zoo-still-12.jpg

horses, horses, horses, horses
coming in in all directions
white shining silver studs with their nose in flames

Zoo / Jeremy C. Fox

Film Reviews | April 30, 2007 | Comments (66)


It may be impossible to ever fully understand what turns somebody else on, but usually we can at least kinda see the reasoning. I may be horrified by the thought that there are people who’d prefer Jessica Simpson to Alyson Hannigan or dumbfounded by someone who’d choose Seann William Scott over Seth Rogen, but those preferences don’t completely defy comprehension. By the same token, open-minded people may be able to imagine why someone would be an exhibitionist or a bondage submissive or a watersports enthusiast, even if it’s totally not their thing. Even something as horrible as pedophilia isn’t as thoroughly alien as we’d like to think — how many of us breathed a Mark Foleyesque sigh of relief when Shia LaBeouf or Lindsay Lohan reached the age of consent?

Still, there’s one fetish so bizarre that it makes sense to very few who don’t share it, so taboo that many people don’t want to talk about it or even admit that it exists, so that it remains legal in some jurisdictions simply because legislators can’t countenance it. Bestiality — or zoophilia, as its practitioners prefer — is so far under the radar that we rarely think of it at all; if we do, it’s as the punchline to a joke about lonely sheep farmers. So it’s somewhat surprising that serious filmmakers would take it up as the subject of a documentary, but what’s truly remarkable is that the final product is restrained, artful, and even strangely moving.

Zoo is writer/director Robinson Devor and co-writer Charles Mudede’s exploration of the events surrounding the 2005 death of a man at a farm in Enumclaw, Washington, of a perforated colon after being anally penetrated by a horse. This man, one of a group who regularly visited the farm for this purpose, is identified in the film only by his online persona, Mr. Hands, out of respect for his family (I choose to do the same, though his identity, the full details of the case, and even — God save us all — a home video of him in flagrante equus* are all a Google search away); the film gives us the opportunity to hear from others in his unusual social circle, as the surprisingly thoughtful, articulate men describe meeting on the Internet; gathering at the farm for frozen daiquiris, DVD watching, and conversation; and having sexual congress with livestock.

Despite its lurid subject matter, the film is tastefully, even elegantly, constructed, with no scenes of equine intercourse to upset the esthetic effect. The film’s visuals are, by necessity, all reenactments, interpreting the events surrounding Mr. Hands’ death in the most poetic way possible; its soundtrack consists of interviews — with three of his friends, identified only by nicknames, and with the animal rescue worker who was brought in to care for the horse following the incident — interwoven with Paul Moore’s moody, atmospheric score. Combined with Sean Kirby’s eerie, gorgeously baroque cinematography, the effect is downright hypnotic. It seems almost perverse to willfully take a subject so bizarre and disturbing and esthetize it into something beautiful, but, love it or hate it, there’s no denying the film’s seductive power.

Devor and Mudede treat the zoophiliacs (zoos for short; thus the film’s title) with respect and even sympathy, making their situation and their social isolation completely relatable, even as the zoos desperately seek to rationalize their aberrant desires. The filmmakers make us feel sorry for the zoos, but they don’t dig very deep; at 80 leisurely minutes, they barely have time to cover the story of Mr. Hands and his friends, let alone explore what makes someone a zoo or what place, if any, a zoo might have in society. We’re left with as many questions as we are answers, but we’ve been taken on a journey few would have otherwise taken, and damned if there aren’t some fascinating sights along the way.

But don’t watch that video that’s online. Seriously. That’s one sight you really don’t want to see.

Jeremy C. Fox really loves Patti Smith, is ambivalent at best about bestiality. You may email him at jeremycfox[at]gmail.com.

ofcs.gif


Pajiba Love 04/30/07 | Sgt. Pajiba's Lonely Hearts Club





Comments

*Yes, I know that's not real Latin.

Posted by: Jeremy C. Fox at April 30, 2007 11:58 PM

My friends and I actually stumbled across the online video of Mr. Hands one night in our dorm. We didnt know at the time that the guy actually died (although, we assumed) but wow, to hear a movie is actually being made about it...

maybe this will be worth investigating more.

Posted by: Monica at May 1, 2007 12:09 AM

Kudos for the Patti Smith

Posted by: punkinhootus at May 1, 2007 12:13 AM

Best line in Brokeback Mountain (said by the foreman as the two protagonists first get hired for shepherd duty):

"...and you'll have to sleep with the sheep."

Posted by: bartap at May 1, 2007 1:52 AM

God bless the adsense, right now there's a horse staring at me from my computer screen....I shit you not.

Posted by: goldend at May 1, 2007 2:20 AM

"Horses For Sale." Maybe for companionship? Horsetopia is "The" Horse Classified Website!

Posted by: lemmiwinkin at May 1, 2007 2:33 AM

*dies*

Posted by: Vi at May 1, 2007 4:57 AM

Apparently the Mr Hands video on the net is from a not the actual fatal incident -- just in case that makes anyone feel better.

Posted by: dmc at May 1, 2007 5:12 AM

(please delete words as appropriate to form a coherent sentence)

Posted by: dmc at May 1, 2007 5:14 AM

dmc (please delete words as appropriate to form a coherent sentence)

Dude, it's the internet. Besides, I didn't even spot that little error until you pointed it out

Posted by: conexus at May 1, 2007 7:31 AM

Any interest in seeing this film would be akin to my inevitable staring at a deadly car accident...I'd want to view the gore and be able to call everyone after and give the "blow by blow." Oh no, I am sick.

Seriously this story has captivated me, largely because of how the death was first reported by the Seattle Times. You had to reread it several times before the cause of the "victim's" death sunk in. And when it did sink in, my first thought was how was this explained to the triage nurse...I was washing him and we both slipped?...anyone see the Scrubs lightbulb episode? And finally, I laughed at myself for not once early on being drawn to thought about how it was pulled off...or perhaps pulled on. Maybe I take rough sex for granted these days.

Posted by: In the Burbs at May 1, 2007 8:01 AM

It seems almost perverse to willfully take a subject so bizarre and disturbing and esthetize it into something beautiful, but, love it or hate it, there's no denying the film's seductive power.

And, I suppose, that's why so many of us are so freaking hopped up on film in general. It's like cold fusion, sometimes (vis "Triumph of the Will"). I've been wanting to see this film since you guys reported on it from Sundance.

(The fact that the Horsetopia--the name!--ad has sprung up here for the first time is definitely pure hilarity.)

Posted by: Ranylt at May 1, 2007 8:03 AM

Wait--there's TWO horsy ads onscreen. Adsense really needs some AI.

Posted by: Ranylt at May 1, 2007 8:05 AM

My first thought when seeing that photo was that it was Daniel Radcliffe from his naked horse play, and then I started reading the review. Phew...that would have been disturbing.

I don't know much about "zoophilia", but I have always imagined that it was abusive to the animals, yet there's no mention of that in the review. Am I missing something? My initial reaction is to feel sorry for the livestock that are being used for by the zoos, not for the zoos themselves.

This is one doc I'll be skipping.

Posted by: JKo at May 1, 2007 9:59 AM

My first thought when seeing that photo was that it was Daniel Radcliffe from his naked horse play, and then I started reading the review.

That's what I thought too. And the screenshot may actually be a publicity photo from the Radcliffe production of Equus. (Jeremy?)

Either way, it's entirely appropriate. The Equus story doesn't qualify as normal zoophilia because of the other psychosis invented for the plot, but to think that Alan Strang isn't getting off as part of his intimacies with his Godheads would be a severe misinterpretation of the story.

[The image is a still from Zoo, but I agree it coiuld just as easily serve for Equus, although if you look closely you'll see that the middle-aged man in the image is a bit too flabby to be Radcliffe. -- JCF]

Posted by: idiosynchronic at May 1, 2007 10:43 AM

well, im tolerant of alot of things but a doc that tries to show this in a soft light is missing the point that these people need some help, they are abusing animals and bascially it is really fucking sick.

Posted by: dylan at May 1, 2007 11:39 AM

I've read several reviews of this film. Apparently the filmmakers don't take a hard stance on whether the animals were abused or not -- it's difficult to see how you could force an animal to, er, mount (sorry) a human being against its will.

Of course, there is a question of conditioning. But house training and show jumping are conditioning, really, and I remember a convincing argument that no animal ever consented to being spayed, or to wear pink fuzzy sweaters.

All in all, a moral grey area, I think.

Posted by: jkate at May 1, 2007 11:40 AM

i give up--i'm going to have to see this movie. ever since this incident was reported on the local news--and then explained to me because i didn't understand the cause of death from the news speak--i have been deeply disturbed--and somewhat fascinated--by the whole concept. i cannot comprehend--a horse--in a group? why?

i will just have to consider this a potentially mind-opening experience because right now i can't imagine being able to understand. why--just why?

Posted by: pq at May 1, 2007 12:07 PM

Now i find myself wondering how does a person make an animal F... them, i heard the other way around, people f... animals and in my mind i find that quite easy to do. But my curiosity is killing me, How they do that??

Maybe something for an episode of mythbusters!!

Posted by: NDR at May 1, 2007 12:27 PM

My brain just threw up.

This is now added to my list of things I'll never watch. Ever.

Posted by: TK at May 1, 2007 12:27 PM

I have a hard time understanding how one would be able to make something as detestable as zoophilia romantic.
I always figured that any animal owner has a responsibility to keep their animal healthy, happy and out of harms way. To abuse an animal in such a way for your own sick pleasures goes way beyond forcing an animal to wear a pink fuzzy sweater. It must have some detrimental effect on the animal, no?

Posted by: REW at May 1, 2007 12:40 PM

All in all, a moral grey area, I think.

Wow. If horse fucking is a moral grey area I dont even know what to tell ya. Would you want a loved one to have horses fuck them? Do you think the horse really wants to be doing this? Do you think that maybe just maybe we can move horse sex into the bad moral category...

Posted by: dylanj at May 1, 2007 12:48 PM

Like TK, I am also adding this to my list of things to never ever see ever. I don't care how damn romantic the filmmakers make this movie. Zoophilia should be in the list of sexual taboos right next to pedophilia. Both involve using non-consenting living creatures for sexual purposes. Humans are supposed to be the caretakers of the Earth and all living things on it - not use them for their sexual pleasure. We have other humans to do that with.

Posted by: stardust savant at May 1, 2007 1:29 PM

The only discourse I've ever heard on bestiality was during (I kid you not) my 7th grade catechism class. Our school principal was filling in for the vicar and somehow ended up describing much too specifically what exactly bestiality was. I'm feeling the same queasyness now that I felt then. Funny how, for as free a society as we claim to be, bestiality and polygamy continue to make people uncomfortable. HMMMM

Posted by: bebemiqui at May 1, 2007 1:43 PM

bebemiqui, did you just equate polygamy with bestiality?

I'd say that, while I'm not necessarily a supporter of polygamy, there's a giant - no - a fucking colossal leap between the two.

I don't think that there's any free society where it is, or should, be ok to fuck animals.

Posted by: TK at May 1, 2007 1:59 PM

"My brain just threw up"- TK....


Man, I hate you for thinking that one up.

Posted by: Manny at May 1, 2007 2:02 PM


I don't think the makers of this doc are saying it's acceptable to do horses. The act may be disgusting to the majority of the population and abusive (I work in animal activism and yes, it's abuse and I find it saddening and abhorant) but they're not making zoo porn, they are presenting a sector of our community that, like it or not, exist. And ignoring them doesn't mean they're not there.

This is real life and while I may think that zoos are fucked up and should seek therapy, I also think moms with Munchausen by Proxy,for example, are fucked up and should seek therapy, but that wouldn't stop me from seeing a doc about them. I'm just saying, there's a lot of fucked up shit going on out there, not just in the sexual arena, but writing it off as something only weird people do and turning away from it isn't going to make it go away. It could be your neighbour or friend or relative. Hell, it could be your horse.

It's only when something taboo becomes known and talked about that people (and animals) can be helped and given the treatment they need.

Posted by: Rebecca H. at May 1, 2007 2:59 PM

Dear TK, i do not think polygamy is right by any means BUT the individuals involve in it are OK and well aware of whats going on. But bestiality is another thing altogether and should never be OK or can you imagine the horse and the guy living together, going to the movies, to a party??

And the animals involve do not aprove of this. So to me is just like rape, because they are having sex without mutual agreement. And as humans we should know better.

Posted by: NDR at May 1, 2007 4:03 PM

I saw this movie at the True/False film festival and while it certainly was not the best film I saw that weekend, I was pleasantly surprised and I agree with Jeremy, the filmmakers did a great job of humanizing a group of people who are clearly considered perversely deviant (or worse) by pretty much everyone.

But I gotta say, the part of this movie that weirded me out the most was when the horse rescuer described an incident in which a miniature horse proceeded to fellate the stallion. Since when do animals give blowjobs to each other??

Posted by: Renee at May 1, 2007 4:04 PM

NDR - What in the fuck are you talking about?

Manny - let's be honest - you hate me for many more reasons than that.

Posted by: TK at May 1, 2007 4:23 PM

"Since when do animals give blowjobs to each other??"

it's actually fairly common with most species of mammals. odd, yes but not that rare.

the weirdest animal sex i've heard about though (thank you national geographic) was "penguin prostituion". they got paid in rocks.

Posted by: c at May 1, 2007 4:25 PM

Here's a portion of an interview with a couple who have sex with their miniature stallion (I'm not sure what program it's from). It's really, really bizarre, but fascinating. Zoos don't believe that their behavior with animals constitutes as abuse; this couple, for instance, seems to think that the horse derives just as much pleasure from intercourse as they do. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying.

NOTE: Some of their descriptions are graphic, so I don't recommend watching if you have a weak stomach.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2007/01/horse-humper.html

Posted by: lechuga at May 1, 2007 4:47 PM

Completely aside from the cringe-making quality of this sort of "sex", shouldn't there be concern about the risk of yet another incurable virus stemming from human-animal intimacy ? Just a thought..

Posted by: antidude at May 1, 2007 5:50 PM

Re: the horse-humper video

EWWW.

EWWW. EWWW. EWWW.

Sorry, fucking horses (or any other animal) is NOT a gray moral area. It's very, very, very black. And WRONG. Period. Fucking children is also wrong. As is fucking your relatives.

Christalmighty, I can't believe that we as a society have reached the point that some of us are so incapable of making moral judgements that they are ambivalent about beastiality.

What. The. Fuck.

I'll be skipping this one and will be wallowing my own sense of smug moral indignation without a trace of shame.

Hell in a handbasket, my friends. Hell in a handbasket.

Posted by: KYVRWC at May 1, 2007 6:06 PM

Oh yeah. I forgot to add dead people to my list above. Fucking dead people (or animals) is also wrong.

Hell in a mother fucking handbasket.

Posted by: KYVRWC at May 1, 2007 6:10 PM

I can't help but wondering if many different forms of highly unusual sexual conduct stem from smashingly low self esteem. Can there ge a greater form of submission and humiliation than letting an animal fuck you?

I have to wonder if sexual abuse or something similarly devasting in childhood could result in a person so completely disrespecting themselves, and alienating them so much from human sexuality.

Posted by: Rebecca H. at May 1, 2007 7:03 PM

hey, remember april fools day, maybe may 1st is another GOTCHA day... at least thats what i`m hoping..(suns in five ,sweet)

Posted by: pasadenamike at May 1, 2007 10:17 PM

NDR:
Are you serious? Bestiality may be wrong, but it sure as hell isn't wrong because the animals don't consent (which they do often enough anyway, e.g. Randy the Dolphin in the English Channel). People raise animals and harvest them en masse for food: these animals mosty live a life of general degradation suffering, ended by a nailgun to the brain; I'm pretty sure the animals don't "consent" to that, yet nearly the whole world grants that this is an appropriate practice. If you are a vegan, then your argument holds water for you and a tiny ignored minority, but I call bullshit on anyone who has ever eaten meat and turns around to say that bestiality is wrong because the animal doesn't consent.

Posted by: CAN at May 1, 2007 11:51 PM

Ads by Google: Horse Back Riding Vacation / Horse Back Riding Tours. Nuff said.

Posted by: cinekat at May 2, 2007 4:37 AM

How can it be called "horse fucking" when it's the horse that's doing the actual penetrative act? As a person who has occasionally traversed the parts of the Internet Where The Buses Don't Run, I have seen quite a few interesting things. The review of this documentary actually made me laugh.

Posted by: The Wanderer at May 2, 2007 6:18 AM

Wanderer: (I can't believe I'm gonna address this question) - I don't think there's a hard and fast rule that the penetrator is the one doing the fucking. I've always thought that two people fuck each other.

God, I'm going to try to purge this entire thread from my memory.

Posted by: TK at May 2, 2007 10:23 AM

Last fall, I preformed in "The Goat, or Who is Sylvia?" By Edward Albee dealing with this very same subject matter. It is a phenomenal play and I loved being involved, and I'm now rather curious to see this movie.

Posted by: Kate at May 2, 2007 10:48 AM

What the FUCK? Wrong. Wrong. I can't - I don't even (OKAY, now "Horsetopia"? Is this REALLY necessary???).
I have to assume the only reason this film was made was precisely to ignite the discussion that has ensued. Especially if the tone was as described by our brave reviewer.
However, WRONG. NO and no. wrong. No Nazis, no NAMBLA and if the "Zoos" decide they need to have an Equine Love Pride Parade, I'm moving into the Baldwin Estate.

Posted by: courtney at May 2, 2007 4:21 PM

I know someone who is a zoo. He was born that way, not abused and doesn't have low self esteem. I'm not a zoo and don't understand how someone can do that but he takes very good care of his animals and loves them. As far as consent goes, you think someone could force themselves on a horse, big cat, or dog? They have the means to protect themselves. The zoo that I know and his friends have never cornered an animal or forced them in any way. This guy has a friend who had big cats and he was never mauled but regularly had sex with them. Come on people like the poster above said the meat industry treats animals way worse than any zoo I have known or heard of.

Posted by: duff at May 2, 2007 6:57 PM

Huh, duff, you have some interesting friends. How did they know they were not forcing an animal? One meow for yes, two for no?

Sounds like they are making the same "argument" as pedophiles -- I never hurt a kid...I love them...I take better care of them than their parents...they could have said no...they liked it!...hey, SHE came on to ME.

This is all meaningless, self-serving bullshit. For one reason: children and animals can't consent. THEY DON'T HAVE THE BRAIN POWER.

In theory, an animal could bite you, just like a toddler could whip out a knife, or a mentally retarded person could attack you with a nail gun. This doesn't happen because they have no inate sense of good and bad, what they want or don't want, or even (within limits) that they're being hurt.

They are trained to satisfy their exploiter's needs. Presumably, this is part of the attraction.

Posted by: Janis at May 3, 2007 1:55 AM

A great bumper sticker I saw here in Washington where the interspecies romance all began.

"Enumclaw ewe."

Posted by: johnny at May 3, 2007 2:29 AM

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head there Janis.

Posted by: Rebecca H. at May 3, 2007 12:03 PM

"Zoo" is a pretty lame title for this movie. Why didn't they call it "The Trigger Effect"?

Posted by: Sean P at May 3, 2007 1:32 PM

See, it's because of that perv out in Washington that I have to phrase my sentences very carefully (unlike this sentence, which makes no sense) when I say that I love horses. NOT LIKE THAT! I enjoy feeding them carrots and brushing their manes, not doing them.

And Janis, you've summed things up nicely, thank you! I don't think that bestiality can be rationalized in any way, and that it is definitely something WRONG. Please don't bang the animals, people.

Posted by: Claire at May 3, 2007 1:33 PM

I think some of you might be missing the point that's already been made: in regards to harm done to the animal, bestiality/zoophilia isn't any worse than the horrors we inflict on animals destined for our dinner table.

I'll grant you the "ewww, icky" when bestiality comes up, but once we are secure in the knowledge that any meat in our diet has been treated humanely (funny, that word) then there's little logic found in diatribes against the zoo love.

Posted by: joselyn at May 3, 2007 2:48 PM

Kate,

i've seen that play, it was fascinating. i still find the "zoo" life-style(?) to be disturbing and i guess that i am more sheltered than i ever imagined.

Posted by: pq at May 3, 2007 4:25 PM

I read about this on Radar a few months back. Still can't comprehend.......

Posted by: Candy at May 3, 2007 5:54 PM

Didn't know a video existed online but it does. I just saw it. They say curiosity killed the cat, it almost fucking choked me. That's some digusting horse fucking. Nothing hypnoticn or exotic about that.

I will say you wouldn't expect someone with a professional background that he had to be fucking horses.

I need to step away from the computer for a minute. I think my eyes are in shock.

Posted by: Candy at May 3, 2007 6:24 PM

pq, absolutely.

I was also very sheltered until my director had us watch these type of videos to "get the full effect." I still don't fully comprehend it, but I suppose it no longer seems that out-there anymore.

Posted by: Kate at May 3, 2007 10:44 PM

patti smith kicks ass

Posted by: kjam at May 4, 2007 10:52 AM

I can't believe more than one person equated carnivory with bestiality. Look folks, it's natural for predators to eat prey. For a hungry tiger to eat a man is completely understandable. A tiger having sex with a man is frakking weird and probably means the tiger has severe mental problems. Same goes for humans and their prey animals. Our species evolved to eat grazing quadrapeds and we probably would have died out long ago if we didn't utilize this vital source of calories. The desire to have sex with our food is deviant, no matter how you cut it.

Posted by: ellis at May 4, 2007 1:33 PM

Ellis, there's certainly nothing wrong with a predator killing its prey. I'm pretty sure no one made any such point that a tiger killing its prey is akin to a tiger fucking its prey. The point was made, repeatedly, that we raise our "prey" in shitty conditions, force-feed them, pump them full of hormones & genetically alter them, slaughter them in painful & disrespectful manners, and then waste half of their "vital source of calories."

That seems about as deviant to me as fucking a well-cared for horse a couple times a month. Once you know exactly where and how your food was raised & killed, come back and I'll consider your points about bestiality.

Posted by: joselyn at May 4, 2007 4:06 PM

Joselyn, what's a "respectful" way of slaughtering an animal?

I think some of us see a moral and ethical distinction between the way we prepare our food, and fucking an animal. You see it as the same.

In the interest of avoiding ANOTHER protracted carnivores vs. vegetarians battle royale, I'd say this is a point where we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: TK at May 4, 2007 4:17 PM

Joselyn, I suppose a better way to explain this to you is to use the example of having sex with a carrot or squash. You would probably see a "vegiphile" as a person with some serious problems. The point is these people are sexualizing something bred for the dinner table. I suppose with horses a closer analogy would be a person having sex with a car or bicycle. Would you agree that a "transportaphile" (I really hope these categories don't actually exist) is engaging in a healthy activity? I also must caution you against assuming that those who disagree with your stance that factory farming is worse than bestiality are ignorant of the way animals are raised and slaughtered. We hayseeds have internet too.

Posted by: ellis at May 4, 2007 5:02 PM

The magic of the internet. Just when I think I couldn't possibly have heard it all, I find this thread. I never thought I'd find people that are actually willing to argue the case for bestiality, but wow. Wow. As the owner of multiple pets, having grown up on a farm, and having worked at an animal shelter for several years, I call bullshit on those who are making the argument that bestiality is in any way the same as raising animals in a factory farm. They are two seperate arguments. I agree that a lot of our meat is raised in horrid conditions, and it needs to be improved most definitely, but killing an animal for food and fucking one (or allowing them to fuck you) for your pleasure are not even in the same moral galaxy. Wow. Anyway, as several other posters have said, this is akin to pedophilia. Animals can't communicate with us and we're their owners/guardians which means it's our responsibility to take care of them, NOT use them for sexual gratification. Good lord. I never thought I'd ever be trying to explain to people why sex with animals is bad. So until technology gets to the level where we can communicate fully with animals, "neigh means nay".

Posted by: wow at May 4, 2007 6:14 PM

Ack! Feeling a little embattled here.

TK, I agree with you completely: let's agree to disagree. However, I don't see it as a vegetarians vs. carnivores argument, as I'm a meat-eater myself. This is more an entreaty to recognize humanity's complete disregard for other life on this planet. We treat animals as a disposal resource and, whether it's for food or for sex, it's repugnant to me.

Ellis, I am in no way countenancing horse-fucking. I equate it with pedophilia & sexual abuse. Vegiphiles & transportophiles likewise might also be deviant, though I can't imagine their victims complaining much... And my comment about knowing where your food comes from was not well-phrased. I am not suggesting that you (or anyone here) is ignorant of how animals are raised & slaughtered. Instead, I feel it behooves us as human beings to know *exactly* where our food comes from. This is, I know, treading into the waters of globalism & sustainability, but I feel that this all is connected. Also, I make no claim on knowing where you are located (urban or rural) and you as well can hardly make that claim for me. For all you (& "Wow") know, I could be getting ready to pull on my boots & round in the cows for the evening milking, or preparing for my afternoon commute home from the office. The internet's mysterious like that.

This has been invigorating, and I hope I have not offended. That has not been my intent.

Posted by: joselyn at May 4, 2007 7:18 PM

I have also seen the horse-fucking video, and let's just say it will change you in ways that cannot be explained for years to come. You will start to question morality and existence of God after viewing shit like that. I viewed it because I was curious as to how a horse can screw a human being since I could never ever imagine such a thing.

It is actually surprising that Enuclaw guy was a professional who worked for Boeing and not some hillbilly farmer. Since I like documentaries, I might watch this when it comes out on dvd.

Posted by: cookie at May 4, 2007 10:09 PM

Hmm, sounds interesting but I doubt it will ever reach our movie theaters... or that I convince any of my friends to watch it with me.
All in all, I find rape and pedophilia much more... well, wrong. When animals are in question - I personaly am a vegetarian and an animal lover - but you know, their sense of 'self' is lower than that of humans. If a horse... um... f... you it's because he wants to. And when its the other way around - well, then its definately animal abuse.

Posted by: Dorota at May 5, 2007 1:12 PM

Ellis: "Neigh means nay"...awesome.

I completely agree with the people who say that that form of animal abuse is the same as child abuse. Before I had my cats spayed, I couldn't even stand to have them sit on my lap while they were in heat. Uggggghh.

I am usually a very open-minded person. I don't consider having sex with a sixteen year old sexual abuse, unless the person is forcing the teen. If you're gay or bi, mazeltov. If you want to use food in the bedroom or beat each other silly, go right ahead. I don't even normally get heated up about conflicting views on internet threads. However, anybody that would have sex with an animal, whether it's having a horse screw you or you doing a sheep, it is probably the most disgusting thing I can possibly imagine. Animals are for snuggling, scritching and for ridding your home of pests, guarding you, for transportation, and in the case of game animals, food. For those of you arguing that those of us who eat meat have no moral leg to stand on, you're full of shit. First, I would never, ever eat cat, dog, or horse. I'd rather starve. I'm not kidding. And the idea that someone fucked my steak at some point is enough to make me want to give up meat altogether anyway.

Pedophilia and Bestiality are the same thing. It doesn't matter who is banging whom. Pedophiles can get their victims to fellate them. Is that any better than a kid being sexually abused? Oh, wait. That IS a kid being sexually abused.

It's rape. It's rape in either case. Neither the child nor the animal can give or deny consent. And rape does not necessarily constitute anal-penile or penile-vaginal penetration. If I ever found out any of my friends participated in sick, depraved acts like that, I would never speak to them again, and would totally call the ASPCA. Hopefully, courtney, if there's any justice in the world, your "friend" will be arrested.

Mr. Hands got what he deserved.

It is freakin' rape. And gorge-raisingly disgusting.

Posted by: Apathy at May 7, 2007 4:03 PM

Edit: Duff's friend, not courtney's.

Posted by: Apathy at May 7, 2007 4:06 PM

Ever seen a male dog that tries to hump everything? Seems pretty natural to me. I wonder if that dog would naturally climb onto a person who was on all fours vs a dog and have sex that way. I'm guessing yes. It's a biologically driven behavior. The dog senses pleasure that is sexual, and this reinforces his instinct to breed and perpetuate the species. For this reason I see the "rape" cry as being a bit far-off.

Posted by: biology at September 24, 2007 3:57 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.