Hello all,

Since at the moment I have an ample amount of time to waste I spent most of the day surfing the net plodding my way through the endless enquiries of Yahoo and googgle. Somehow I came upon numerious newspaper articles posted by various newspapers from around America and the rest of the world. I found something that disturbed be greatly. An uncountable amount of reports of individuals being caught having sex with animals, or various individuals illuding police and local folks who have not been caught yet.
An example of one artical from an South African newspaper of a stable hand who repeatedly had sex with a very well known race horse. Finally the individual was discovered only after he killed the horse by inserting a broomstick handle up the mares vagina rupturing her internal organs. This crackhead got what he deserved, he's now spending time in a South African prison. I hope someone behind the brickwalls shoves a broomstick up his a**!
Another example is a unidentified individual somewhere in Utah is randomly having sex with various horses. He has been caught in the act more than once but still has elluded police and angry horse owners.
Over and over I read one dissapointing story after another. The ironic thing is that every story I read the person who caught was having sex with SOMEBODY elses animal! So the question remains... What is going on here? I don't think its been five years if I did the same search you wouldn't find story one. I picked up a local newspaper a couple of weeks ago and again I read of a person in my own town who was caught! (I wish I saved the artical but I didn't. And no I don't know the individual.)
This is not right and I fear it is getting out of hand. I'm desperately affraid that soon witch hunts will start and innocent peoples lifes will be messed up because of the sillyness of people who lack common sence and people who were at the wrong place and the right time.
Just take the time and go to Yahoo or Goggle and type in: "Man accused of having sex with horse" or "Man caught having sex with horse" Or any varient of the topic.
I think you will be worried too.
Thanks everybody, be good!

To me, this only underlines the importance of keeping your personal life PRIVATE!! Doing the dog in the front yard is going to get you in trouble, and doing the neighbors horse is certainly going to eventually get you caught. Use common sense, and always be aware of who you're talking to, and where you engage in certain activities. What you do in your own home, or on your own property, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS is your business.

Its the same old argument, zoophile verses beastialist! A zoo would never do this, would never just 'have it off' with any animal. A zoo needs to feel some kind of emotional connect with the animal they are intimate with. With their animal.

A beastialist just gets their rocks off with any animal, which most zoos agree is an abuse of the animal's rights. i too agree with this. If they are so unfeeling enough to attack someone else's aniamal (and i consider it an attack) then they deserve to get caught. i understand not everyone can have the animal they are aroused by, living with them - lets face it a horse just doesn't go in a modern uptown apartement! - but that still gives no-one the right to just 'take' one if they want.

bitch

uuuuuugggghhhhhh :wacko:

ok -it must be me -so I must be confused -so I just have to get this straight in my mind...

zoo = loving exclusive

beasty = loving non-exclusive (likes humans too) ??????

I am so tired of hearing of beasties refered to in a negative light -so maybe it's me who doesn't understand the correct definitions?

is zoo exclusive -or is zoo refer to both exclusive and non -but both loving?

or is it as I though - a zoo is exclusive and beasty is loving but not exclusive -exactly what is it that we are calling non-exclusive animal LOVERS who do not abuse?

I already know what to call broom stick weilders -but I'm sure it will get me banned if I say it!

thanX for the clarification - I feel like I'm going nuts here...

We've had this debate sooooooooo many times here, and the actual definitions have been posted. This thread was NOT started for the reason of pitting zoos against bestialists........I believe it was started in good faith as a warning to ALL who come here to be aware of what they're doing and who might be watching.

I too am tired of seeing the bestialists portrayed negatively on this board. The picture that bitch_in_heat has painted is incorrect and quite frankly, insulting.

Let's try to remember that both zoos and bestialists are welcome here, equally. One is not better than the other.

I don't know, definitions just really suck. This ecology-related class I was in this semester was dominated way too often by this one guy arguing definitions and semantics. Sure, maybe it's important but this guy basically argued himself right out of even believing there was technically such a thing as the words we were discussing, in which case what good is the word? I'm quite happy to just use the words and assume people will get what I mean.

My impressions of the words are

Bestiality/ist: Includes everyone that has sex with animals. Good, bad, loving, exploitative, you name it. Including Zoophilia. It's just a general term like "sex", which we all know can include a lot of acts and attitudes.

Zoophilia: Means "love for animals", and because of that doesn't even have to include sex although it pretty much does these days. However, it does imply a strong emotional connection with the animal. I don't think it means you have to be exclusive, but I think it does mean that you won't, say, have sex with a mare just because she has a sweet you-know-what and she's available. Even if she likes it. The definition of Zoophilia implies an emotional connection beyond sex/lust. Not that there's anything wrong with a bit of sex and lust. ;)

So I don't even care what words people use. I use Zoophilia here on the forum, because that's what I mean about myself and what I assume about the other members, but bestiality is fine too. It just leaves room for a broader interpretation. Again, just my opinions.

FWIW...
Outside the cloister of people who have sex with animals, there is no distinction between zoophilia and bestiality. They're synonyms for 'someone who has sexual intercourse with an animal'. Ask the Man In The Street to differentiate, and he'll call you a pervert in any case and have you locked up for something...

Inside the internet community of people who have sex with animals, there is a distinction which, depending on who you talk to, is either very fine, or very wide.

Some animal lovers who call themselves 'zoophiles' define zoophilia to be a strong emotional connection with their animal partner, which may be expressed as a sexual relationship. They would consider the relationship to be in the manner of a marriage.
Some in the zoophile group define bestiality as the use of an animal for sex, with little or no emotional component - the same way people use cows to get milk, and chickens to get eggs - the animals are a means to an end.
However to some other people, having fun with your pet dog, with all the love and care you would shower on him could be defined as bestiality if the person is generally oriented toward sex with humans, but enjoys the occasional romp with an animal.

One of the safest set of definitions I've seen here would be to consider a zoophile to be 'sexually oriented toward being attracted to animals', and a bestialist who, while they enjoy sex with animals in whatever capacity, are generally sexually oriented toward human partners.

Note that being zoophile under the above definition does not exclude someone from having human partners as well as animal partners. A zoophile may consider their primary attraction to be toward animals, but still enjoy sex with a human partner, in the same way a bestialist may enjoy sex with animals but still be primarily oriented toward humans.

It is unnecessary to include the concept of force, or unwillingness on the part of the animal, or disregard for the welfare of the animal to encompass 'bestiality'.

I expect this board primarily caters toward bestiality - most of the user-base here would be people who are generally attracted to human partners, but enjoy seeing other people have sex with animals, or may dabble in it themselves.

I hope that's muddied the waters some. ;)

Urgh. You're right - sorry Neece. I type slowly, so missed your response.

And now I can't delete my reply. Sorry to be the sadomashochisticnecrobestialist (flogging a dead horse).

The bottom line is that ALL are welcome here.....regardless of the "label" they choose. Thank you all for expressing your thoughts.

Let's all remember too, that this thread was started to point out what the member thinks is a growing problem within our community. Either it's a growing problem, or it's simply getting more publicity.......but, either way, a reminder to everyone to keep the shades drawn might be in order here. The labels we choose for ourselves within our own community are only important to those who choose them.....not to the general public. As it was pointed out, the general public will consider the act of sex with an animal to be perverted and unnatural. So, keep the shades drawn and the doors locked.

:ph34r: <- = me in response to neece


I know this wasn't a definition thread, but one more thing: It sounds like a lot of people try and separate these words into orientations rather than acts. Kind of like gay vs homosexual. Unfortunately, no dictionary or court of law is going to admit that one can be oriented towards animals. So if people want to use the words to define or group themselves, that's fine but really it's like me saying I'm clearly a mndjfikgjuer while you are a nichsmef, you despicable scoundrel. Making up words or definitions for your exclusive club. Which again is fine if it makes you happy. I'll stick with mine, which is Bestiality = sex, Zoophilia = emotions, neither one excluding the other.

And for the original topic, one of the Arizona posters just mentioned a case involving a man and a young dog, although the 2 news reports were inconsistent and unclear. Hopefully it won't get enough publicity to get bestiality, zoophilia, and all other forms of sex with animals explicitly outlawed in AZ (they aren't as of now, but they always find some indecency/cruelty law to charge people with).

Phew... Thanks Neece and Akitas. I read bitch's reply and just fumed.. And as we all know...posting when pissed..wheter drunk pissed or mad pissed, is not a smart move <_<

But after reading your posts...there is really not more to add ;)

Cept; if I EVER read you trying to belittle our members cause they dont live up to your "standards", Bitch.... You will find your a** banned so fast that your zoophilian head will SPIN.

LadyR

:flowers: thanX for hashing this over -I know this has to be an aggreviation for this topic to get hashed over again and again -but not as much as it aggreviates me to watch people sling mud at our members -and I guess with this subject reoccuring several days in a row on different threads -they even had me double guessing what I felt like it should be... I just didn't want to put foot in mouth if my perception of the definition was incorrect...

where exactly in my post did i belittle anyone? my reply was made directly to the post made and i do believe the point i tried to get across is that anyone who takes liberties with a strange animal deserves what they get...

Now where did i specifically attack anyone? Like the way you seem to be attacking me here. go ahead and ban me if you wish, i could not stop you if you wished and it would only serve to show you have more power than i do, i mean i couldn't exactly reply to it now could i?

Seems to be a double standard going on here. Most
genuine zoo people i have met do understand there is such a thing as a difference. It seems to me only the wannabes and pretenders want everyone classed the same. i would NEVER abuse an animal i did not know personally. And since most of these people being caught are men, makes one wonder if it isn't rape!

Yep, i'll be banned now, but who cares. i'm sick of the hypocracy that goes on. Only small people stamp their feet and threaten to ban cause they can. Adults allow others to discuss and debate things like ...adults.

Oh and where i come from we don't have an ass, that's an animal.

bitchWe have an arse

So...bitch.. you have axcess to all "beasties" heads, moral codes, and ethics? Interesting...

And you would never abuse an animal you didnt know personally? Meaning you would abuse an animal you did know personally?

Get of your high horse, Bitch. Using different terms on you and on others does not make you morally better: infact it makes YOU the big hypocrit. AND a biggott.

And yeah.. you DO have an arse... Too bad your head is in there on this subject.

LadyR

zo·o·phil·i·a (zō'ə-fĭl'ē-ə) also zo·oph·i·lism (zō-ŏf'ə-lĭz'əm)
n.
Affection or affinity for animals.
Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals.
Biology. A tendency to feed or grow on animal tissue



bes·ti·al·i·ty (bĕs'chē-ăl'ĭ-tē, bēs'-)
n., pl. -ties.
The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal.
Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality.
Sexual relations between a human and an animal.