Message-ID: <200308Z26101995@anon.penet.fi> Path: newshost.williams.edu!news2.near.net!news3.near.net!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.tele.fi!news.csc.fi!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Newsgroups: alt.sex.bestiality From: an373492@anon.penet.fi (Kurrelgyre) X-Anonymously-To: alt.sex.bestiality Organization: Anonymous forwarding service Reply-To: an373492@anon.penet.fi Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 19:53:59 UTC Subject: Zoophilia Report, first revision Lines: 177 [Well, here it is - the next version of the zoophilia report. As with the last version, there are still some minor problems with punctuation (I really like hyphens - proper punctuation is in the eye of the beholder :) ), and certain parts of the report did not change all that much from the previous version. Most of the changes I made were prompted by suggestions/complaints concerning the first version, as well as some suggestions made by non-zoophile friends. Depending on your views, you may still like the first version better - this report has a more 'unified' approach, which some zoophiles will likely not approve of. I'm leaving the state for a few days (again), so I won't be able to respond to any problems you find until late Saturday/Sunday. - Kurrelgyre ] _The Zoophilia Report_ (first revision) You may be wondering why you've been given this report. Perhaps it was given to you by a close friend, a family member, or even a total stranger. Whoever it may have been, their intent was simple - this report has only one purpose: to inform the reader that the person who presented them with the report is a zoophile. What is a zoophile? For the purpose of this report, zoophilia will be defined as follows: an emotional attachment to an animal that causes a human being to prefer a non-human animal as a companion and/or sexual partner. Undoubtedly, you have now made a quick mental connection to bestiality, which is generally defined as sexual contact between a human being and a non-human animal. As you can see, the definitions are not quite the same - bestiality lies more towards the purely sexual end of the spectrum, while zoophilia lies toward the purely emotional end. As I stated, these definitions define a spectrum, rather than two distinct groups. Generally, the sexual and the emotional aspects both play vital roles within the relationships of zoophiles, as well those of bestialists. Each individual relationship is different, and occupies its own unique location somewhere between the two extremes. Now that you are aware of the commonly accepted definition, you are probably shocked and/or disgusted. That is not surprising, as modern society (along with most popular religions) does not approve of humans having sexual and emotional relationships with the "lower" animals. Even at a very young age, children are taught that such relationships, and the people that have them, are perverted, disgusting, and immoral. Some are even taught that such actions are tantamount to animal abuse and cruelty. These notions, while deeply rooted in modern society and religion, are not correct. You may have just associated the above attributes with the person who presented you with this report. I would beg of you to resist this temptation - whoever gave you this report obviously respects you, and is counting on you to make a rational and informed decision on the matter. You must realize that this information does not change that person, it can only change your opinion of them. They are still the same person as they have always been - you just happen to know a little more of their nature than before. Most people possess a mental "picture" of the typical zoophile/bestialist, which generally runs along the following lines: a poor, naive, confused, desperate, uneducated, ignorant farmboy. This may be a convenient stereotype, but it is rarely (if ever) the case - in all of my dealings with fellow zoophiles, I have yet to meet one that fits that description. Zoophiles are not warped, twisted people - they are just ordinary people with an extraordinary desire. You will find zoophiles in every tax bracket, in every location - from the farmer in Montana to the businessman in New York. They may be young or old, male or female, college graduates or high school dropouts. Some are or have been married, and may even have children. Some, like the author of this report, stick exclusively to animals. Some are open about their sexuality to their friends and family, while others keep it a secret. Finding attributes common to all zoophiles is impossible - it would be equivalent to doing the same with heterosexuals. It just can't be done, and any attempt to do so is destined for failure. Every zoophile has different views - on politics, religion, social issues, and even on zoophilia itself. The _only_ thing we all share is sexual and/or emotional attraction to animals - nothing more, nothing less. The actual causes of zoophilia are difficult to determine. Some, like the author, have been attracted to animals for as long as they can remember. Some turn to animals to escape the hatred and anger they see in "normal" families. Some feel that they can only truly trust animals. Some simply enjoy giving pleasure to animals. Always remember, however, that zoophiles never "resort" to animals - we have relationships with animals because we _want_ to, not because we _need_ to. It _is_ true that some people have relationships with animals because they cannot find a human partner, but they are not true zoophiles: they would prefer a human partner if one were available. Thus, they are really heterosexual/homosexual, depending upon the sex of their preferred human partner. However, this is not to say that those that "resort" to animals are necessarily inferior to those that "choose" them - many of the same arguments can be used to defend these individuals as are used to defend zoophiles. Contrary to popular opinion, all zoophiles are not attracted to all animals. Some are attracted solely to dogs, some to horses, and some to other species. Some are attracted to several species, and, yes, _some_ are attracted to all species. Some zoophiles prefer partners of the opposite sex, some prefer partners of the same sex, and some prefer both. I realize that most non-zoophiles cannot understand what attributes make one animal more attractive than another, any more than they can comprehend what would make them attractive at all. This is understandable, but I would ask you to remember that these differences exist - for a zoophile, choosing a partner is much more than just a matter of convenience. People have used many arguments against zoophilia over the years. One of the most common is that it is unethical, immoral, and is cruel to animals. If you believe this, consider this fact: zoophiles do not restrain their partners - the horse/dog/whatever is free to kick, bite, trample, gore, maim, or otherwise damage them. The fact that they do not do so, while not the same as explicit consent, shows that they are not overly distressed by the person's actions. Many zoophiles find satisfaction purely in giving pleasure to the animal, and consider their own pleasure a secondary concern. You may be wondering about the use of the phrase "giving pleasure to the animal". Yes, most animals _will_ respond in a positive manner to sexual relations with a human, and often seek out such relationships on their own accord. Zoophiles are _not_ abusing their animal partners by having such relationships with them - if there were a way to prevent cruelty to animals, zoophiles would be among its first and most vehement supporters. Some people view the notion of having sex with an animal as disgusting and revolting. Why should this be? It is only humans that have placed an intellectual barrier between friendship and sex. I feel that sex is merely an extension of friendship, not an entirely different issue. Why is it that the general public views affection towards animals as proper and acceptable, but view the relationship as disgusting and unacceptable once it turns sexual? Is there really such a vast difference between a sexual and a non-sexual relationship? I think not - the difference exists merely in the mind, not in reality. This brings me to the religious arguments against zoophilia - that it is a sin, and any who practice it are doomed to eternal damnation. This is a difficult point to argue - if you are a strict follower of the teachings of your religion, it is generally true. All I, and zoophiles in general, can ask is that you think seriously for a minute about the reasoning behind these ideas. Why should it be a sin? Why is it evil? If the only reasoning you can find is "because the Bible (or Koran, or whatever) says it is so", than this leaves no room for further discussion. We do not ask that you approve of our actions (although we would prefer it), but we would ask that you do not condemn us because of them. You may be wondering how the zoophile who gave you this report would like you to react to it. What they would like is for you to seriously consider the information presented within it. Before coming to any conclusions, remember that the decision you make will affect another person, another human being - a relationship is at stake. The best reaction that you can have is to accept this aspect of their nature, perhaps even be supportive of it. Ask a few questions, they will be happy to answer them as best they can. Don't be ashamed to be seen with them, and don't try to "convert" them - zoophilia is not a disease that should be "cured", it is just a relatively rare (and harmless) psychological condition. Most zoophiles would not want to be "cured", even if it _were_ possible - the simple act of giving you this report is an indication that they have accepted the fact that they are a zoophile, and would like you to do so as well. Feel honored that they trusted you enough to tell you about it, and proud that they respected you enough to think that you would make a rational decision about it. The worst reaction you can have is to condemn them for their actions, and stop associating with them. That will not only be harmful to them, but to you as well - you will lose both a trusting friend and the respect and admiration of a fellow human being. Kurrelgyre an373492@anon.penet.fi Zoophile by nature, proud by choice - I wouldn't have it any other way. Note: the above address is only valid until November 17, after which time it will be deactivated. --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse@anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help@anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin@anon.penet.fi