Mike: You may include, within your webpage, my response to a recent post by a proponent of the sexual abuse of animals. My oh my--how freely they previously joked of molesting their pets and any others within walking or driving range. Now they seek to deny the truth in favor of public acceptance; believing in a naive, general public. The zoophile's text is noted by plain text with my response in italic, following.

Catherine B.

EDITOR's NOTE: Thanks Catherine, and here is your mail in it's entirety;

It is unfortunate how the Humane Society of the United States has extracted the issue of sexual contact between humans and animals from all this and is using the pain of the battered women to incite rage against people who are not guilty of abusing women, children, or non-human animals.

In truth, the First Strike campaign has not 'extracted' a singular aspect of sexual abuse (in a percentage of battered women) to represent the entirety of the zoophilic community but rather, has incorporated the correlation between the two into its overall message. Indeed, just as there are a number of straight men and women who abuse their pets to intimidate a spouse, so too are there zoophiles who act as violently. Conversely, the First Strike campaign is quite clear to note that not all sexual abusers of animals are necessarily abusers of women and children or, for that matter, have a direct relationship with either of the two groups. On the HSUS web site, at http://www.hsus.org/current/sexabuse_intro.html, the only issue under the First Strike heading is the alleged sexual abuse.

And for good reason. While the abuse does not directly affect women and children in all cases, the underlying cause does affect animals in all cases. Hence the name; The Humane Society Of The United States.

The use of animal torture to terrorize human beings is a legitimate issue that deserves better than the treatment being afforded it by the HSUS and Kim Roberts. Instead it is buried inside a rant against these people called zoophiles.

Nonsense: Zoophiles promote sexual contact between humans and animals. The methods by which they gain access to a neighbor's family pet are well documented by text written and distributed by mainstream zoophiles. How would you react to a zoophile entering your property in the dead of night to sexually assault your pet? And, while you may claim that these are isolated incidents, they are, in fact, quite common. Secondary to the actual abuse is the impact such behavior has on the owners of sexually abused pets. Whether it is intentional or not, the end result is one of terror for all non-zoophile parties.

Also, the kind of evidence used by the HSUS against zoophiles is largely gleaned from the writings of same. Incidents that are abusive with or without the label of sexual are cited. The same sources are not used to provide exonerating evidence, although in all fairness, evidence for or against the abusiveness of their actions should be of equal credibility when obtained from the same source.

While a small portion of the text is taken from violent, non-zoophiles, much of it is directly reproduced from private conversations between zoophiles; topics that zoophiles now regret having discussed due to their public exhibition. It is only natural that 'exonerating evidence' would be necessary. After all, how does one justify the bringing of multiple animals to a zoophile gathering for sharing, in fear that too few will result in animals that 'wear out too soon.' How does one soften the reality of 'using' small pets (cats and small dogs) in which the inevitable physical damage is obvious to even the most ignorant of abusers. These passages were not documented by those who regularly abuse their wives of children, or who murder animals, but are part and parcel to the general community of zoophiles; some of whom are unmarried and without children. The exonerating evidence may be presented through imaginary signals that connote 'consent' and a variety of anthropomorphic beliefs that relieve the zoophile of responsibility, guilt, or blame. The truth remains: Many zoophiles prostitute their own animals and do so with their neighbors. The zoophile sex FAQ describes, in great detail, behaviors that would be met with aggression or death among members of the same species. Yet, these same behaviors are embraced by zoophiles who seemingly have developed superior cross-species communication when natural, intraspecies behaviors defy their purpose. The silent, family pet, trained and conditioned to be a vessel, is not unlike the young child; conditioned to accept behaviors, and then relied upon to keep the family 'secret.' The advantage of abusing the family pet is that, unlike the child, the animal can never tell of the abuse. Where is the exonerating evidence in this?

There are enough acts of violence out there that are without doubt violent acts without indulging in the practice of applying the label of violence to acts that appear to be without violent intent and are usually without provable harmful consequences.

Violence is not always a consequence of 'intent.' After all, we have proven on more than one occasion that we are an ignorant species. Until you are able to prove that animals consent to sexual abuse by humans, behaviors that are foreign between members of their own species, you will have as difficult a time combatting the contrary. I wonder how many of readers would offer their pets for a zoophile's use, claiming consent, or would consider it non-violent to discover that their pet had been sexually used or abused? Violence need not necessarily culminate in death yet it is abusive, nonetheless. It is not only my view that substantiates this fact, but is evidenced by private discussions (now public) between mainstream members within the zoophile community. Is it any wonder that they must now retract their previously expressed views for public rhetoric ('I love my pet and he/she gives consent') more palatable to the general populace , all the while engaging in behaviors that prove otherwise. Sexual gratification often takes precedence over all other matters, including the welfare, natural behaviors, and safety of trusting 'innocents.' Zoophiles, like their deviate counterparts (sexual abusers of children) act similarly while denying wrong-doing, if for no other reason but to shield themselves from the terrible truth about themselves and about their lives, or lack thereof.

Terrific work, Mike! I am so delighted to hear that the HSUS has embraced this cause and that we may look forward to the day when zoophiles are subject to the appropriate punishment for their actions.

EDITOR NOTE: Thanks, we hope so too. Feel free to write again