Newsgroups: alt.sex.

bestiality
From: [email protected] (ASB FAQ-keeper)
Subject: PIP: Zoophilia and The Law -- History [1/1]
Expires: !NEXTMONTH! 00:00:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sex.bestiality
Organization: ...is something to strive for. :)
Summary: Periodic Informational Posting, Zoophilia and the law throughout histor
y.
Keywords: FAQ, PIP, law, history, zoophilia, bestiality
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alt.sex.bestiality P.I.P.s, Version 1.03
Posted !NOW_MONTH!
[Zoophilia and The Law -- History]
Revised 28 February, 1997
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
,--,
_ ___/ /\|
[ This section written and compiled by
,;`( )__, ) ~
L'Etalon Doux ([email protected])
// // \ '--;
(The Gentle Stallion) ]
'
\
|
^
^
============================[A - INTRODUCTION]===============================
The church, which until the time of Henry VIII still had
jurisdiction over all sexual crimes, issued "Penitential Books"
which described in the minutest detail all forbidden sexual acts
and the punishment which was attached to them. Some of these
books survive in The British Library. They are written in Latin
and, according to Rattery Taylor, author of "Sex in History," are
so explicit that they would immediately fall foul of the English
obscenity laws if published. The five penitential codes contain
some 22 paragraphs defining every conceivable form of Sodomy.
Before we go on to looking at some specific cases, we should look
at why the church was so keen to seek out practitioners of unnatural acts, the infamous "crime against nature."
The church, even at this time, was still directly involved in what
it saw as the fight against superstition and Paganism. Much use
was still made of spells and curses, potions containing the
penises and testicles of bulls and horses were widely believed
to have magical, rather than medical, powers to improve a man's
potency, or to win over a shy virgin.
Many of these beliefs were handed down from pre-Christian
religions in which the sexual union of human and beast were part
of their animistic rites. There were certainly very active horse
cults both in Ireland and the Nordic Lands which persisted well
into the fifth century.
Within living memory, a hangover from these times was still
practised in Iceland. The stallion fight, although no one would
suggest it has retained it's original meaning, was still to be
seen at the turn of the century. It consisted of two stallions
fighting over an in-season mare in the middle of a large arena.
The winner then favoured the mare with as many coverings as he
could manage before the next pair came in to the arena for the
entertainment of the crowd.
It is easy to see that this display of masculine strength and
sexual potency was originally a way of selecting the best beast
to be offered in sacrifice to the gods. The interested reader

may wish to know that such stallion fights are still practised
publicly in the Phillipines.
==============================[B - CASE STUDIES]=============================
We will now go on to a few of the reported cases. We must
remember here that Europe was completely dependent on agriculture
and opportunities were avilable to all and taken by many more
than were ever caught. In winter, the animals lived in the lower
part of the house and the people in the upper part in order that
the animals could provide a rudimentary form of heating and be
safe from hungry wolves. It is easy to imagine a lonely farmer
choosing to warm himelf by seeking "body warmth" from his horse.
In many non-European cultures, sexual acts between humans and
animals were never taboo. They were, for instance, not punished or
even considered socialy unacceptable among Hopi Indians and Kupfer
Eskimos in America or among the Kusaia and Masai Tribes in
Africa. Indeed, it has been reported that Masai adolescents
frequently used donkeys as a sexual outlet. In Peru, Dr.
Francisco Guerra found that no less than six percent of the jugs
used by the native indians contained bestiality motifs, as
opposed to the three percent which depicted homosexuality. The
rest were concerned with hetrosexual sex acts, oral, anal, etc..
In 1468, one Monsieur Jean Beisse was convicted of copulating with
a cow and a goat. Jean, the cow and the goat were all burned at the
stake.
In 1601, 16 year old Caudine de Culam was convicted of intercourse
with a dog. Both were hanged and their bodies burned.
November 1607, a young boy convicted and hanged for copulating
with a mare. The mare was killed at the foot of the gallows with
a poleaxe.
In 1649, M. Vijon burned for having sex with a bird.
In Pilgrim Father's Plymouth Colony a divorce law enacted in 1639
mentions bestiality specifically as a ground for divorce.
Cotton Mather in his book "The history of New England," written
at the end of the seventeenth century, describes how a Weymouth
man, who had been a lifelong Sodomist, was first made to watch as
3 sheep, 2 sows, 2 heifers and a cow, all of which had been his
sexual partners, were hanged. It seems that in this puritanical
world that the animals involved were just as guilty "before God"
as the man himself. He was executed in the same manner shortly
afterwards.
Another case from New England in the mid-seventeenth century
concerns one Thomas Granger, an imbecile from Duxbury. He had
copulated with a mare, a cow, 2 goats, five sheep, 2 calves and
a turkey. He ended up on the gallows of course.
For a first class demonstration of how effective torture can be we
turn to a man who admited, under torture, to sodomising a sow,
knowing full well that he would hang for it. The evidence was
that a piglet had a human appearence, and "a flecked eye exactly
like his...because of this he was suspected and admitted his
guilt." It is, of course, an absolute impossibilty for a man to

father a pig. We must then assume that the poor man decided that
hanging was better than to allow the torture to continue.
A transcript survives of a case in Virginia at about the same
time. It appears that one Nathaniel Moore had tied a calf to a
tree and performed anal sex with it. It is not recorded whether
the beast was a bull or heifer. Robert Wyard, a prosecution
witness, gave the following statement:
Saw him buggering the said calf four or five times. In his
action Nathaniel had the calf by the tail his yard
thrusting into the calf several times, wiping his fingers
on the calf's side and wiping it's breech with his hand.
He called his wife over.
Do you see what yonder fellow is doing? Who is it?
It is your servant Nathaniel. What a villain he is.
The two approached very close to the scene and were eventually
spotted by our "villain." He had carried on without noticing
until they were close enough to see everything clearly. At that
time, he had not yet extricated his penis from the animal's rectum.
Villain. What are you doing here?
Nothing. Resting the calf. What should I do?
You villain, you lie, your buggering the calf and we stood
looking at you. Villain, you have done enough to be hanged.
Nathaniel was found guilty of sodomy. The witness does seem to
behaved rather oddly though. Not only does he not call out to
this "Villain," but he goes in closer and watches quietly until
discovered. Could it be that he wanted to watch?
At this time many cases of bestiality came to light. Women were
a scarce commodity to the first settlers in the new world. The
rape of a woman would mean a living witness and certain
execution. The rape of an animal that can not speak was, on the
other hand, a relatively safe way of releasing sexual tensions,
assuming that there were no observers around!
In 1683, Denmark passed a law making both homosexuality and
bestiality punishable by burning. In 1711, it was decided that
those convicted should be garroted as well as burned.
In England in 1821, the law read: "Any person, who commits the
crime of sodomy, either with a man, or with any animal, and is
found guilty, will be put to death." The sentence was always
death of course, but as the presence of semen in the animal had
to be proven to get a conviction until this date, many of those
charged had to be released. In order to raise the
conviction/hanging rate, the evidence required was changed so
that it was no longer necessary "to prove ejaculation, rather
intercourse shall be deemed to have occured if penetration has
occured."
If no penetration had occured but a witness observed someone

"attempting" to copulate with an animal, the sentence was 10

years.
The law was revised in 1861 and the sentence reduced to life
imprisonment. This law remains to this day!
In August, 1888, a Mr. Vizetelly was prosecuted for publishing
obscene literature. He pleaded not guilty. The book in question
was a translation of Emile Zola's "La Terre" -- "The Land" -- now
accepted as a literary masterpiece the world over. During the
tria the jury were so visibly shocked by one of the quotations
which was read out in court that Vitzetelly was advised to change
his plea to Guilty. The passage in question is so beautifully
written that I quote it in full:
"Carefully, as though undertaking something of great importance,
she stepped quickly forward with pursed lips and set face;
concentration made her eyes seem even darker. She had to reach
right across with her arm as she grasped the bull's penis firmly
in her hand and lifted it up. And when the bull felt that he was
near the edge, he gathered his strength and, with one single
thrust of his loins, pushed his penis right in. Then it came out
again."
The defendant was fined 250. 3 months later, he was again on
trial for selling Zola translations and served 3 months in
prison.
"One E, aged 35, a labourer, who was sentenced by the 8th
Tribuneral Correctionel of the Seine to three months imprisonment
for an outrage on public decency."
He was accused of having committed acts of bestiality on fowls.
These acts had occurred at a lodging-house keeper's in the Rue
des Gravalliers. This man had found one of his fowls dead. He
observed E, one of his lodgers, and surprised him at the moment
the act was being consummated. The fowl was injured and E had
feathers and traces of blood upon his dress." (Tardieu Attentats
aux Moers.)
Men and Dogs - curious Observations It is not unusual to see our
judges sentencing prisoners who have been caught in the very act
of bestiality in public places.
Thus, a Chambre Correctionelle of Paris, on Jan 5th 1880,
condemned to four months' imprisonment and a fine of 16 francs,
and old man of 74, who was arrested on the 2nd of the month in
a urinal, in Rue Publa, at the moment when, having introduced
his penis into the jaws of a large Newfoundland dog, he was
proceeding to manualize the animal.
And another sentence of six months imprisonment and 16 francs was
pronounced on one D, born in Paris, married and the father of
three children, who was surprised in a urinal on the Boulvard
Voltaire, on his knees with a dog between his thighs. The
officer who stated the facts, pointed out in his report that,
guided by the plaintive cries of an animal, he was induced to
enter the urinal, and there arrested the accused whose dress was
covered with water. (Pouillet.)

Pouillet's two observations do not acquaint us with the mental

condition of the two men caught "in flagrante delicto." In these
two cases, the animals played a passive part. It is not the same
in the following observation, due to Tardieu, in which the
animal, on the contrary plays the active part. It deserves to
be quoted in extenso on account of the anatomo-physiological
discussion to which it has given rise.
"The third case of bestiality, which gave rise to a quite recent
prosecution, was the occasion of a medico-legal report, very new
in its object, on the part of a veterinary surgeon, whose latest
opinion I reproduce; but I ought previously to give an account
of the circumstances in which the act occurred, and those which
resulted from the proces-verbal, which follows, and which I quote
in extenso.
On April 28th, in the year 1892, we, a commissary of
police, from information which we received regarding
an outrage against public decency, committed by one
N, a surveyor of roads, and learning that every
information regarding this loathsome act could be
supplied by one L, a labourer, caused the said L, to
appear before us and he there stated as follows:
"On the 17 inst., about 10 o'clock in the morning, I
was working between the Lacroix and Robert Joly roads.
L was employed in cutting withies in the wood not far
from me: at this time I wanted to smoke a pipe, and
left my work to go and ask L for a match; After going
about 50 metres, I heard a rustling in the wood to my
left, and I stopped short; the noise still continuing,
I turned aside from my original direction and took a
few steps forward.
All at once I noticed a dog which I recognized as
belonging to M. I advanced a few paces further with
much precaution, and I observed the said N, surveyor
of roads, with his trousers down and his sexual parts
exposed, his body bent with his face towards the
ground, his head being turned almost in my direction.
There I saw N and the dog leaning one against the
other; N in the above position with his right hand
behind his back, caressing the dog and pulling about
its genital parts with his fingers; I remained thus as
a spectator for several minutes; when the act was
consumated, I saw the dog's member coming out of N's
fundament.
N then raised his head, and
the dog upon me to bite me,
"Bite him!" I observed to N
than he, and that I was not

seeing me wanted to set

several times crying out
that the dog was no worse
afraid of it.

I went away directly, and a few paces from the spot,

I met A, and I told him that if I had known that he
was so near to me, I should have called to him to let
him see the act of which I had just been a witness,
and which I hastened to relate to him."

L, aged 16, a labourer, was also heard as a witness in

the above affair, and declared as follows:" on April
17th, I was cutting withies in the forest of
Rambouillet. About half past nine I saw the said N,
surveyor of roads, accompanied by M's dog; I remarked
to N that it was fortunate that my father was not
there at that moment, or he would not go into the
forest with the dog, seeing that it was expressly
forbidden; upon this he laughed at me, and
disappeared with the dog into the midst of the wood.
About a quarter past ten, I heard a dog barking. I
left my work to see if the dog were hunting. When I
reached the Alle des Chantillons, I saw the said A.
When I got near him, he said to me, If I had known
that you were so near to me, I should have come to
look for you, to let you know something awful, which
I have just witnessed."
Here the witness L made word for word the statement
as it is written above, related to him by L
immediately after the act had been consummated, and
adds that since that day the dog cannot leave N.
N, aged 43, surveyor of roads, was questioned on the
facts which are alleged against him, and he replied as
follows: "On the 17th inst.,about 10 o'clock in the
morning, as I was going to my work at a stone quarry
situated in the forest, I was accompanied by a large
dog belonging to M, a farmer. When I reached the wood,
and was in rather a dense spot, and believing myself
to be sheltered there from everybody's gaze, I
unbuttoned and took down my trousers; I then bent
downwards with my face almost against the ground, and
presented my posterior to the dog to lick me, which he
did. This was done with the intention of allaying the
pain caused me by my thighs rubbing together as I
walked.
It is no good my laying any further stress upon other
points; it is true I was seen in the wood, and in the
position which I have just indicated to you by the
said L, but what he asserts is only a falsehood."
N was indicted and tried for an outrage on public
decency, and was sentenced to a year's imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal of Paris, being of the opinion
that it had not been established that copulation
between the man and the dog took place, but that N had
indulged in obscene manoeuvres in public, reduced his
sentence to three month imprisonment.
In the course of the pleadings, the following piece of
evidence was produced. It deserves to be quoted.
Medico-legal consultation by M. Janet, veterinary
surgeon at Rambouillet, May 14th 1872.
Question : Can a dog perform anal copulation upon a
man? No I think not, for the following reasons:

1st, because the penis of the dog has a very special

conformation which is only suitable for generation
with his own species.
2nd, because its penis, which is very pointed and
slender, has an interior bone covered with very
sensitive erectile tissue, which, during accoupling,
swells considerably, forms a plug inside the vagina,
and prevents the dog from withdrawing immediately
afterwards, the ejection of the spermatic secretion
being very slow, which explains why one often sees
dogs and bitches unable to separate, and remaining
joined together as long as the erectile tissue has not
shrunk nor become soft and flaccid again.
In this painful situation, these poor beasts are very
frequently the victims of odious brutalities.
When bitches are on heat, that is to say in a state of
extreme excitement through venereal desires, the
vaginal opening becomes dilated very easily, and the
mucous membranes acquire a great elasticity; it is
then that the dog is able to introduce his penis into
it, which is very difficult for him when the bitch has
returned to her normal state.
How then could the dog, which cannot cover the bitch
when she is quiet, on account of contraction and
resistance of the vaginal tissues, succeed in
introducing his penis into a man's rectum? This
appears to me impossible, for the reasons which I have
just given, and also for the following physiological
reasons, which I will endeavour to make clear.
1st On seeing a man's posterior, I do not think that
it is the nature of the dog to feel such venereal
desires as on seeing a bitch.
2nd The anatomical constitution of his penis, which is
very flexible at its point, does not give enough
stiffness for him to introduce it into a man's anus
and to overcome the very great resistance of the
sphincter, the circular muscle of the anus, the
contractility of which is excessively powerful.
3rd The man's buttocks also display a surface large
enough to put the dog further away, and to prevent the
introduction of the penis, the length of which is
diminished in proportion as the internal bone which
forms a protuberance, is brought near to the point. In
this case only a rubbing of the penis on the skin is
possible.
4th The man being on his knees with his hands resting
on the ground, facilitating by his position the
pederasty of the dog, will never attain his object if
the animal, not being very tall, cannot encircle his
body with his two forepaws so as to have a solid point
of support.

I have acquired the certitude of what I have stated by

placing the dog upon a man who was willing to lend
himself to the experiment. Placed, kept there, and
held up as he was by me, the dog (the same one that
appeared in the case) if he had been accustomed to the
action, would have been eager to try to satisfy his
genesic desires, on the contrary, he showed
indifference, did not understand what was asked of
him, and tried to get away; he has given us evident
proof of unwillingness and innocence.
If, contrary to all physiological estimation, the dog
had succeeded in overcoming all the obstacles and in
completely introducing his penis into the man's
rectum, the effect of the erectile tissue of the bone
would immediately have been produced, and caused the
enormous natural swelling (as in the bitches vagina
during the process of covering) which would have
compelled the two creatures to remain stuck together
during the entire period of the energetic contraction
of the sphincter.
You see here then this most curious picture: the man
compelled to remain in the quadruped position, and he
on his part, and the dog on his, obliged to pull in
order to free themselves from the bond which attaches
them; the man unable to get up or stand upright
without lifting the dog from the ground, causing
himself extreme pain and exposing himself to be
dangerously bitten. In this case the monstrosity
would be undeniable.
I conclude therefor that the fact of pederasty of the
dog with the man is impossible, owing to the
anatomical conformation of the one and the penis of
the other.
I have made numerous researches in many works, but
have not found a single similar case of bestiality.
I should not venture, I confess, to make such a formal
pronouncement in the negative. And without wishing to
enter here into unnecessary detail, I shall confine
myself to recalling the fact that too numerous
instances of bestiality have been positively verified
in the case of women of evil life for us to exonerate
the canine species of acts similar to that which has
just been related (Tardieu)
Dr. Jacobus X.. Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital
Sense (1901)
In a suggested change to the law in Switzerland, in 1909, the
"crime" of bestiality was deliberately left out.
In 1944, an American soldier was convicted by general courtmarshall of sodomy with a cow and sentenced to a dishonourable
discharge and 3 years hard labour. The cow was spared, but in

England into the 1950's, animals were still sometimes ordered to

be destroyed in such cases.
In 1962, Illinois became the first American state to revise it's
criminal code along the lines suggested in The Model Penal Code
(devised by American Law Institute). Specifically, oral genital
contacts, and anal intercourse between consenting adults in
private and sexual acts with animals are no longer criminal
offenses. Connecticut, New York and Kansas have also made some
revisions in this area.
California Penal Code paragraph 286:
Sodomy-Punishment : Every person who is guilty of the infamous
crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal,
is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison of not less
than one year.
In the Former Eastern (Communist) half of Germany, Bestiality was
not an offense. Bestiality ceased to be a crime in West Germany
when the law was removed from the "Strafgesetzbuch" in 1969 due
to lack of use.
Sodomistic intercourse with animals has also been removed from
the list of criminal sexual offenses in France, Belgium, Italy,
Portugal, Holland and Russia. Such cases are now dealt with
under indecency and animal cruelty regulations and are most
unlikely to receive a prison sentence. In those countries such
as Great Britain, which have not updated their laws, the penalty
is, normally, still life imprisonment, i.e.; the modern
equivalent of a death sentence.
In England, a legal precedent has been set which frees any woman
of a sodomy charge if she was acting under coercion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Times, December 13th, 1991
"NO EXCUSE FOR DOLPHIN SEX ACT"
An Animal rights campaigner accused of outraging public decency
by committing an obscene act with a dolphin might have done so
to persuade the animal to prefer him to other swimmers, a court
was told yesterday.
David Wood for the prosecution, told Newcastle upon Tyne crown
court, that Alan Cooper, aged 38, might have performed the act
on Freddie, a 12ft. bottle-nose dolphin, because there was a great
deal of competition to swim with the dolphin.
When Mr. Cooper saw a boatload of people approaching, Including
Peter Bloom, curator of a dolphinarium, who he particularly
disliked, "it may have been tempting to do something which he
knew the dolphin would like," Mr. Wood Said. However, the reason
for Mr. Cooper's action was irrelevant and he had outraged the
boat passengers by going way beyond decent behaviour.
Mr. Cooper, of Gorton, Manchester, denies outraging public decency
by masturbating the dolphin off Amble, Northumberland.
Tony Jennings, for Mr. Cooper, said that Mr. Bloom, who prompted

the complaints, was a sworn enemy of his client. He said Mr.

Bloom had the audacity to condemn Mr. Cooper for the alleged
sexual act, yet he had trained dolphins to jump out of the water
and remove a bikini top from a woman swimmer for a film sequence.
The trial continues today.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment:
The above case is chiefly of interest because of the charge;
"Outraging Public Decency." It should be noted that no cruelty
charge could be brought as even the prosecution admits that he
was doing "something which he knew the dolphin would like."
Indeed, had there been no "public" present to be "outraged" at the
event, the charge could not have been brought at all.
That being said, the English legal system is notorious for
bringing charges even for sexual acts committed in private. A
Conservative MP Harvey Proctor was convicted of "Gross Indecency"
for beating male prostitutes with a cane. The beatings were
agreed and paid for and took place in private. The case only
came to light when one of the prostitutes decided to make even
more money by selling the story to one of the more salacious
Sunday Tabloids. In a more recent case, the Appeal Court upheld
a prison sentence handed down to sado-masochists for assault even
though it took place in a private house among consenting adults.
Although the dolphin case is clearly concerned with a humananimal sex act, no charge of Sodomy can be brought under English
law for the masturbation of an animal.
This simple fact releases Mr. Cooper from the risk of a long
prison sentence because, for the more serious charge of attempted
Sodomy -- that is a clear intention to achieve rectal or vaginal
penetration with any animal -- carries a ten year maximum
sentence. Sodomy, if penetration can be proved "beyond a
reasonable doubt," carries a maximum of life imprisonment. Note
that ejaculation need not occur.
It should be noted here that dolphins are notoriously randy and
there are many reports from trainers and divers of male dolphins
masturbating themselves on rubber dinghies or diving suits. They
are also one of the select group of mammals, other than man,
which engage in sexual intercourse among themselves purely for
pleasure.
_________________________________________________________________
The Sunday Sport, December 15th, 1991
(This newspaper is the British equivalent of The Weekly World News;
a tabloid of the worst kind. Therefore, whether or not this story
actually occurred is in doubt.)
"MUFFIN THE MULE"
A sex starved wife was granted a divorce because her hubby
preferred love with his mule. Huriye Karacak, 42, suspected that
husband Husamettin, 55, was being unfaithful because he stayed
out night after night. But then she found him having sex with the
family's mule at their farm in Sivas, Turkey. Judge Selemi
Ayyildiz tried to reconcile the couple but finaly agreed a
divorce when Hussamettin refused to sell the animal and said
"it's beautiful and does not nag."

________________________________________________________________
Comment:
We must assume from this report that no specific charge was
brought with regard to the regular sexual intercourse between
Hussamettin and the mule.
Turkey, although an Islamic country, does not adhere to "Islamic
Law" as practised in many other countries in the region. Under
Islamic law, the penalty for Sodomy with an animal is death.
This does raise a few interesting questions. If we take the case
a few hundred kilometres south, we find that the wife would have
no right to request a divorce from her husband. It also raises
the probability that she would never reveal her husband's
particular sexual leanings because, firstly, it would mean
admitting that her husband, given the choice between having sex
with her and a mule, had chosen the latter. She would also
lose her bread winner in a country where paid work for women is
frowned upon.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This text is posted on the eighth of every month.
The FAQ and the PIPs for alt.sex.bestiality can also be found via:
The Web at Stasya's Reading Room (http://stasya.web1000.com)
E-mail at [email protected] (Ima Zoo)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=