Scientists Still Clueless

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/two-animals-species-sex-zoophilia-monkey-deer-japanese-macaque-female-sika-interspecies-sexual-a7519706.html

Just a quick post to let you know I'm still alive. Apparently the first ever "consensual" intercourse between species has been documented, and the researchers looking into it are still clueless about how or why this could possibly happen. Now they're getting down to it being a natural reaction to mate deprivation in combination with estrus.

It makes one wonder when they'll finally decide to just talk to us if they want to understand us, and find that we aren't all oversexed, lonely abusers. Or maybe it's time we started talking to them.

Zoophilia and Pedophilia

This is another topic I touched on in another post, a long time ago, but given the amount of discussion I've had on it recently I feel I ought to talk more about it.

Almost invariably, like some sort of sexual Godwin's Law, when debating with someone about the morality of zoosexuality my opponent will claim that zooerasty (or "be(a)stiality" as it is far more often termed, which as far as I'm concerned is like calling anal sex "assrape") is just the same as pederasty because animals, like children, have no concept of sex and are too uneducated to appropriately respond to it.

There are many arguments against this.  Most shouldn't be necessary: any ethologist, comparative psychologist, or animal breeder will know from study or observation that animals frequently proposition others for sex, have sex, react favourably towards sex, and eventually come back again for more sex.  Sex can even be used as a reward stimulus in Pavlovian conditioning.  Humans too.  And anyone with any knowledge of natural selection would surmise that if every animal on the planet apart from humans was not capable of showing sexual readiness, propositioning others for sex, and enjoying sex, then biodiversity would be very slim indeed.  And this enjoyment of sex is definitely not limited to same-species intercourse.

But let's assume correctly that these assertions are not enough for many people, who believe that the reason children should not have sex with adults, and therefore the reason animals should not have sex with humans, is because children do not have the mental capacity to understand it.  This is true, but what these individuals do not realize is that this truth does not extend to mature animals, and that this fact is readily observable.  The easiest way to find the onset of sexual interest is to examine sex hormone levels.  These hormones are necessary not just directly to the sex drive but also to the development of various somatic and neurological structures.  We can actually see a child's brain readying itself for sexual intercourse, and this does not take place until puberty.  The same goes for any mammal, and the chemicals (mainly estrogen and testosterone) and brain structures (especially the hypothalamus and other subcortical structures in the forebrain, such as the pituitary gland, nucleus accumbens, and caudate nucleus) involved are universal, with only slight changes to relevant structures and none suggesting any human exceptionalism.



There have been organizations of pedophiles who have suggested otherwise.  Perhaps most famous is the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit) in the Netherlands, in existence from 2006-2010.  It advocated initially for a drastic reduction of age-of-consent and eventually its elimination, and it and other organizations have released pamphlets, for adults and children, with the suggestion that pre-pubescent youth can desire and even frequently proposition adults for sex.  Is this any different from what zoosexuals say about animals?

I would naturally argue that it is.  Active pedophiles tend to view entirely innocuous gestures as sexual proposition: an eight-year-old girl does a headstand and inadvertently shows her panties, or a six-year-old boy urinates at a campground, unaware or uncaring of his visibility.  Children themselves, of course, don't respond sexually when they see one another's undergarments, and even were adults to perform them, these gestures would never be recognized as sexual overtures.  The assumption would then have to be that not only are children capable of making such overtures, but have a far more complex social and sexual mind than do their post-pubescent counterparts that belies the fact that they may not get why peeing in public should be embarrassing.

It is sometimes suggested that prepubescent children masturbate or even engage in sexual conduct with one another, but this is a misrepresentation: while children may touch themselves, or touch one another in what is called "sex play" by developmental psychologists, these never result in orgasm, nor do they ever result in consistent sexual attention.  It is best regarded as exploratory, in the same fashion that a seven-year-old child who plays around with the terminal of a Linux box is not intending to learn to superdo his way into becoming a hacking sensation.  He's just curious about what's going on.

Animals are entirely different: the signals they give off, whether they be humping, displaying of genitalia, or other relevant actions, are unmistakably sexual in nature and could not conceivably be perceived to mean anything else.  As expected, animals respond sexually to one another when presented with these signals.  And unlike children, and like adult humans, they seem to benefit from consensual sexual intercourse physically and psychologically, whether their partner is of their own species or not.  It should be noted that there are many long-term physical and psychological consequences for victims of child sex abuse; indeed, the majority of individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder are victims of child sex abuse.

Finally, there is the question of authority.  This, I think, is best answered with observation and common sense: while a child, even if he or she really does not want to do something, such as going to school, washing the dishes, or eating their broccoli, they will usually do so when told to by an adult, especially one with authority, such as a parent or a teacher.  This is because we as humans have a very developed social intelligence; we have language, we have culture as a result, and we have very complex social norms that often even supercede basic needs and conditioning: that child will eat his broccoli even if it makes him vomit later, because his mother told him to.

Anyone with an animal, on the other hand, even an animal traditionally regarded as very loyal, like a dog, will know that there are many things they will simply not do without a fight no matter how much they seem to dote on you otherwise.  Whether it be going to the vet, going outside when it's cold out, or swallowing a pill, their resistance is clear even if they eventually give in.  With animals such as cats or horses, this resistance is even more clear, and more likely to result in injury to your person.  While there may be a social hierarchy in the mind of your animal, then, the importance of that power you have over them is not nearly as important as their basic needs to not be ill, not be cold, or indeed, not be used or abused sexually.  Any animal, particularly a female, will make it incredibly clear that she is not in the mood for sexual intercourse, regardless of how much she loves you: as an adult, she knows what it is, and knows that now is not the time, and that knowledge is more important than any thought that you might take away her walk privileges.

Which brings up the notion that an animal will jump to these conclusions in the first place: we don't tend to punish our animals for resisting when we want them to go outside, or take a pill.  We just make them go outside, or take the pill.  This is of course different for children: "If you don't stop whining and eat your greens, you won't have TV for a week," isn't that uncommon of a statement.  Children are trained early on to do everything their parents, and other authority figures, want, for fear of punishment.  We are far more lenient on our animals, so why should an animal ever even imagine that should they not consent to sex with us that something bad will happen?  If anything, this is much more likely to happen with our (adult!) human partners, who have been educated socially to believe that sex is necessary for a stable relationship.  To imagine that animals have any such concept is, frankly, to afford them some very hefty intuition about how our modern human culture is organized.  This is not to say that we do not have some level of control over the lives of our animals, and therefore responsibility particularly to take care of them and to ensure they act appropriately in the public space, it is not to all the same extents as children with developing biology and views of the world.

That's the end of my argument.  This took a lot of time out of a day that maybe should have been focused on something that will be productive in my career or for my family, given the time of year (Happy Holidays, zetas & friends!) but given the discussion that has been happening recently, I really felt I needed to update the blog again.

I would just like to finish on one note: despite the abuse and lunacy propagated by the most visible of pedophiles, I believe the average pedophile is someone to be pitied.  The PNVD actually advocated for a ban of zooerasty in the Netherlands, interestingly enough, all the while proclaiming that they should be allowed to have sex with prepubescent children; however, the large majority of pedophiles are not only fully aware that pederasty is grievous abuse, but are indeed terrified and often traumatized by the idea that they may someday lose control and be perpetrators of such abuse.  They have nowhere to turn in our current social system, and even mental health professionals that are willing and capable of assisting pedophiles are few and far between.  So while it has nothing at all to do with zoosexuality, I would like to appeal to the readers of this blog to empathize more with those sad individuals who are cursed with a sexual attraction to prepubescent youth.  It is only through this empathy, and the resulting support, that these individuals can be helped, and thus child sex abuse prevented for the future.  Thank you.

Training, Not

Quite a while ago, I believe when I was ranting about the online zoo community, I mentioned training in zooerasty: specifically, that it shouldn't be done.  This is kind of a controversial thing, too.  Controversial, I mean, even for zoophilia itself.  So, once again, I apologize to my non-zoophilic readership, however few you may be at this point: judging by this blog's statistics, you're all a load of perverts anyway. ;)

So, training.  First, let's define it: training is using Pavlovian or operant conditioning to get an animal to have sex with you.  That is, rewarding the animal (ie with food) for participating, or punishing them in some way for not.  Let me make it clear that, say, showing your dog how it's done, or sort of "warming" your horse up over time is not training.  Animals do that to each other.  Humans do that to each other.  We don't really talk about it, because we don't want sex to seem so mechanical, and we certainly don't want to look like we're 'bad' at it, so we pretend it's an entirely natural thing which we just 'get'.

And we do, to a great extent.  So do most if not all sexual animals; certainly all the animals a human could ever have a mutual sexual relationship with, in any case.  That's part of the point here: animals do not need specific training to have sex, let alone to enjoy it.  If they are not enjoying it, it does not mean you need to train them to enjoy it, it means you are doing something very wrong.

I'll give an example: I read a lot of people talking about putting tasty things on their genitalia so that their animal (usually a dog) will lick them.  I don't have an enormous problem with this: particularly compared to other methods of training I read about, it's certainly not harmful.  The human is getting a lickjob and the pooch is getting a snack, and that's fine and dandy.  The problem comes up when people call this zoophilia. As I noted last month, zoophilia is romantic: there is primary interest in the desires of your partner, and in mutuality.  In the case of this training, the mutuality is limited: one is getting sexual pleasure, the other is not; the latter may only be faintly aware that sexual pleasure is at all being had.  The use of this method of training, therefore, along with all the others that are more explicit and intensive, are a form of bestiality.



Let's talk more about the peanut butter-licking.  The people advising other people on it are doing so as an answer to the question, "How do I get my dog to blow me/eat me out?" What is not acknowledged is that for dogs, even more so than it is for people, licking another's genitalia in a sexual context, usually before or after sex, is entirely natural.  It is a response to sexual stimulation, generally olfactory but also tactile.  This means that if the individuals in question were simply willing to put in the time to get to know their dog and establish an understanding sexual relationship with them, they would achieve the same result without any smeared substances.

From here, it doesn't take long to look at the other ways people get their unwilling animals to have sex with them.  Animals get sex.  They probably get it more than a lot of people do, and are more than happy to oblige someone whom they trust and makes them feel good.  Why, then, do we have people who will in the same breath talk about how they got their bitch to 'take it' and then call themselves zoophilic?  This is sheer bestiality, and is part of the reason zoosexuality is looked down upon so heavily: it's assumed, because these people are too stupid, heartless, or lazy to have a real mutual sexual relationship with an animal, that a real mutual sexual relationship with an animal is not possible.

So how do you do it, then?  By utilizing the empathetic skills you must have if you are zoophilic.  Know your partner.  Understand their body language.  When they say, "No," understand that it does in fact mean no, and oblige.  Experiment a little, but don't overdo it.  Most importantly, love them; if you do that, just like in anthrosexual relationships, everything else will come with time.

Also, in the last couple posts, this blog has doubled its view count.  This is in large part on account of Reddit (hello, Redditors!) but also because of a few links here and there that I know of on Facebook, MSN, forums and the like.  So a big thank-you to everyone who's helped spread this around!

Cat Sex

I was going to have this in the same article as last week's, but I decided against it for one very obvious reason.

This is definitely the steamiest post I have written here to date.  If you are not either zoo yourself or else are heavily desensitized to zoosexuality, please just skip this post.  It's for the zoos and the zoos alone.  Don't worry: I don't plan on making a habit of this, and we shall return to less romantic things next week.

---

Let’s give the queasy folks some space.  Here, I’ll be talking to you zoophiles who want to be more sexually intimate with your female cat but always heard it wasn’t possible, are afraid of doing it wrong, or have done it wrong.

Let me make it clear that penetrating your cat, male or female, does not work.  Don’t do it.  If you do, I will have to come to your place and shove a two-by-four up your ass, because that’s basically what it is.  What will be discussed here are tactile and oral stimulation.

Tactile stimulation – that is, fingering – is best done, in my experience, when kitty is lying on your chest and facing you, and you’re lying down.  This way, you can wrap your arms around her and be all romantic-like, and face her, and also keep an eye on her reactions because you are bigger than her and you don’t want to be making her uncomfortable.  This position also seems to be the most reassuring for your cat, who is given the real impression that she’s got the power here, and can leave whenever she likes - or lead you into a different position.  Mine will go from my belly to sprawling on her back on the floor to crouching with her butt on the air to crawling right back into my arms - important to remember throughout this article is that cats are all very different from one another and the best thing to have is a keen awareness of kitty's body language.

Before I go on, I'm going to assume you're a complete imbecile and tell you to ensure your hands are washed and clean.  So, first of all, regardless of what you're doing, foreplay is important.  It even occurs in nature, and it gets both of you ready both psychologically and physiologically.  Pet her, rub her, talk to her, give her her space for at least a few minutes.

It’s good to be petting/massaging/grabbing her scruff and scratching her rump simultaneously.  You can tickle the side of her tail to let her know what’s going on.  If she’s glad about that, her tail will be off to the side, her bum will be raised slightly, and her face will be a very happy one.  If you don’t know cat expressions, expect heavy eyelids and forward whiskers.

From here, your finger has access.  Which to use depends on how big your fingers are.  It’s best to start with the pinkie, because even it is going to be larger than a male cat’s phallus.  Experiment a little, though, very tentatively, because some queens like a bit of extra breadth.  Whichever finger you’re using, the rest of your hand should be relatively relaxed, wrapped comfortably around her rear, or over the base of her back.

What you are doing with that finger should be extremely tentative.  Because she’s on top, she actually has a lot of control, so starting out you really should be doing little more than just tickling her vagina.  Don’t do anything with the other opening unless she wants it, and she will show you this by moving it onto your hand.  Most cats don’t like it, and certainly not on the first time, and if you so much as brush it you’re going to be left alone on your couch or bed very quickly.  In any case, as you’re tickling, she may move back, she may move around, and your job is to exercise your empathic skills and get what she wants.  Does she want you to tickle lower?  Does she want you further in?  Zoophiles are some very empathetic people, according to one psychologist Beetz (2000), and this is why: we don’t have the luxury of someone telling us what to do while having sex, and we have very picky partners.

For this reason, don’t be upset if she leaves early.  Just stay put, or go the opposite direction as her.  You can see her again in a bit.  Don't worry about it.  A lot of cats will like to crawl around and stuff while having fun, and if you stay put or go she might immediately come after you wondering why you don't get the point.  In cases like these, you can chase her, put a bit of pressure on her back and continue on the ground.  As her arousal peaks you might find the almost masochistic resilience of a lot of female cats; some aren't satisfied towards the end of a round until you've got one hand massaging her neck and shoulders, and the other knuckling both holes as she holds her butt high in the air.

It’s kind of neat, because she knows exactly how to get you where she wants you to go, but if you actually try yourself, presuming she doesn’t hop away and hide, you’re never going to get there anyway.  She has the power, and inside you can feel her moistness, erogenous zones throbbing, her heart beating and her muscles drawing you in.  We don’t usually think of tactile stimulation as terribly romantic, but all this coupled with your other hand stroking her neck and back and her eyes gazing amorously into yours, it can be an incredibly rewarding experience.

Eventually, though, you’ll want to stop, or she will - if you’re good, and she’s having a good time, this might not be for a while - and after that, although you might think it best to give her a cuddle and mutter sweet nothings to her and all that, you actually want to leave her be for a bit.  You can sit around nearby, or even just stay right there, and she may well come back later from getting a drink to let you know that she appreciates it, whereas you might make her a little nervous and feel boxed in if you trail her or try to pet or cuddle her.  That’s just how cat sex works.  The moral to all of this is that everything is on her dime.

An interesting thing to note is that I know cats outside of heat, and even spayed females, who like a little tactile.  Of course, you have to be even more receptive and careful during this, but there can be mutual enjoyment even if hormones aren’t flowing.  I don’t believe I can in good conscience recommend this, because I just know some moron is going to read this and then think it’s A-OK to rape an undeveloped feline, but as a stupid youth I tried masturbating a spayed queen who belonged to my family.  She of course left, disgruntled, and I of course felt like absolute shit for not keeping my own hormones in check, this being at a time where I hated myself for even being zoophilic, let alone acting on it.  I left for a week, though, and when I saw her again, the first thing she did when I lay down on the couch was jump up on me and lower her bum right onto my hand, so we actually ended up developing something of a relationship.  Oddly, too, this little cat also liked her anus dealt with.  TMI, perhaps, but there’s a little story about cats and fingers.

Oral is tougher.  There are two ways I know of: either her planting her butt on top of your face, which seems to be something smart and forceful queens do, or else as she’s lying down on her side or belly (or back, or all over the damn room if she's like mine) and you’re lying next to her.  Anything else is too awkward, because she’s small and quadrupedal.  Many cats don’t want to have anything to do with oral.  And who can blame them, our mouths are disgusting.  Make sure to rinse very well.  And if your cat doesn’t want you going there, don’t go there.  Simple.  Maybe someday in the future.

Important: you should actually not brush your teeth or, for that matter, eat crunchy foods at all beforehand.  Either of these will cause tiny lacerations in your mouth which opens you both up to greater transmission of bacteria and other icky things.  I'm not saying this because oral sex with cats is particularly dangerous for either of you, I'm saying oral sex in general is kind of not really the most healthy thing you can do, even with humans.  So... if you're reading this and going, "Eh, I think I'll stick to humans," at least you can take home a lesson here.

Anyway, most of the things I say about tactile stimulation apply to oral as well.  To start, though, you want to give her a sniff.  This will not only let her know what’s up before anything actually happens, so she can decline if she likes, but it will also let you know what she smells like and are you sure you want to do this.  I would hazard that cats are... stronger than most women, although it’s just your tongue tip that’s going to have to deal with that, based on the fact that missing and accidentally getting her bum may be more palatable.  Fair warning given.  But of course, as I like to say, if you love someone, you love every bit of them: every way in which they stimulate your five senses.  So as bold adventurers, we press on.

I once read somewhere that if you want to become an expert cunning linguist, you can practice on a rose, trying not to ruin the flower.  If that’s the case for women, then perhaps we might say for a girlcat you might want to think of it as one of those tiny blue flowers.  Or foxglove. (I kid.) Cats are, as I have iterated, sensitive, and you just barely want to tickle to start out with.  You can eventually escalate, but do not expect to be able to shove your tongue anywhere.  If you’re using force, you’re using too much force.  And don’t forget to stroke her.

That’s all I have to say on cat sex, for now.  Hopefully you got something out of it.  And hopefully you didn’t get here by accident, ignored the warning above, and now look a little like this:

Now

Let's

Give

The

Rest

Of

The

Blog

Some

Space.

Good luck to you and yours.

Terminology

There's a lot of discussion in the zoo community and interested parties about what certain words mean.  Generally, it is said that because said community is disorganized and often less than stable, there is no agreement on what means what.

I'd like to change that.  We don't have a definitive lexicon, so I'll attempt to put one here.


Anthrosexuality
A sexual orientation towards humans.  The opposite of zoosexuality, although the two are not mutually exclusive.

Bestiality
The sexual use of animals.  Bestiality and bestials/bestialists, unlike zoophilia and zoophiles, give no regard to the emotions or desires of the animal, and there is no emotional attachment.  First used in the seventeenth century, it's now the usual term used in legal documents.

Faunoiphilia
Sexual arousal from watching animals mating.

Fence-hopping
Having sexual interactions with an animal that is not yours, without the permission of the animal's legal owner.

Horse-ripping
Rather explicit abuse of horses in an often sexualized context that has unfortunately become common enough that it has its own term.  Unfortunately one of the big reasons zooerasty is still illegal in many places.

Zooerasty
Zoosexuality in practice, ie the act of a human having sex with an animal. cf pederasty

Zoophilia
(1) A romantic attraction to animals.  An emotional attachment is necessary (-philia meaning love) and a sexual attraction is generally implied.  It does not, however, need to be present, nor does an individual need to have had a partner to be a zoophile. cf nyctophilia, etc.
(2) A paraphilia involving animals, used in a clinical context. cf necrophilia

Zoosadism
Bestiality, but above and beyond a simple lack of concern for the animal partner in being explicitly physically abusive.

Zoosexuality
A sexual orientation towards animals.  May cover either zoophilia or bestiality, but, like zoophilia, does not necessitate an existing relationship.  Sometimes used today to mean someone who prefers animals, as opposed to someone who will orient towards animals but prefers humans.

Why NOT Zoophilia?

There has never, in history, been a civilization that has normatively or officially approved of overtly romantic or sexual interactions between humans and animals.  There have been times where it simply wasn’t punished, or was practiced for less-than-everyday reasons, such as ritual – certain practices involving kings and horses in certain European cultures during the Bronze Age come to mind – but it was never normal, and never considered a viable romantic orientation; in above example, the horse was afterwards devoured.  Why is this?  Extending this question, why today do we have, if anything, only an even more negative attitude towards zoophilia?

This seems like a silly question to most: when asked to rationalize an attitude towards this question, the first reaction tends to come from the gut, along with their breakfast.  Although we’re more tolerant today of that woman who just likes her cats a lot, bestiality at least is still simply gross.  But grossness, in a serious discussion, is not enough to warrant arresting or even killing someone; at least it’s not today.  Nor, for most – at least in the developed world – is religion. (And besides, the Bible only condemns bestiality twice: once in Exodus, once in Leviticus, which are two books often hummed and hawed over, and not once is it called a sin.)

People will cite health reasons too: that one can catch all manner of illnesses and infections from animals.  However, this is provably false: as I discuss briefly in my last post, the number of zoonoses – diseases that can be transferred from animal to human – are extremely small in comparison to the number of STIs that can be transmitted between humans.  As for infection, so long as an animal is well-cared-for, there is little risk.  Most infections you read about on the “lol” section of your favourite news site arise when someone sneaks onto farmland to bang X ungulate, which obviously isn’t going to be as sanitary from an anthropocentric viewpoint as an animal kept with people.  And of course, the same individuals support freedom for practices that are inherently self-destructive, such as drinking, smoking, or the use of light drugs such as cannabis.

The debate about bestiality typically boils down to animal rights: the idea that animals cannot consent.  This argument, I find, is indicative of an individual who has spent little time with animals in their life.  Indeed, I attended a lecture a few weeks ago in which the lecturer asked a room of two hundred or so people how many of them had pets.  Maybe ten percent raised their hands.  When he asked off-handedly how many felt attached to their pets, only half of that figure did.  The assumption, then, that someone who believes that animals are so unthinking and unfeeling that they are not even able to articulate a very basic desire actually has no experience to back this reasoning seems to be a fairly solid one; indeed, when I end up in a debate with such an individual, I can usually flabbergast them by showing them some random video of an animal in heat.  I beg your pardon, sir, but does your girlfriend scream and brandish her genitalia in front of you when she wants something?  Oh, but it’s not verbal consent, therefore it’s not legal.  Well, does your significant other ever even ask you if you want to have sex, or does it just happen – clothes start falling off, as it were – because it’s a natural thing to do?

This debate and the health debate are both hypocritical veils for that original, gut-driven objection.  So we’re still left with this original question: why, when so many other taboos based on nothing but faith and proximity discomfort have been abolished, is zoophilia still illegal in most parts of the world, and is despised by the majority of the population in every nation?  I believe the reason is two-part: adherence to old values, which is a hallmark of culture itself and has retarded such progressive thought, such as gender equality and religious tolerance, from manifesting; and our view of animals in general.  We, as modern humans, see animals at once as lovable, animated creatures, and as inferiors to be exploited by tools.  Hospitals employ cats and dogs to visit their patients because, as a species, we adore them, while at once administering to the same patients medications that were discovered only through cruel experimentation on, yes, cats and dogs.

What does this mean?  Simply, our animals are objects: we may dispose of them, so long as we don’t have to see it happen.  We don’t have to learn about them, because there are more important things to be attending to that involve us.  They are, in short, slaves, only without the non-crazy emancipation movements, so those who do become attached to them in some of the ways we generally reserve only for humans are treated as though they are willingly lowering themselves to the level of the slave – something we have always found distressing.  Couple this, of course, with the foreignness of non-human anatomies – as foreignness almost always produces an instinctual withdrawal – and you have a great deal of distress regarding the situation of the zoophile.

From this, we can glean a solution: although we cannot eliminate resistance to social or cultural change – nor, I believe, should we, for too much change at once can be harmful – we can work towards reconstructing the bond between humans and other animals, showing people that, apart from our ability to speak and produce culture, there is very little difference between ourselves and other species.  Following this is perhaps the more difficult imperative: we, as zoophiles, must come out in force, so that the concept of a human who desires romantic relationships with non-humans is not so bizarre to the common folk.  I believe that it is actually up to us to achieve both of these goals: with the failure of such movements as PETA and the ALF on account of being batshit insane, we are the best individuals for the job to show the world just what animals are capable of, and how similar we truly are.  Only once this is accomplished will our world take that one giant step closer towards rationality and equality, and will we be allowed to live without fear.

Sex with Animals Causes Cancer?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.