Zoosexual topics 2
" The Question of Animal Awareness " by Donald R. Griffin
“Similar mechanisms of traumatic rectal injuries in patients who had anal sex with animals to those who were butt-fisted by human sexual partner”
Damian Jacob Sendler / Laboratory of Forensic Sexology, Legal Medicine, and Digital Ethnography, Felnett Health Research Foundation in New York, 175Zoe St Staten Island, New York 10305 United State
Sexual pleasure comes in various forms of physical play, for many it involves stimulation of the vagina, while the anus for others; some enjoy both. A recent report by Cappelletti et al.1 shows a meta-analysis of cases describing anal trauma due to sexual fisting in human partners. This clinical article reports four cases of males diagnosed with zoophilia, and who received anal sex from animals, resulting in injuries. Surgical and psychiatric evaluations are summarized. Unusual etiology of sexual activity with animals caused peri-anal trauma in men who engaged in anal sex with dogs and farm animals. Injuries to patients who receive anal sex from animals are mechanistically similar to fisting-induced rectal damage. Among zoophiles, the mode of harm occurs through blood-engorged, interlocked penis that causes tissue lacerations upon retraction from an anus. In people experimenting with fisting, repetitive stretching within anal canal and of external sphincter causes the internal injuries. The mode of physical stimulation explains the extent of injuries in fisters vs. zoophiles: in fisting, the pressure applied by hand is controllable proximally around and within anal sphincter, while penetration by the animal penis is unpredictable and occurs within the proximal anal canal. Forensically, the findings presented in this article describe a significant mechanism of injury in fisters versus passive zoophiles. These descriptions may aid in clinically differentiating pleasurable and pathological rectal stimulation.
One of the reasons I prefer being a jack donkey's female-roled partner,
I love the feeling of being dominated, I know that the moment his penis enters me, I know he is going give me a very firm hard thrust into me, and his penis head soon flares, locking him up inside of my anal canal, I have a little control and I must submit and give myself to him, once he starts thrusting he is not stopping til he ejaculates, thats why it is so important to be well prepped/lubed, and have a equine partner you can handle in regards to his penis length and girth, size of his flared head, as donkey pull-out still flared and his whole body size. (stallion ponies and horses general pull-out un-flared).
Fully erect Edward was 20 inches (50cm) thus once he was completely up inside me, he could flare and start ejaculating well up inside my sigmoid colon.
Thus once he had ejaculated one time, I then had his semen filling my colon acting as a lube, which made each following copulation easier, thus if at all possible I wanted him to mount and breed me every 1-2 hours.(say in a evening after work), when we started copulating say at 6pm to 10pm, he'd usually breed me 2-3 times.
Prior to ever letting Edward mount and breed me , I had to use my dildo to clean, lube, and prepare myself to take his long penis.
- Emotion bonds between humans and non-humans -
Proscription of Zoosexuality
proscription: the action of forbidding something; banning.
After readiing the following paper by Antonio M. Haynes , I believe it is a very objective and unbiased perspective look at the subject.
The " BESTIALITY PROSCRIPTION" : " IN SEARCH OF A RATIONALE "
by Antonio M. Haynes*
THE BESTIALITY PROSCRIPTION
" CONCLUSION "
This Article has assessed whether typical justifications for prohibiting bestiality withstand critical scrutiny. Premised on theories of consent, impermissible use, public health, or misperceptions regarding sexual orientation, the arguments all display an internal inconsistency that renders them unavailing.
The rationales, if taken seriously, would render many ‘innocuous’ uses impermissible, while irrationally attempting to maintain that sex is somehow different. Yet, intuitively at least, sex is different. If instead coercion were the criterion for justifying the regulation of all sex, the law might be rendered more internally coherent and bestiality proscribed, without also calling into question a wide range of activity that is not yet thought to be nor has ever been considered universally condemnable.
Undoubtedly, the desire to criminalize Abel and Eloise’s illicit liaisons might not come from irrational hatred or fear of deviance, but may instead come from an earnest desire to protect the animal. As a sentient being, the animal is entitled to our concern, and we should seek to avoid her needless suffering.
A respect for the animal, however, might also require that we give equal concern to her ability to seek pleasure. While there is no dignity in making any sentient being suffer, denying the existence of capacities the being plainly has is even less dignified. Sentience is surely a helpful concept, but not if it is irrationally limited to prohibiting suffering and does not encompass protecting the possibility of pleasure
My thought is , I became very sexually attracted to Edward at a very early age and by chance and by his Consent he first allowed me to masturbate and take his semen orally, then by chance soon after, I met my two friends whom trained me for the female sexual role, thus trained me for taking big cock in my bottom.
Once my two boyfriends had bred me (ejaculated in me) , I knew my sexual role was " female receptive ". I also knew I wanted more then anything to have Edward start breeding me just as my two boyfriends had been doing.
In a way Edward saved me from the course I was on with my two boyfriends.
I loved the attention they were giving me, yet they also had many friends they had told that I am performing for them and that I was looking for other guys to perform for, and truth be said, I was willing to at least meet any guys they wanted me to meet, which lead to getting gang-banged by a group of 8 guys.
Then that all ended, when I was outed, and publicly shamed at school.
After that I tried having taking Edward's penis in my bottom, very much to my delight Edward was a willing partner, and after he seen he could mount and breed me, he was very eager to breed me, and very often.
Because I am "sexually inverted" I have a intense desire to be sexually treated like a female, and Edward did that perfectly for me, and without the social implications of being with men, without the complexity of trying to find a man whom would treat me as a female, accept I need sex alot.
On top of all that, after the first time Edward actually bred me, it was clear from that point, I no longer had any real interest of being with anyone but him.
Whether I liked it or not , I was fully feminized / emasculated and knew my sexual role had to be 100% female.
Even though I have not sexually been involved with a male donkey or any non-human animal since Edward's death in 1996 , then in 1998 until 2005 I performed for only men in my female role, and this was primarily due to the fact that I was unable to find a male donkey that I was compatible with. Yet still today, my preferred partner would be a jack donkey similar to Edward. I have been celibate since 2001.
THE PREDICAMENT OF ZOOPLEASURES:
HUMAN-NONHUMAN LIBIDINAL RELATIONS
by Monika Bakke
"Seeking pleasure is among the numerous features that human animals share with other animals. Starting from the premise that all vertebrates are endowed with “the same fi ve basic senses,” Jonathan Balcombe observes that many animals with a similar anatomy and corporeal foundation to human beings must thus also experience pleasures like “bliss, joy, comfort and satisfaction” (2006, p. 13). Western science has so far largely neglected the libido of nonhuman animals, privileging issues of natural selection and reproductive success over the diversity of feelings, emotions and pleasures experienced by individual animals of all kinds (cp. Balcombe 2006, p. 8). Moreover, the Western anthropocentric tradition maintains a strong emphasis that when it comes to human-nonhuman relations, the only true objectives are the satisfaction of human pleasures. One exception is made to this: human beings are not allowed to enjoy sexual pleasure from libidinal encounters with other species. Cultural control over the experience of pleasure plays a signifi cant role in the process of constructing and maintaining the human-nonhuman border. And yet, pleasure—which in itself is a troublesome experience, overwhelming the body and haunting the imagination—often escapes this controlling framework."
" In zoosexual relationships animals gain the status of a partner rather than a victim of human lust. For this very reason, many zoos point out the absurdity of denying animals the ability to consent to sexual involvement with their body language, as they have claws, teeth, and hoofs to show their disapproval. It is absolutely crucial, however, to be aware that there are many more subtle forms of power relationship between the two ‘partners’ than the simple dichotomy of ‘rape’ versus ‘consent’. Still, to assume that the animal is always a victim is based on the logic of bestiality, which paradoxically is the same logic that—in the traditional tales of bestiality in art—almost always made women victims of beasts who were not even supposed to be animals but male humans or human-like male gods. The stereotypical picture of a human involved in sexual acts with animals is “a poor, naive, confused, desperate, uneducated, ignorant farm boy” (Miletski 2002, p. 40) who uses animals as objects to substitute for a human partner, usually of the opposite sex. What adds to this ungraceful image is that occasionally sexual contacts with animals have been reported as violent acts against animals,7 and as animal abuse, which is closely linked to human-to-human violence. 8 Therefore, bestiality has been frequently identified with brutality, depravation and degradation for both humans and animals.9 Contemporary laws in most European countries and in some parts of the US reflect these attitudes, although the charges leveled have been changed from the moral issue of having sex with an animal to the charge of animal abuse. Some countries, however, including Germany, Holland, Belgium, and Denmark, allow sexual relations with animals when the animal consent .
Commentary: Zoophilia and the Law
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 2014, 42 (4) 421-426;
- Rebekah Ranger and Paul Fedoroff
Holoyda and Newman conclude that their paper supports criminalization of sexual interactions between people and animals, because criminalization will help to identify people who may be at high risk of future sex offenses against humans. With the greatest of respect, we disagree for several reasons.
First, the authors imply that sexual interactions of people with animals are reliably motivated by zoophilia, which in turn signals a degree of sexual and criminal deviation sufficient to become a reliable risk factor for predication of sex offenses against humans. In fact, there is sparse evidence that people who commit sex offenses against animals are at higher risk to offend against humans. The current study presents five cases from a survey of legal cases in the United States in which zoophilia is mentioned. In each case, it appears that expert psychiatrists and psychologists opined that zoophilia increased the risk that men facing SVP designations would reoffend. No detailed information about these five cases is presented. For example, how many of the experts were retained by the defense? Was any other information about potential dangerousness of the offenders presented? In how many cases did the presiding judge state that the diagnosis of zoophilia was a significant factor in the decision to assign a SVP designation or uphold the civil sentence?
Creating laws to identify psychiatric disorders flies in the face of progress. In our experience, people are less likely to seek treatment if they think they will be arrested. Older readers may recall the “psychopathy triad” sometimes known as the McDonald triad, consisting of bed-wetting, arson, and cruelty to animals.25 This triad is no longer considered valid, even though a child who deliberately burns his family home to the ground is cause for concern. We need to be cautious before creating a new rule based on (sexual) cruelty to animals, without conclusive evidence.
The article recommends increasing estimated risk on the basis of a history of sex with an animal. This recommendation is based on a brief review of previous studies, some of which have never been published and a cursory review of five cases involving men facing SVP designations. This, in our opinion, is not a sufficient basis on which to recommend new laws or changes in current risk assessment protocols.
The second cause for disagreement is that the author's recommendations have the danger of ignoring motivations. Although there is no question that zoophilia is an important motivation to engage in sex with animals, it is only one of many. For example, the fact that sexual interaction with animals is more frequent in rural communities and is only found in the military code of conduct in federal legislation suggests that the most common reason for engaging in sex with animals may be opportunity (ease of access to the animal) combined with a lack of access to a consenting human. In addition, there is arguably a significant difference between a woman hired to engage in a zoophilic video and a man who works with animals but who has no social contacts or a third case of a man who engages in sadistic or masochistic interactions with an animal due to sexual arousal from causing or experiencing humiliation. Anecdotally, in the Sexual Behaviors Clinic at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Care Centre, men have presented who describe opportunistic sex with animals or who have described engaging in affectionate relationships with farm animals that progressed to sexual interactions and others who have engaged in lethal interactions with animals that included sexually motivated acts. These men were so different in terms of vulnerabilities and risks that they failed to recognize or identify with each other in group therapy (in which disclosure of index offenses is discouraged).
Third, and perhaps most important, we disagree with Holoyda and Newman's argument that creating new laws to arrest more people with zoophilia may “increase our limited knowledge regarding the risk that zoophilic offenders pose to other humans” (Ref. 1, p 419). We argue that criminalization of behavior is a poor way to get research participants. In fact, increased criminalization is likely to have the effect of driving these individuals further underground rather than destigmatizing zoophilia to the point where definitive studies can be conducted and appropriate treatment can be offered.
Holoyda and Newman have argued that their review of the legal literature shows that sex with animals is a proven risk factor for future violent or sex offenses against humans. Although we agree that conviction for any sex offense is a risk factor, zoophilia per se is not. We hope Holoyda and Newman continue to study and write about zoophilia so that it becomes better known and understood, less stigmatized, and better treated.
My thought concerning the above paper, as a person who prefers to only have sex with my specific type animal (donkey/dog), or as a;
Class X zoosexual: exclusive zoosexuals
Sexual intercourse is possible only or mostly with animals, with virtually a complete exclusion of human partners. This group has been called zooerasts by some writers.
I would define myself as ;
" I very much would prefer only to have sex with a equine or canine male partner "
donkey great dane
As far as sex with humans, I have little to no desire to go to much effort to even find a human partner.
passage at beginning of above paper;
"which in turn signals a degree of sexual and criminal deviation sufficient to become a reliable risk factor for predication of sex offenses against humans"
I was with Edward 21 years, and didn't think about sexually abusing humans
The only reason I've been celibate for last 16 years is because they made it a crime!
I at least think each individual case of a human/animal sexual relationship be judged on individual basis, not generalized way as it is currently.
My guess is 90% of exclusive zoosexuals treat their animal partners with loving care and respect because care for them just we would a human they love, and don't sexual offend humans.
The synopsis of "Commentary: Zoophilia and the Law";
We support the observation of Holoyda and Newman that common definitions of zoophilia are confusing and that legal definitions of bestiality and sentencing implications are inconsistent. We take issue with their contention that the finding of a history of sex with animals may be a significant risk factor for future harm to humans. We oppose their recommendation for new laws against bestiality to improve psychiatric knowledge about zoophilia. Instead, we advocate for better diagnostic criteria than are provided by the DSM-5, together with the provision of treatment to promote healthful sexual interests and activities by humans and the safety of animals. We believe this is best accomplished by not treating sexual interactions with animals simply as risk factors. Instead they should be assessed as signs of zoophilia, which is a psychiatric disorder for which treatment is available.
What is the treatment for a zoosexual,
who prefer to only have a sexual relationship with their desired animal partner?
A example might be; a synopsis , I was very much addicted to alcohol, in 2014 I admitted myself into Salvation Army's " Adult Rehabilitation work therapy program", and lived at their facility in downtown Detroit and worked for the Salvation Army for nearly 2 years, we worked 8 hours a day, classes 4 hours a day 5 days a week, I can honestly say I haven't had a drink since 2014.
Yet the urge to drink is always lurking but at least minimal and rehabilitation opened my eyes to all the negative consquences of drinking, as well as I learned how much better it felt not to drink.
Until 2001 when the bill was passed making it a crime, there was no negative consquences of having Edward as my male companion/sexual partner, I think he was very happy with me as his partner to breed. Thus since 1996 when he passed away it's been a constant craving for companionship like he gave me and not constant like wanting a jack donkey lover.
How did that treatment or short term way of life make it possible to now live without drinking ?,
I'm not 100% sure,
yet I do know getting arrested, thrown in jail and fined didn't work, only made things worst.
Yet to look at big picture, and compare;
Having Edward as my male sexual partner;
It is natural for a human being to want a sexual partner, and myself being sexually inverted/female roled zoosexual primarily attracted to male intact equines I need a male partner, and by having Edward as a
male partner it was safe for him and I both, a very much controlled healthy relationship.
The vet. checked Edward routinely, I was checked routinely forillness, etc., we had no way of getting STD's, we had a contained monogamous type relationship. We were ideal sexually suited, he was perfect size for me to accommodate him anally.
I never thought Edward and I a danger to society.
I myself driving under the influence of alcohol
Is not natural and really does make one a danger to society
I can't control what people think about me having sex with a male donkey or human male as their female roled partner is a danger to society, I know in the context of Edward and my relationship it wasn't, but I can control myself not to be a danger to society by not drinking, thus not driving under the influence.
A major aspect for me in regards to being a female roled zoosexual
is I have no interest per se in a human sexual partner, the sex I have
with men is more for emasculation, getting feminized, allows me to
be submissive, allows me to be used as slut, I love being gang-banged.
It never has bothered me if a human male partner is topping anyone else,
I'm never got jealous, I never wanted a permanent monogamous relationship with a human, I simply wanted used for sex, as a adult however
I only had sex with men from 1998 to 2005 and 2 years on the street per se,
5 years in the Indigo houses as a sub bottom caged slut.
I very much prefer the role as female roled/receptive zoosexual
Yet the urge is constant, in regards to desiring a jack donkey partner like Edward
Large "intact" Male dogs
I thought Outlaw here, who I met in 1998, I thought he might be a good partner,
yet he was simply too large for me to accommodate anally(shaft thickness) and to have him mount and breed me didn't work out.
I began routinely masturbating Outlaw and the six other stallions on the farm so I could ingest their semen.
5/7/2022 " A Zoo's Legacy"
Two zoos seek to leave a legacy behind for future generations. Featuring an interview with Appa Loosa, and memories of Fausty from members of the ZooTT crew. In loving, zooey memory of Douglas LeConte-Spink. We will keep your legacy alive.
Since I just started reading the ebook "Uniquely Dangerous" this weekend the true account of Douglas LeConte-Spink's life I thought I'd post the above podcast here.
Doug Spink 1971-2020
What a few Zoo's said after his death;
# " Douglas Bryan LeConte-Spink passed away Thursday morning at his home in Harmony, Pennsylvania. Those of us who knew and collaborated with Doug are deeply pained by his loss. I certainly am. I only knew Doug in the final year of his life after reading Uniquely Dangerous, but in that short time I found him to be an amazing individual - caring and deeply compassionate, uncompromising and steadfast, courageous, generous with his support and encouragement, brilliant and hilariously funny. He spent his final year initiating and fostering the first zoo podcast in the world, working tirelessly to open an avenue for zoos to speak for and of ourselves in our own voices, and was not stopped by the pain and impairments of the aggressive cancer he was fighting. He fought it with everything he had, as was his way. He was defiant to the very end"
# " I also knew him only indirectly the last 20 years, but know this is a huge loss to his friends and family. His passing is also a huge loss to the zoo community. Nobody has been a bigger focus for zoo activities and the issues we face than fausty - I will miss his overriding voice, especially on ZTT.
Rest in peace Fausty, as you never got to rest in life"
# " Wow... that is really a bummer. Like, REALLY a bummer. I recently finished reading Uniquely Dangerous a few months back, as well as listening to the ZTT podcast... I really felt like I knew Doug although I never had the chance to talk or meet with him. We had some exchanges in DMs on Twitter. He had some great things to say about one of my letters read on ZTT and I had hoped to maybe participate with him on ZTT at some point. It seemed like maybe he was winning against his health issues, so this comes as a shock. This really makes me sad. Definitely a hero of mine where being zoo is concerned.
Safe journey, Doug/Fausty. Maybe we'll meet in another life. I will miss your voice, experience and wisdom on ZTT "
I do believe that " Theory of Positive Personality Disintegration ", is a trait or condition both Doug Spink and I had to over come/endure due to fact we are both zoosexuals, he was homosexual and myself homosexual/third-gender(female-roled).
If anything, I think zoosexuals who deeply love and care for their animal partners should be called " Uniquely Different "
I have always felt very good about being a female-roled zoosexual because I always knew Edward's well being was the most important thing to me, and knew if he didn't want to be my male partner, there was no way I could make him want to be. As it was with Max as well.
And being " Bred " is my "Role"
If one reads the above study: " Arrest and Prosecution of Animal Sex Abuse (Bestiality) Offenders in the United States, 1975–2015
I clearly think the study also attempts to stereotype zoosexuals as people whom abuse animals, and are likely to commit more dangerous acts etc. It's simply untrue!
I don't think 259 arrests between 2011-2015 in the entire United States reflects this!
26 arrests between 1975 to 2000
Prison Inmates and Sex Offender Studies
In the 1960s, a team of researchers compared incarcerated males, convicted male sex offenders, and a control group of non-incarcerated males on various measures. The overall finding was that, among the 2,715 people studied, 17.7 percent of the sex offenders, 14.7 percent of the prison inmates, and 8 percent of the control group reported having committed sex acts with animals.10 Nearly forty years passed before convicted sex offenders were once again studied regarding their sexual contact with animals, when three studies were published between 2003 and 2008.11,–,13 On average, 43 percent of offenders in these studies reported sex acts with animals, which is considerably higher than previously reported.
Animal Sexual Abuse Occurred Across the U.S.
Arrests for bestiality-related incidents were reported throughout most of the United States between 1975 and 2015. There was no record of arrests in Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, or the District of Columbia. The annual number of arrests was minimal between 1975 and 2001 (1–2 per year), but this began rising sharply in 2004, peaking at 259 arrests during the period of 2011 to 2015
The Author fails to say by 2001 a majority of U.S states had New bestiality laws
Offender Characteristics May Be Changing
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of 456 adult offenders who were primarily males (86.0%) and ranged in age from 18 to 82 years, with a mean age of 38 years. Females accounted for 13.6 percent of all offenders, ranging in age from 18 to 61 years, with a mean age of 34. Three offenders were excluded from demographic statistics because gender for two offenders was not reported, and one offender was described as “transgender or transsexual.” Compared with prior studies of self-reporting zoophiles or animal sex offenders, the percentage of female offenders was higher1,7 and males continued to offend later in life.1,10 The number of women arrested doubled between 2012 and 2013 to a high of 17 offenders, dropping to only one female offender in 2014. Women offenders most often acted as part of a male/female couple (n = 40, 64.5%). Race was known for most offenders; white race was most prevalent (71.3%), followed by African-American (5.5%) and Hispanic-American (5.3%). Foreign-born and Native-American offenders were relatively rare (2.3%). Relationship status was known for 200 individuals. At the time of the index arrest, 87.5 percent of offenders were, or had been, in a personal relationship, and 64 offenders were reported to have more than one child. Employment status was known for 178 individuals (39.0%), most of whom were gainfully employed in a variety of fields. The most frequently reported jobs were those in public service, such as police, fire, or military service (14.8%), followed by animal-related jobs such as farming, animal shelter/rescue, pet services, and veterinary assistance (14.2%).
Wide Variability in Charging and Adjudication
Fig. 2 summarizes adjudication outcomes for all 456 arrests. In the majority of arrests (n = 340, 74.6%), bestiality was a chargeable offense; however, prosecution was declined in 49 cases, and 84 offenders (24.7% of chargeable offenses) were allowed to plead to a charge that obscured the sexual nature of the crime (e.g., criminal trespass or animal cruelty). Among 207 cases where bestiality was charged (61.9% of the chargeable group), the outcome was pending or unknown for 42 cases. Of the cases that did not result in bestiality conviction, five offenders were deported, four served time on a different outstanding charge, and 23 plea-bargained to a non-sexual charge. Of the 207 cases, 64.3 percent (n = 133) resulted in convictions with prison sentences averaging 24 months (n = 72), probation averaging 36 months (n = 43), or suspended sentences averaging 24 months (n = 13). In five cases, adjudication was withheld (n = 2) or diverted (n = 3), meaning a prison or probated sentence would not be imposed as long as conditions of release or treatment were met (n = 2). Twelve offenders were ordered to register as sex offenders; one of whom successfully appealed, arguing that, under the pertinent state law, “victim” was generally taken to mean a person not an animal. Of the 31 offenders who coerced a child to commit bestiality, only two were convicted on bestiality charges; both received 30-day sentences to run concurrently with other penalties. In other words, 29.2 percent of all bestiality-related arrests resulted in prosecution and sentencing for that crime.
Then the Author was so quick to convey that having sex with animals likely leads to child sexual abuse,
Yet: " In 50 arrests, the offender molested, raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted children and adults in addition to committing sex acts with an animal "
I don't see 50 arrests for child sexual abuse in 40 years
reflects how the majority of zoosexuals are.
Thus between 1975 to 2015 in the entire U.S,
there were 207 individuals were actually charged with bestiality
Thats 40 years!
I just don't see zoosexuality a threat to society
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE STATISTICS - Darkness to Light
excerpts from: Darkness to Light
Who are the perpetrators of child sexual abuse?
FACT: Those who molest children look and act just like everyone else. There are people who have or will sexually abuse children in churches, schools and youth sports leagues. Abusers can be neighbors, friends and family members. People who sexually abuse children can be found in families, schools, churches, recreation centers, youth sports leagues, and any other place children gather. Significantly, abusers can be and often are other children. • About 90% of children who are victims of sexual abuse know their abuser.12,13 Only 10% of sexually abused children are abused by a stranger.12 • Approximately 30% of children who are sexually abused are abused by family members.12,13 • The younger the victim, the more likely it is that the abuser is a family member. Of those molesting a child under six, 50% were family members. Family members also accounted for 23% of those abusing children ages 12 to 17.9 • About 60% of children who are sexually abused are abused by people the family trusts.12,13
• Homosexual individuals are no more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual individuals.
• FACT: Not everyone who sexually abuses children is a pedophile. Child sexual abuse is perpetrated by a wide range of individuals with diverse motivations. It is impossible to identify specific characteristics that are common to all those who molest children. • Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress and begin offending later than pedophilic offenders. • They also have fewer victims (often family), and have a general preference for adult partners.16 • Pedophilic offenders often start offending at an early age, and often have a large number of victims (frequently not family members).16 • 70% of child sex offenders have between one and 9 victims, while 20% have 10 to 40 victims.
• FACT: As many as 40% of children who are sexually abused are abused by older, or more powerful children.
• The younger the child victim, the more likely it is that the perpetrator is a juvenile. Juveniles are the offenders in 43% of assaults on children under age six. Of these offenders, 14% are under age 12.9 • Juveniles who commit sex offenses against other children are more likely than adult sex offenders to offend in groups, to offend at schools, and to have more male victims and younger victims.11 • The number of youth coming to the attention of police for sex offenses increases sharply at age 12 and plateaus after age 14. Early adolescence is the peak age for youth offenses against younger children.14 • A small number of juvenile offenders — one out of eight — are younger than age 12. Females constitute 7% of juveniles who commit sex offenses.
• FACT: Most adolescent sex offenders are not sexual predators and will not go on to become adult offenders.
Like in my case when I was having sex with older males at age 13 it was very much consenting on my part, yet what if one of the guys was over 18, and I was dishonest and told some one he abused me, he could of very well of been convicted.
I for example wanted to have sex with older males like my gym teacher, though I didn't
if he'd of asked me I'm sure I'd of perform fellatio on him or allowed him to penetrate me anally.
Being a female-roled receptive zoosexual for my entire life, at least until I became celibate in 2001, I always put the well being of my animal partners above myself and treated them with the out most respect.
So when I read the articles above claiming that zoosexuals inherently abuse their animal partners, that simply isn't true.
Those few who abuse their animal partners, aren't truly zoosexuals, they most likely have sociopathic issues, as they seem to abuse children as well.
Personally, I think it unethically for a male to use his penis to penetrate a animal, so in my eye all ethically zoosexuals must be female roled/receptive and only have relationships with male animals.
I believe that only male animals can give consent as to whether or not he desires to to have a sexual relationship with a human partner.
I need to feel good about being a zoosexual, thus I strived to take care of my animal partners to the highest degree, they after all were the number one most important part of my life.
I was 100% committed to caring for them and submitting to them sexually
I very much wanted to be the very best sexually receptive partner for them as I could be
If not for the 2001 law making sex with animals a aggravated misdemeanor, I most likely would have stopped having sex with Men, and like I did in 1975 went back to having only jack donkeys and large breed intact dogs as my male lovers.
I miss all my animal partners dearly, just Edward was my first love, my first partner that I lived with and simply the love of of my life.