NationStates Jolt Archive

Read it and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_%28film%29

The moral of the story: Sex with horses is dangerous.

i heard some famous woman all so died from that

Surely you mean "the man who is the subject of this film disgusts me"?

The moral of the story: Sex with horses is dangerous.

Unless you're a horse. :p

i heard some famous woman all so died from that

wasn't it some russian queen who had sex with horses?

Surely you mean "the man who is the subject of this film disgusts me"?
Sorry, some of the title got deleted before I posted.

It was: "This Film Disgusts Me".

Unless you're a horse. :p

This is true.

Alright, sex with something that has a bigger shrinky-dink than you have a cavity for it to go in is dangerous.

Sorry, some of the title got deleted before I posted.

It was: "This Film Disgusts Me".

Well, I guessed that, but my point was that looking at your Wiki link the film isn't isn't graphic; if it's just a biography of a man's life, then surely it is the man who disgusts, not the film?

It would be like saying a documentary on the holocaust disgusts you. Sort of true, but not really.

Maybe just being the catcher is dangerous.

Maybe just being the catcher is dangerous.

Depends what you're catching.

wasn't it some russian queen who had sex with horses?

Catherine II of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_Catherine_II_of_Russia)

I don't know if it's true though.

Depends what you're catching.

Anything bigger than your glove. lol

wasn't it some russian queen who had sex with horses?
Catherine the Great is the one, but that's just a rumour invented by her son or something.

Well, I guessed that, but my point was that looking at your Wiki link the film isn't isn't graphic; if it's just a biography of a man's life, then surely it is the man who disgusts, not the film?

It would be like saying a documentary on the holocaust disgusts you. Sort of true, but not really.

Well, it IS annoying that it potrays him in a sympathetic light....

Sounds like a truly interesting film. Also, I don't see what is wrong with having sex with an animal as long as it is obvious the animal isn't objecting, being abused etc. Indeed until this incident in Washington there wasn't a law against it.

It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue [...] The prosecutor's office wanted to charge [his friend] with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely [having sex with] one horse, the prosecutors could only charge [him] with trespassing.

The prosecutor's office says no animal cruelty charges were filed because there was no evidence of injury to the horses.

Well, it IS annoying that it potrays him in a sympathetic light....
Why?
Sounds like a truly interesting film. Also, I don't see what is wrong with having sex with an animal as long as it is obvious the animal isn't objecting, being abused etc. Indeed until this incident in Washington there wasn't a law against it.

Animal psychology isn't really an exact science, since we can't be sure what be sure what counts as an animal objecting, we're just going to have to play it safe and not sex them up.

Well, it IS annoying that it potrays him in a sympathetic light....

Why?

Why?

Because he's indulging in...ahem, to paraphrase: "the Liberal mentality is the path to many practises, some considered to be unnatural...."

Why?

For the same reason it's annoying when movies potray criminals in a positive light.

Because he's indulging in...ahem, to paraphrase: "the Liberal mentality is the path to many practises, some considered to be unnatural...."

Pretty much what I expected. :rolleyes:

Catherine the Great is the one, but that's just a rumour invented by her son or something.

they think it may have been the French from what i'am reading from the link MrWho posted

For the same reason it's annoying when movies potray criminals in a positive light.

How dare they sympathise with a man who feels compelled to get jiggy with animals.

For the same reason it's annoying when movies potray criminals in a positive light.

Depends what their crime is

How dare they sympathise with a man who feels compelled to get jiggy with animals.

And does it.
You do know that that can spread diseases? It's makes about as much sense as a man being compelled to eat his own crap...and then doing it. "Oh, well we shouldn't judemental of those of us who have unusual food preferences..." oh, please give me a break. :rolleyes:

Depends what their crime is

Yes, I suppose it does. After-all, I do enjoy a good caper-movie.

Yes, I suppose it does. After-all, I do enjoy a good caper-movie.

I was thinking more along the lines of people deemed to be criminals based on unjust laws

And does it.
You do know that that can spread diseases? It's makes about as much sense as a man being compelled to eat his own crap...and then doing it. "Oh, well we shouldn't judemental of those of us who have unusual food preferences..." oh, please give me a break. :rolleyes:

HIV / AIDS, Chlamydia, Herpes, Gonorrhoea, etc. We spread diseases anyway

HIV / AIDS, Chlamydia, Herpes, Gonorrhoea, etc. We spread diseases anyway

Well, don't attack me for this (please don't) but if people would have a little more discipline, that wouldn't happen.
And anyways, these diseases are much worse, and you FAILED to answer the rest of my question....

I was thinking more along the lines of people deemed to be criminals based on unjust laws

Eh, like what? Spiderman forgiving Sandman comes to mind with me.

Well, don't attack me for this (please don't) but if people would have a little more discipline, that wouldn't happen.
And anyways, these diseases are much worse, and you FAILED to answer the rest of my question....

Sorry I didn't understand the other question.

This is your opinion I suppose but then you would have to have laws against unprotected sex between humans

The Parkus Empire,

Did you KNOW that capitalising certain WORDS doesn't really MAKE your argument any more LEGITIMATE?

And does it.
You do know that that can spread diseases?
So can breathing
It's makes about as much sense as a man being compelled to eat his own crap...and then doing it. "Oh, well we shouldn't judemental of those of us who have unusual food preferences..." oh, please give me a break. :rolleyes:
What would you suggest we do instead of pitying and trying to help someone who feels compelled to eat his own shit?
Well, don't attack me for this (please don't) but if people would have a little more discipline, that wouldn't happen.
There's that and the whole abstinence only education thing, which fails to tell people how to have sex safely. And the Catholic Church telling people they'll go to hell for using a condom. Yeah, all we need is discipline :rolleyes:

Eh, like what? Spiderman forgiving Sandman comes to mind with me.

Trivialising things a bit arent you

The Parkus Empire,

Did you KNOW that capitalising certain WORDS doesn't really MAKE your argument any more LEGITIMATE?

Best first post ever.

I live in Seattle so there's been plenty of discussion of this movie. One thing that keeps coming up is how much the men portrayed in the story come off as frat boys. They want to get it on with the horses because the horses are pretty and don't bother you about your day or your thoughts or Tolstoy. The group all gathered at the farm to have a pot luck dinner and watch a game or the like, have some martinis, then during the course of the evening decided to go out and get diddled by animals.

We don't know how animals actually respond mentally to this sort of thing. I'm not positive, mind, but I'm fairly sure they have to spray themselves with female hormone to get the horses to mount them. It's like dog fighting to me. Just because it's in the nature of an animal to do something (mate, fight, etc.) doesn't mean we should make them do it for our own pleasure or gain. Nor does it mean they look forward to doing it. They will do it because they've been trained or whatever and, often, domesticated animals like to please their owners, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Of course, there will be those that will be all "You can't prove the horse didn't enjoy it/wasn't traumatized! There wasn't a law before this!" etc and etc. Well, you know what? I don't care. The bastard was still cheating on his wife and still dishonoring his family. That's never acceptable.

Unless you're a horse. :p

If you know any horses who post on NSG, tell me.

The Parkus Empire,

Did you KNOW that capitalising certain WORDS doesn't really MAKE your argument any more LEGITIMATE?

That's not what we do it for.

Catherine II of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_Catherine_II_of_Russia)

I don't know if it's true though.

From what I learned in Russian History last semester...no, it's not true.

From what I learned in Russian History last semester...no, it's not true.

who knows what is true or not true with Russian History as people keep changing it

Doesn't seem like a movie that I would want to see personally, but then again Clerks II had that whole donkey sex scene that was pretty gross and I saw that.

So can breathing

Many humans have adapted to those sicknesses. However, this is unusual, and therefor humans haven't adapted. Surely you don't mean to say "do 'till we adapt" do you?

What would you suggest we do instead of pitying and trying to help someone who feels compelled to eat his own shit?

I agree on the pity and help part. It's saying there is nothing wrong with it that bothers me.

There's that and the whole abstinence only education thing, which fails to tell people how to have sex safely. And the Catholic Church telling people they'll go to hell for using a condom. Yeah, all we need is discipline :rolleyes

Well, the Catholic Curch obviously has a problem there. Don't blame me for it,

Doesn't seem like a movie that I would want to see personally, but then again Clerks II had that whole donkey sex scene that was pretty gross and I saw that.

yup and i was thinking it was going to be a woman and a donkey too

I agree on the pity and help part. It's saying there is nothing wrong with it that bothers me.

Does this film say that?

That's not what we do it for.

Correct. We do it to emphasize a point. Something this fellow obviously can't understand.

Does this film say that?

You obviously haven't seen it....

Trivialising things a bit arent you

Mmmm? How? If you are attacking my thread, come out and say it. Otherwise, please clarify your point.

Correct. We do it to emphasize a point. Something this fellow obviously can't understand.
Yeah, if only it was possible to bold things or put them in Italics, in stead of the 'shouting' ZOMGCAPS!!1!!1.

*doesn't want to click link, will take the word of the OP*

You obviously haven't seen it....

No, I haven't.

I live in Seattle so there's been plenty of discussion of this movie. One thing that keeps coming up is how much the men portrayed in the story come off as frat boys. They want to get it on with the horses because the horses are pretty and don't bother you about your day or your thoughts or Tolstoy. The group all gathered at the farm to have a pot luck dinner and watch a game or the like, have some martinis, then during the course of the evening decided to go out and get diddled by animals.

We don't know how animals actually respond mentally to this sort of thing. I'm not positive, mind, but I'm fairly sure they have to spray themselves with female hormone to get the horses to mount them. It's like dog fighting to me. Just because it's in the nature of an animal to do something (mate, fight, etc.) doesn't mean we should make them do it for our own pleasure or gain. Nor does it mean they look forward to doing it. They will do it because they've been trained or whatever and, often, domesticated animals like to please their owners, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Of course, there will be those that will be all "You can't prove the horse didn't enjoy it/wasn't traumatized! There wasn't a law before this!" etc and etc. Well, you know what? I don't care. The bastard was still cheating on his wife and still dishonoring his family. That's never acceptable.

Here, here! *Applause*

Mmmm? How? If you are attacking my thread, come out and say it. Otherwise, please clarify your point.

Well i'm attacking a comment but in more a debate kind of way than an aggressive.

What I mean is that, although you find it annoying that this film may show empathy towards this man because he is a criminal, others may not feel that his act is truly criminal.

Yeah, if only it was possible to bold things or put them in Italics, in stead of the 'shouting' ZOMGCAPS!!1!!1.

Yes, you have a fine point there. I suppose I'm generally too-lazy, and just like holding-down shift.

Yes, you have a fine point there. I suppose I'm generally too-lazy, and just like holding-down shift.

Pffft, caps lock FTW.

Well i'm attacking a comment but in more a debate kind of way than an aggressive.

What I mean is that, although you find it annoying that this film may show empathy towards this man because he is a criminal, others may not feel that his act is truly criminal.

Hum? I did not get into that. I didn't say "I get angry because they sympathize with the criminal", I simply said I don't like it for the same kinda reason I don't like movies that sypathize with criminal.
Of course, criminal is purely viewpoint.

Pffft, caps lock FTW.

I do not use caps lock. It's wierd, I just don't.

Hum? I did not get into that. I didn't say "I get angry because they sympathize with the criminal", I simply said I don't like it for the same kinda reason I don't like movies that sypathize with criminal.
Of course, criminal is purely viewpoint.

Yeah you said you found it annoying that the film seemed to sympathise with him. Thats what I meant and yes it is purely viewpoint.

Yes, you have a fine point there. I suppose I'm generally too-lazy, and just like holding-down shift.
You can use CTRL I or CTRL B:p

I agree on the pity and help part. It's saying there is nothing wrong with it that bothers me.
Funny. I seem to remember pretty clearly that what you said was this:

Well, it IS annoying that it potrays him in a sympathetic light....


You obviously haven't seen it....
Ooohhh, finally a first-hand review then! So, tell us, how was it?

You can use CTRL I or CTRL B:p

:p lot

Ooohhh, finally a first-hand review then! So, tell us, how was it?

Kitsune Kasai pretty-much sums-it-up.

Actually I...um...haven't...um...seen...it.... :p

Ooohhh, finally a first-hand review then! So, tell us, how was it?

Riveting I'm sure.

Actually I...um...haven't...um...seen...it.... :p
Why, I never...

Why, I never...

Does this mean I win?

Why, I never...

I never in-point-of-fact, said I did. :D

I never in-point-of-fact, said I did. :D

So I don't win?

So I don't win?

looks like you don't

Funny. I seem to remember pretty clearly that what you said was this:


Well, I heard it *or at least it's creators* say there is nothing wrong with man's actions.

So I don't win?

:)

One of the creators also works for the Stranger (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Home) which is a publication of...questionable morality... on occasion. Not always, but on occasion.

So I don't win?

Winning is kinda important is it? :p

Winning is kinda important is it? :p

If I can't win on the interweb then my life is meaningless.

If I can't win on the interweb then my life is meaningless.

So does that mean no-matter-what, one of our lives has to be meaningless? http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/sm/worry.gif

If I can't win on the interweb then my life is meaningless.

So true. I find I need to impress strangers on the internets as well. My self-esteem simply couldn't handle it if Lovejoy1954 thought I was a loser. :(

So does that mean no-matter-what, one of our lives has to be meaningless? http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/sm/worry.gif

Yes. :eek:

Yes. :eek:

*Plays "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" face-off music.*

What would you suggest we do instead of pitying and trying to help someone who feels compelled to eat his own shit?


Make sure he has his own set of dishes & utensils, with his name on them?


I never in-point-of-fact, said I did

Your statement was supposed to be "This Film disgusts me". Not the 'concept of','nature of', 'tone of'. Nor were there any caveats added.

Make sure he has his own set of dishes & utensils, with his name on them?

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/lilly/laugh1blue.gif


Your statement was supposed to be "This Film disgusts me". Not the 'concept of','nature of', 'tone of'. Nor were there any caveats added.

The film disgusts me from what I know. I find the movie itself highly contemptable.

Animal psychology isn't really an exact science, since we can't be sure what be sure what counts as an animal objecting, we're just going to have to play it safe and not sex them up.

Killing them = good.
Fucking them = bad.

Gotta love that double standard.

Killing them = good.
Fucking them = bad.

Gotta love that double standard.

Doublethink is doubleplusgood.


Besides, who eats horse?

Killing them = good.
Fucking them = bad.

Gotta love that double standard.

I'm a vegetarian. ;)
Har-har-har, now whattaya say?

Killing them = good.
Fucking them = bad.

Gotta love that double standard.

riding them = bad too then

I don't intend to watch the film, simply because the story of the mind of a zoophile doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy or gain much from, but as long as no animals were harmed and/or unwillingly engaged in sexual acts in its production I really don't see any problem with making it. Granted, if many think like myself, it's not going to be successful, but if they're prepared to take that risk then it's their choice.

I don't intend to watch the film, simply because the story of the mind of a zoophile doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy or gain much from, but as long as no animals were harmed and/or unwillingly engaged in sexual acts in its production I really don't see any problem with making it. Granted, if many think like myself, it's not going to be successful, but if they're prepared to take that risk then it's their choice.

Eh? I don't think it should be OUTLAWED.
Addressing your other question: a lot of people see it for curiosity.

wasn't it some russian queen who had sex with horses?

Catherine the Great supposedly did but it is nothing more than a malicious myth perpetuated by Soviet historians who (as misogynists and Russian nationalists) had plenty of reasons to dislike Catherine, a female and a German.

Killing them = good.
Fucking them = bad.

Gotta love that double standard.

Fucking people= good
Eating people= bad

I found another! Do I get a cookie now?:D

Killing them = good.
Fucking them = bad.

Gotta love that double standard.

Really, those two things are different categories. Humans need to eat to survive. (No, they don't need to eat meat, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.) Yes, they need to mate for the species to survive, but the trick there is mating with their own species. Also, the individual won't die if they don't mate. They might be ornery and uptight unless they manage to hand themselves over to a higher power of some variety or whatnot, but they won't die. They go a bit without eating, they tend to die. There is absolutely nothing that requires a human to need to rape an animal and continuously mentally abuse it to survive. There are a few things (B12 I think is one) that some still feel requires them to put a quick bullet in the brain of a deer or whatnot to survive. (I recognize that not all food animals are treated that well or allowed a free life ended quickly and painlessly either, but again, not my point.) Either way, I don't see how there can be a double standard when two things are ultimately not related.

Doublethink is doubleplusgood.


Besides, who eats horse?

The French, I think.

I live in Seattle so there's been plenty of discussion of this movie. One thing that keeps coming up is how much the men portrayed in the story come off as frat boys. They want to get it on with the horses because the horses are pretty and don't bother you about your day or your thoughts or Tolstoy. The group all gathered at the farm to have a pot luck dinner and watch a game or the like, have some martinis, then during the course of the evening decided to go out and get diddled by animals.

We don't know how animals actually respond mentally to this sort of thing. I'm not positive, mind, but I'm fairly sure they have to spray themselves with female hormone to get the horses to mount them. It's like dog fighting to me. Just because it's in the nature of an animal to do something (mate, fight, etc.) doesn't mean we should make them do it for our own pleasure or gain. Nor does it mean they look forward to doing it. They will do it because they've been trained or whatever and, often, domesticated animals like to please their owners, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Of course, there will be those that will be all "You can't prove the horse didn't enjoy it/wasn't traumatized! There wasn't a law before this!" etc and etc. Well, you know what? I don't care. The bastard was still cheating on his wife and still dishonoring his family. That's never acceptable.

You're missing something very important here. You do not just one day up and decide you want to be fucked in the ass by a horse! It's painful to have your rectum stretched even a moderate amount and anal intercourse takes some previous "building up" to adjust to the size... Now, forgive me, I can't exactly speak from experience here, but... Don't you think it would at least cross your mind that a +18" horse cock is going to FUCKING HURT!?!

You don't do that on a whim, you don't do that without preparation and previous experience. The horse was used to it, he was being kept on a farm specifically maintained for bestiality, and everything was video taped. This guy had to know what he was doing, he had to know the risks!

You don't have a bad day at work and decide you want to get fucked by a horse. It. Does. Not. Happen. The guy was a pervert who shamed his family horribly.

There is nothing sympathetic about that.

The French, I think.

Bah, the French don't count :p

Wikipedia answers all!

Kenneth Pinyan (June 22, 1960 - July 2, 2005) was a Seattle, Washington resident who engaged in sexual activity with full-size stallions near Enumclaw, Washington, some of which he videotaped and distributed informally under the name Mr Hands. His death at the age of 45 from accidental internal injury (perforated colon), in July 2005, received during a sex act being videotaped by a friend of his, was one of the most read stories in The Seattle Times for that year, and prompted the passing of a bill in Washington State prohibiting both sex with animals, and the videotaping of the same, some months later.

A video often named Mrhands.mpg showing a stallion having anal sex with Pinyan is sometimes used as a shock video on the internet; however, this is not the video of the fatal accident.

Prosecutors later determined that the horse, an Arabian stallion named "Bullseye" which had apparently regularly engaged in penetrative sex acts of this kind, had not been injured by being allowed to engage in sex in this manner. The photographer, 54-year old James Michael Tait of Enumclaw [1], was later charged with trespassing, since this act took place on a third party's property. A third man alleged to have been present was not charged as his identity was not proven by evidence. According to the Medical Examiner's Office, Pinyan "died of acute peritonitis due to perforation of the colon",[6] and the death was ruled "accidental".[7] A further source states that the stallion was owned by Pinyan, who merely boarded it at the property concerned.[8]

Other factors surrounding the death were apparently that the deceased, concerned about appearing in hospital with an unusual internal injury and the effect on his security clearance as an engineer for aerospace company Boeing, had apparently refused his friends' urging to go to the hospital for several hours after being aware he was internally injured, and was either beyond treatment, or dead, when he finally reached ER.[citation needed] According to anonymous sources on forums where such material was distributed, he was considered very experienced at receiving anal sex from stallions, and had recognized the potential risk posed by such actions.

Reports suggest that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of abuse was found.

It was as I suspected - it was an ongoing thing and he was accustomed to it.

Then it killed him.

wasn't it some russian queen who had sex with horses?

http://i16.tinypic.com/645mqtw.jpg

You're missing something very important here. You do not just one day up and decide you want to be fucked in the ass by a horse! It's painful to have your rectum stretched even a moderate amount and anal intercourse takes some previous "building up" to adjust to the size... Now, forgive me, I can't exactly speak from experience here, but... Don't you think it would at least cross your mind that a +18" horse cock is going to FUCKING HURT!?!

You don't do that on a whim, you don't do that without preparation and previous experience. The horse was used to it, he was being kept on a farm specifically maintained for bestiality, and everything was video taped. This guy had to know what he was doing, he had to know the risks!

You don't have a bad day at work and decide you want to get fucked by a horse. It. Does. Not. Happen. The guy was a pervert who shamed his family horribly.

There is nothing sympathetic about that.

I didn't mention that point, but that doesn't mean I missed it. It just wasn't the topic of my post. The movie is psychological. It doesn't cover the physical mechanics of it. It covers the why of it. This Ken fellow had done it quite a bit, yes, so there was some sort of physicality to it somehow. I personally do not want to know. I also feel incredibly bad for his family. I can't imagine how devastating that would be. I can understand people wondering what the hell makes a person want to do this, but I don't in a million years think it should be handled in anything other than a clinical way.

I'm surprised that a thread about the movie of a man who died from having sex with a horse can be so utterly and mind-numbingly boring... :rolleyes:

Oh, get off your high horse and enjoy the movie...stessy!

It's not a movie about Horse Sex....It is a story of, as the director says....

This was a guy who was a conservative man at one point, and those ideas started breaking down for him. I think that 9/11 triggered a lot of it. But he was [also] in the center of one of the most secretive military complexes. Meanwhile, he listened to a lot of left-wing radio, he questioned everything our government was involved in, and he was ethically conflicted about his job and the money he was making. That's the core fascination for me.....with Horse Sex :p

wasn't it some russian queen who had sex with horses?

http://i16.tinypic.com/645mqtw.jpg

nuh uh.....she was born German....IIRC

Catherine II of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_Catherine_II_of_Russia)

I don't know if it's true though.

It's not.

I don't intend to watch the film, simply because the story of the mind of a zoophile doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy or gain much from, but as long as no animals were harmed and/or unwillingly engaged in sexual acts in its production I really don't see any problem with making it. Granted, if many think like myself, it's not going to be successful, but if they're prepared to take that risk then it's their choice.

I wouldn't watch it because it sounds really boring and that watching a film about a guy who has sex with a horse just isn't very apealing anyway.

Strangely , There was a film on Tv about a women and a horse (I have no idea what happened just that there was a women and a horse because i'm not watching the tv but i haven't got round to turning it of) Strange how i came accross that on tv just as I went on this thread.

riding them = bad too then

OMG DOUBLE ENTENDRE FTW!

Read it and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_%28film%29

Why on earth would you bother being disgusted by a film you don't have to go see? At all?

I'm disgusted by my own bathroom. Far more real problem, because it's me who's going to have to clean it.

Why on earth would you bother being disgusted by a film you don't have to go see? At all?

I'm disgusted by my own bathroom. Far more real problem, because it's me who's going to have to clean it.

You could hire someone.

You could hire someone.

Let's hijack the thread ;)
I'm sure domestic cleaning will be such a compelling topic that everyone will forget about the horsey stuff and start eulogizing toilet cleaning products instead. :confused:

Let's hijack the thread ;)
I'm sure domestic cleaning will be such a compelling topic that everyone will forget about the horsey stuff and start eulogizing toilet cleaning products instead. :confused:

Excellent.

We shouldn't. The subject is probably very important to someone.

Personally I find the hose the most useful tool for bathroom cleaning.
That's hose, not horse.