-Review]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501084551if_/http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2010/apr/20/police-saw-signs-smuggler-liked-bestiality/|archive-date=2011-05-01|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2023-11-28|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

The same year, the [[Enumclaw horse sex case]], in which Kenneth Pinyan died as a result of having filmed sex with a horse, occurred on Spink's farm. Spink is reported to have dropped Pinyan off at the hospital; cameras caught his license plate as he fled the scene, leading back to Spink’s ranch.<ref name="mudede">{{Cite news|last=Mudede|first=Charles|date=2015-07-22|title=Revisiting the Town of the Most Famous Horse Sex Death in Recorded History|url=https://www.thestranger.com/features/2015/07/22/22580444/ten-years-later-the-town-of-enumclaw-still-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-you-know-what|newspaper=[[wikipedia:The Stranger (newspaper)|The Stranger]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230816184638if_/https://www.thestranger.com/features/2015/07/22/22580444/ten-years-later-the-town-of-enumclaw-still-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-you-know-what|archive-date=2023-08-16|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2023-10-25|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Spink kept tabs on the case until his arrest, actively supporting James Michael Tait, who was jailed for filming Pinyan.<ref name="brodeur">{{Cite news|last=Brodeur|first=Nicole|date=2010-07-19|title=This guy really needs supervision|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/this-guy-really-needs-supervision/|newspaper=[[wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190629095519if_/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/this-guy-really-needs-supervision/|archive-date=2019-06-29|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2023-10-25|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Pinyan's death rapidly prompted the enactment of a bill by the Washington State Legislature that prohibits both sex with animals and the videotaping of such an act. Under current Washington law, bestiality is now a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.<ref name="59legislature">{{Cite web|author=Fifty-Ninth Legislature of the State of Washington|date=2006-03-08|title=Animal cruelty in the first degree|url=https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205|work=RCW 16.52.205|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120110003423if_/http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205|archive-date=2012-01-10|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2015-01-17|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In April 2010, investigators in Tennessee contacted Spink's probation officer to inform him that Spink had become involved in the criminal proceedings against Tait,<ref name="carter" /> who had been convicted of trespassing in the Enumclaw horse sex case and was currently charged with bestiality.<ref name="clarridge">{{Cite news|last=Clarridge|first=Christine|date=2010-07-16|title=Man who ran animal-sex operation sentenced for probation violation|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-who-ran-animal-sex-operation-sentenced-for-probation-violation/|website=[[wikipedia:The Seattle Times|The Seattle Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210130092706if_/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-who-ran-animal-sex-operation-sentenced-for-probation-violation/|archive-date=2021-01-30|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2023-10-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref> On April 14, a 19-member SWAT team raided Spink’s compound for violating the parole of his 2005 arrest.<ref name="brodeur" /><ref name="clarridge" /> While there, they arrested a man who was on the property and ultimately plead guilty to animal cruelty charges.<ref name="clarridge" /> Spink received a sentence of three years in federal prison and two years of probation under the condition that "he shut down his websites promoting zoophilia and bestiality; and that he not possess, produce or distribute any bestiality videos or photos".<ref name="brodeur" />

In 2013, following Spink's prison sentence, he was placed on parole with several conditions, including agreeing to regular checks of any hard drives for inappropriate pornographic material and refraining from voluntary contact with animals. Additionally, courts ordered him to "shut down all websites owned, operated, or under his control that promote or contain zoophilia, bestiality or any sexual act with animal[s]". Further, the hard drives that were taken during the 2010 investigation were not returned due to Spink's skill and knowledge regarding technology under the assumption that he may be able to recover deleted inappropriate files and/or encrypted data.<ref name="justia">{{Cite web|author=Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals|date=2013-05-09|title=USA V. DOUGLAS SPINK, No. 12-30068 (9th Cir. 2013)|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-30068/12-30068-2013-05-09.html|website=[[wikipedia:Justia Law|Justia Law]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231027090343if_/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-30068/12-30068-2013-05-09.html|archive-date=2023-10-27|url-status=live|language=en|access-date=2023-10-25|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Almost immediately, Spink returned to bestiality websites, obtained a dog, and boarded horses at a nearby farm. In 2014, he was sentenced to nine months in prison for violating parole, "the longest sentence U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez could impose".<ref name="carter" /> In an 2014 interview, Spink stated of his public crimes, "A core precedent was set: No longer can zoophobes in this country batter and coerce people like me into silence with threats of violence."<ref name="hay">{{Cite web|last=Hay|first=Mark|date=2014-07-11|title=Animals Can Consent to Sex with Humans, Claims Human Accused of Running Animal Brothel|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/nnqdpx/apparently-animals-consent-to-sex-in-the-beastiality-brothel|website=[[wikipedia:Vice Media|Vice]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230722020158if_/https://www.vice.com/en/article/nnqdpx/apparently-animals-consent-to-sex-in-the-beastiality-brothel|archive-date=2023-07-22|url-status=live|language=en|access-date=2023-10-27|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

After his release from prison, Spink crossed the border into Canada and was arrested and jailed at least twice for entering the country and obtaining dogs, actions disallowed by his parole.<ref name="sims">{{Cite news|last=Sims|first=Jane|date=2016-02-23|title=Douglas Spink ordered returned to United States where he is wanted for animal cruelty|url=https://lfpress.com/2016/02/23/douglas-spink-ordered-returned-to-united-states-where-he-is-wanted-for-animal-cruelty|newspaper=[[wikipedia:The London Free Press|The London Free Press]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210611170046if_/https://lfpress.com/2016/02/23/douglas-spink-ordered-returned-to-united-states-where-he-is-wanted-for-animal-cruelty|archive-date=2021-06-11|url-status=live|language=en-GB|access-date=2023-10-27|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Spink ignored this and continued to keep dogs as companions in his home and went on to start the [[Zooier Than Thou]] podcast while continuing his activism in many other ways until his death from lymphoma in 2020.

== Zoophilia advocacy ==
Spink was outspoken about his beliefs that animals can consent to sexual activity with humans.<ref name="hay" /> During a 2010 court case, Spink's attorney explained, "He believes it’s a sexual orientation and that the arguments against it are the same ones once made against homosexuality or miscegenation”.<ref name="clarridge" /> Additionally, in a YouTube video, Spink discussed his 10-year romantic relationship with one of the horses on his farm.<ref name="clarridge" />

In addition to his personal actions and advocacy, Spink worked on projects against “zoophobic bigots” to raise legal funds for defending his fellow “[[Zoophiles|zoosexuals]]”.<ref name="brown">{{Cite thesis|last=Brown|first=Meghan Ann|year=2015|title=Animal people|url=https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/90e60fc3-5321-4607-9d0b-957a78b0968b/content|format=PDF|url-status=live|institution=[[wikipedia:Iowa State University|Iowa State University]]|pages=29–31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251224094944if_/https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/90e60fc3-5321-4607-9d0b-957a78b0968b/content|archive-date=2025-12-24|archive-format=PDF|doi=10.31274/etd-180810-4199|doi-access=free|oclc=940589744|access-date=2025-12-24|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Another of his enterprises, [[Baneki]], developed and marketed a [[wikipedia:Darknet|darknet]] [[wikipedia:VPN service|VPN service]] that offered zoophiles a way to access pornography anonymously.<ref name="xspecies4">{{Cite tweet|number=1056753347791855617|user=CrossSpecies|title=Non-consensual castration of male dogs is genuine, intentional, unquestionable abuse. (Part 4 of 4)|archive-url=https://archive.is/https://twitter.com/CrossSpecies/status/1056753347791855617|archive-date=2018-11-12|url-status=live|language=en-US|access-date=2023-11-28|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="ztt_origin">{{Cite web|title=The Origin of Zooier Than Thou|url=https://zoo.wtf/s2e10-bonus-the-origin-of-zooier-than-thou/|website=zoo.wtf|access-date=2023-11-28|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="zemendepo2">{{Cite tweet|number=1299586956729483267|user=zemendepo|title=Doug and I got a pup in December to start our family. Little did we know that just a month later that he would be taken from us. (Part 2 of 2)|language=en-US|access-date=2023-11-28|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="zemendepo4">{{Cite tweet|number=1220895385419440133|user=zemendepo|title=@LeConteSpink I will always Love You. (Part 4 of 4)|language=en-US|access-date=2023-11-28|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

== Further reading ==
* {{Cite book|last=Maloney|first=Carreen|year=2018|title=Uniquely Dangerous|publisher=Carreen Maloney|isbn=9781732065406}}

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==
* {{Cite web|title=Home is Where the Heart Is? The Question of Jurisdiction|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4jzmtyPIew|website=[[wikipedia:YouTube|YouTube]]|url-status=live}} – video of a talk on corporate legal jurisdictions and related topics given by Spink at the {{Ordinal|7|sup=yes}} Last HOPE ([[wikipedia:Hackers on Planet Earth|Hackers On Planet Earth]]) conference on {{#formatdate:2008-07-20|mdy}} at the [[wikipedia:Hotel Pennsylvania|Hotel Pennsylvania]] in [[wikipedia:New York City|New York City]]

{{People}}

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:History]]