Bestiality Shemale DVD

[GroobySteven]

Many, many, many people would call you a piece of crap for being into TS erotica.
You draw the line at your personal morals which are based on society and up-bringing.
I don't get many fetishes but they're out there - more people would probably want trannies and the guys into them wiped off this planet before animal fockers.
seanchai

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Getting Caught - A Historical View Of Zoophilia (courtersy of www.zoophilia.com)


Introduction
The church, which until the time of Henry VIII still had jurisdiction over all sexual crimes, issued "Penitential Books" which described in the minutest detail all forbidden sexual acts and the punishment which was attached to them. Some of these books survive in The British Library. They are written in Latin and, according to Rattery Taylor, author of "Sex in History," are so explicit that they would immediately fall foul of the English obscenity laws if published. The five penitential codes contain some 22 paragraphs defining every conceivable form of Sodomy.

Before we go on to looking at some specific cases, we should look at why the church was so keen to seek out practitioners of un- natural acts, the infamous "crime against nature."

The church, even at this time, was still directly involved in what it saw as the fight against superstition and Paganism. Much use was still made of spells and curses, potions containing the penises and testicles of bulls and horses were widely believed to have magical, rather than medical, powers to improve a man's potency, or to win over a shy virgin.

Many of these beliefs were handed down from pre-Christian religions in which the sexual union of human and beast were part of their animistic rites. There were certainly very active horse cults both in Ireland and the Nordic Lands which persisted well into the fifth century.

Within living memory, a hangover from these times was still practised in Iceland. The stallion fight, although no one would suggest it has retained it's original meaning, was still to be seen at the turn of the century. It consisted of two stallions fighting over an in-season mare in the middle of a large arena. The winner then favoured the mare with as many coverings as he could manage before the next pair came in to the arena for the entertainment of the crowd.

It is easy to see that this display of masculine strength and sexual potency was originally a way of selecting the best beast to be offered in sacrifice to the gods. The interested reader may wish to know that such stallion fights are still practised publicly in the Phillipines.

We will now go on to a few of the reported cases. We must remember here that Europe was completely dependent on agriculture and opportunities were avilable to all and taken by many more than were ever caught. In winter, the animals lived in the lower part of the house and the people in the upper part in order that the animals could provide a rudimentary form of heating and be safe from hungry wolves. It is easy to imagine a lonely farmer choosing to warm himelf by seeking "body warmth" from his horse.

In many non-European cultures, sexual acts between humans and animals were never taboo. They were, for instance, not punished or even considered socialy unacceptable among Hopi Indians and Kupfer Eskimos in America or among the Kusaia and Masai Tribes in Africa. Indeed, it has been reported that Masai adolescents frequently used donkeys as a sexual outlet. In Peru, Dr. Francisco Guerra found that no less than six percent of the jugs used by the native indians contained bestiality motifs, as opposed to the three percent which depicted homosexuality. The rest were concerned with hetrosexual sex acts, oral, anal, etc..

In 1468, one Monsieur Jean Beisse was convicted of copulating with a cow and a goat. Jean, the cow and the goat were all burned at the stake.

In 1601, 16 year old Caudine de Culam was convicted of intercourse with a dog. Both were hanged and their bodies burned.

November 1607, a young boy convicted and hanged for copulating with a mare. The mare was killed at the foot of the gallows with a poleaxe.

In 1649, M. Vijon burned for having sex with a bird.

In Pilgrim Father's Plymouth Colony a divorce law enacted in 1639 mentions bestiality specifically as a ground for divorce.

Cotton Mather in his book "The history of New England," written at the end of the seventeenth century, describes how a Weymouth man, who had been a lifelong Sodomist, was first made to watch as 3 sheep, 2 sows, 2 heifers and a cow, all of which had been his sexual partners, were hanged. It seems that in this puritanical world that the animals involved were just as guilty "before God" as the man himself. He was executed in the same manner shortly afterwards.

Another case from New England in the mid-seventeenth century concerns one Thomas Granger, an imbecile from Duxbury. He had copulated with a mare, a cow, 2 goats, five sheep, 2 calves and a turkey. He ended up on the gallows of course.

For a first class demonstration of how effective torture can be we turn to a man who admited, under torture, to sodomising a sow, knowing full well that he would hang for it. The evidence was that a piglet had a human appearence, and "a flecked eye exactly like his...because of this he was suspected and admitted his guilt." It is, of course, an absolute impossibilty for a man to father a pig. We must then assume that the poor man decided that hanging was better than to allow the torture to continue.

[Adam_Thompson]

The point is..fucking a pet is sick shit. You can't justify fucking an animal. Yeah there are gonna be animal abuses in other ways, but that doesn't make this one right. So if I smack my wife, can I say "well men in Iran beat the shit outta their wives". Wrong is wrong...and in MY OPINION fucking an animal is wrong. Two consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want to each other.

[NYCe]

EDIT: I found the actual article he got in a heap of trouble for.

Dearest Pet: On Bestiality by Midas Dekkers, translated by Paul Vincent, Verso, © 2000.

Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.
But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.
How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob.
Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it.
Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets . . . "
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. 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.
On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. 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.
Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)
But 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. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

[chefmike]

an old expression..."when men were men,
and sheep were nervous..."

and here's "when women were women,
and swans were nervous..."

[Vicki Richter]

This is interesting. I can't decide which side of the fence that last post was on.

I guess this is a tough one. I don't want to be judgemental of others. As long as they aren't hurting the animals and minors aren't involved, I guess it's just live and let live. I can think of a lot worse things that people do to animals than helping them get off.

Yes I am playing the devils advocate... but...

People fix their dogs at a young age so they can never cum their entire lives. That seems pretty cruel too but we do that just so they won't hump our legs. Just a guess but cumming probably feels good to other animals as well as humans. People also cut the first joint off of cats toes when they declaw them. Imagine someone cutting off the last joint of every one of your fingers? Oh it's OK, it's just an animal. They're here for us and our convenience.

Vicki - who, for the record, has no pets - Richter

[Trogdor]

Only thing I am disturbed is that Fido's getting more action than me. :P

[Spiderman]

Many, many, many people would call you a piece of crap for being into TS erotica.
You draw the line at your personal morals which are based on society and up-bringing.
I don't get many fetishes but they're out there - more people would probably want trannies and the guys into them wiped off this planet before animal fockers.
seanchai

So some people were brought up to make love to animals and thats right?
How can people compare animals to transgender girls?

[Adam_Thompson]

Many, many, many people would call you a piece of crap for being into TS erotica.
You draw the line at your personal morals which are based on society and up-bringing.
I don't get many fetishes but they're out there - more people would probably want trannies and the guys into them wiped off this planet before animal fockers.
seanchai

So some people were brought up to make love to animals and thats right?
How can people compare animals to transgender girls?

I don't know anyone that was raised to make love to animals and that analogy makes no sense. There are personal morals which are based on society, including murder and rape. A line has to be drawn somewhere though.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I dont think he is comparing tgirls to animals (well we are all animals but that is beside the point)

But the reason people get their pets fixed is so they won't have litters, because there are so many unwanted and abandomed pets in this country.
A dog can get preagnant in a few seconds and more than once!
All my dogs are fixed except one and she is getting fixed soon. Still, the hump each other- the girls each other etc...I guess it is just instinct.

I do think de-clawing your cat is awful- just like in puppy mills when they remove the vocal chords on the mother dogs- well don't get me started on puppy mills its just pure disgust.