Over 20,660 people are online! Join now and start making friends!
as found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumalia Brumalia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Brumalia was an ancient Greek solstice festival honoring Dionysus, generally held on December 25. The festival included drinking and merriment. The name is derived from the Greek word bruma, meaning "shortest day." In Roman festivals, the Brumalia was a feast of Bacchus, celebrated during the space of thirty days, commencing on November 24. It was instituted by Romulus, who entertained the senate during this time. During this feast, prophetic indications were taken of the prospects for the remaining part of the winter. Many features of Christmas celebrations are derived from Brumalia
ok i am posting something a lil different today. this is a statement i found in an article somewhere. “Suicide is not chosen; it happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain.” Think about that the next time you want to criticize someone who is sucidal or has commited suicide. "they took the easy way out" that is something said time and again yet can be the furthest from the truth. why do people insist on belittling the emotions and problems of others? acting like it can't exist or it is wrong because it is something that they haven't experienced. think about it john
X-Men's Dave Cockrum Dies at 63 By KATRINA A. GOGGINS COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Comic book illustrator Dave Cockrum, who in the 1970s overhauled the X-Men and helped popularize the relatively obscure Marvel Comics title into a publishing sensation and eventually a major film franchise, died Sunday. He was 63. In his Superman pajamas and with his Batman blanket, Cockrum died in his favorite chair at his home in Belton, S.C., early Sunday morning. He had suffered a long battle with diabetes and related complications, his wife, Paty, said Tuesday. At Cockrum's request, there will be no public services and his body will be cremated, according to Cox Funeral Home. His ashes will be spread on his property. At Marvel Comics, Cockrum and writer Len Wein were handed the X-Men. The comic had been created in 1963 as a group of young outcasts enrolled in an academy for mutants, but the premise failed to capture fans. Cockrum and Wein took the existing comic, added their own heroes and published ``Giant-Size X-Men No. 1'' in 1975. Many signature characters Cockrum designed and co-created - such as Storm, Mystique, Nightcrawler and Colossus - went on to become part of the ``X-Men'' films starring Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry. Cockrum received no movie royalties, said family friend Clifford Meth, who organized efforts to help Cockrum and his family during his protracted medical care. ``Dave saw the movie and he cried - not because he was bitter,'' Meth said. ``He cried because his characters were on screen and they were living.'' Cockrum was born in Pendleton, Ore., the son of an Air Force officer. He set aside his interest in art while serving in Vietnam for the U.S. Navy. He moved to New York after leaving the service and got his big break in the early 1970s, drawing the Legion of Super-Heroes for DC Comics before moving to Marvel. In January 2004, Cockrum moved to South Carolina after being hospitalized for bacterial pneumonia. As his diabetes progressed, his drawings became limited. His last drawing was a sketch for a fan, who attended a small comic book convention in Greenville, Paty Cockrum said. Meth said Cockrum, who will be cremated in a Green Lantern shirt, will be remembered as ``a comic incarnate.'' ``He had a genuine love for comics and for science fiction and for fantasy, and he lived in it,'' Meth said. ``He loved his work.'' 11/28/06 18:01 © Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
ok I wanted to list the members here but blogs are limited to 50,000 characters. So in order to list it I would have to spend hours editing and post it in like 4 seperate blogs.....or i could just give you the website address here it is: http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/skullbones.html again i am sorry that i couldn't of just provided the info here.
as found on: http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0122-10.htm Published on Thursday, January 22, 2004 by Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! Skull & Bones: The Secret Society That Unites John Kerry and President Bush Listen | Watch A little-known fact unites Democratic frontrunner John Kerry and President Bush: they are both members of Yale's secret society Skull and Bones. We speak with the author of "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power" that reveals details about the secret society and its members. The New Hampshire primary is just a few days away and Howard Dean's status as the frontrunner has almost totally dissipated. The latest Boston Herald poll now shows that John Kerry holds a 10 point lead - a major surge for the Massachusetts Senator. Still reeling from his victory in Iowa, Kerry is starting to act like the frontrunner, shifting his focus from comparing himself to the other Democrats to putting his record up against President George W. Bush, saying he is the only candidate who can beat Bush and who represents a real difference from the current occupant of the White House. But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any of the other candidates. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University - Skull and Bones. This fact has not been widely reported but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry." Alexandra Robbins, is the New York Times bestselling author of Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power who was formerly on the Washington, DC staff of The New Yorker magazine. She is a 1998 graduate of Yale and was the first reporter to publish George W Bush's transcript from Yale when he was a student there. TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to and watching Democracy Now, the War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman with Juan Gonzalez. JUAN GONZALEZ: Welcome to all of our listeners and viewers around the country. The New Hampshire primary is just a few days away, and Howard Dean's status as a frontrunner has almost totally dissipated. The latest "Boston Herald" poll now shows that John Kerry holds a 10-point lead, a major surge for the Massachusetts senator. Still reeling from his victory in Iowa, Kerry is starting to act like the frontrunner, shifting his focus from comparing himself to the other Democrats to putting his record up against President George Bush, saying he's the only candidate who can beat Bush and who represents a real difference from the current occupant of the White House. AMY GOODMAN: But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any other candidate. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University. It's called “Skull and Bones.” This fact has not been widely reported, but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, quote, “John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry.” In a moment, we'll be joined by Alexandra Robbins, the “New York Times" best-selling author of, "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power." But first, we turn to an interview that I did with Kevin Phillips, the author of “American Dynasty, Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics Of Deceit in the House of Bush." When I asked him about the significance of that Yale secret society, Skull and Bones. KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, I hate to overdo the secret societies because the average person has no idea of this. I went to Harvard Law School, and Harvard has these secret societies, too, but the ones at Yale, I think, if anything are more influential, and it's sorta hard to cold turkey right in and say, my god, Skull and Bones, this is virtually like a diplomatic or international business piracy. You can almost see the pirate flag, but they all take it very seriously, because Admiral Harriman, instead of going to Harvard and getting involved in the “Porks,” so to speak, which was the big club up at Harvard, he went to Yale and did Skull and Bones. There was a crowd of people who were involved in operations like National CitiBank and Guaranteed Trust and just a whole lot of people who were major players in finance were Skull and Bones. And the crowd that was at W.S. Harriman was full of Skull and Bones people, and Prescott Bush was Skull and Bones. A lot of these people who were Skull and Bones wound up in the intelligence services, or they were assistant secretaries for aviation and the war department and things like this. It was a whole network. AMY GOODMAN: But for people who don't know what Skull and Bones is, what you are referring to. KEVIN PHILLIPS: It's a Yale secret society. Yale has other secret societies. Another one was called “Book and Snake.” So, they came up with these names. But these people took secrecy incredibly seriously. Books that have been written about Skull and Bones - they’ve got a vault at Yale. Nobody is supposed to be able to get in there. You can’t even tell your wife about Skull and Bones. Avril Harriman, his wife received a letter that was in hieroglyphics, and she didn't know what to make of this and Avril Harriman said, “Well, that's Skull and Bones, and I have to tell you about that, and he said, no, I can't tell you about that.” If you want to know why they deal in secrecy, (a) you have Skull and Bones, and (b) so many of them were in the intelligence services and that whole side of Washington and New York. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about that, the beginning of intelligence, and how the Bush family fits into the beginning of the intelligence agencies? KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, this gets complicated because nobody quite agrees when the intelligence agencies started. But Yale was front and center, because the statue that's in front of the C.I.A. is Nathan Hail. Nathan Hail's statue that they copied that from appears in front of Connecticut Hall at Yale in New Haven. So, if you go back to the revolution you have Yale and the Secret Service. AMY GOODMAN: It goes back to Andover where Bush went as well. KEVIN PHILLIPS: Andover was really in the thick of this sort of stuff. They had a secret society sort of junior grade where you practiced to be at Skull and Bones at Yale when you were in Andover. It sounds like a joke today, but it wasn't then. What happened was the crowd that was in with Prescott Bush and George H. Walker at W.A. Harriman, a number of them became prominent in the intelligence community and then when you get to the firm that was merged out of W.A. Harriman, which was Brown Brothers Harriman, one of the partners there was Robert A. Lovett, who was the son of one of the big cheeses in Harriman's railroad operation, which is how they knew George H. -- I mean, it all fits together. Robert A. Lovett was the man who came up with the blueprint for the C.I.A. after World War II, which was never acknowledged and only became public knowledge maybe 15, 20 years ago. So, he was a major player, and Prescott Bush, I have no doubt, was very close to the intelligence agencies. During World War II he was a director of two companies. One was Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton, and the second is Vanadium Corporation of America. They were both involved in atomic energy projects. Prescott Bush was a friend of Alan Dulles who went on to be the C.I.A. Director, but he was also a lawyer during the 30's for some of Brown Brothers Harriman international gamesmanship, so to speak. So, they were very tightly knit into all of this. And the real thing about the Bushes is how far back they go in this loose combination of investment banking, Wall Street law, the intelligence community, international business, the State Department, and the War Department. AMY GOODMAN: That is Kevin Phillips. He is author of the new book, "American Dynasty, Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics Of Deceit In The House of Bush." As we turn now to Alexandra Robbins, the "New York Times" best-selling author of the book, "Secrets of the Tomb -- Skull and Bones, the Ivory League and the Hidden Paths Of Power," who was formerly on the Washington, D.C. staff of the New Yorker Magazine. She is a 1998 graduate of Yale University and was the first reporter to publish George W. Bush's transcript from Yale when he was a student there. We welcome you to Democracy Now!. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Good Morning. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Juan. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Thanks for having me. JUAN GONZALEZ: Alexandra, I’d like to start out - in your book, you mention John Kerry several times. For those folks who might think this is something of the college days and in the 60's when Kerry was at Yale, but you mentioned an experience that Jacob Weissberg, the editor of "Slate" magazine had about 20 years later in 1986. Can you talk a little bit about that. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Sure. Skull and Bones is really much more than a college club. In fact the year that the members spend in it, their senior year at Yale (there are 15 members tapped for Skull and Bones membership each year) is really just the beginning. Skull and Bones is a powerful alumni network, perhaps the most elite network in the country and it really focuses on life after college. What Kerry did was he tried to recruit Jacob Weissberg from his senate office in Washington to become a member of Skull and Bones. And Weissberg ended up declining the invitation, but he was shocked that Kerry was a member of the society, which so clearly exhibited a history of misogyny, and he challenged Kerry on it. Kerry sort of blew him off. He said, “Oh, well, you know, you should look at my record - for women, defending battered women, et cetera,” and Weissberg said “I can’t be a part of this,” but he was shocked that Kerry would have his secretary call Weissberg into his office in the senate in order to try to make this recruiting possible. AMY GOODMAN: Could you actually explain that, the fact that he was an intern at the "New Republic," and he got this call, what this meant to him? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Yeah. He got a call from Senator Kerry's office, from his secretary, and Weissberg was spending the semester away from Yale. He was spending it, his junior year in Washington. And he got the call, and the secretary said, “Senator Kerry would like to meet with you tomorrow morning.” And all sorts of things are going through Weissberg's head. He was thinking, oh, maybe he likes my writing, maybe he's going to give me a scoop. He said, “Okay, I'll be there, do you know what it's about.” The secretary said, “No, he wouldn't tell me.” He gets there the next morning, about 8:30, I think. And he's sitting in the senator's office and the senator is kind of schmoozing him and making small talk and Weissberg is wondering why (I guess he’s about 20 or 21 by then), why he is sitting in Senator Kerry's office and Kerry said, Kerry brought up Skull and Bones. Weissberg didn't know that Kerry was a member at that point. JUAN GONZALEZ: You mentioned the organization's relationship to women. For those of our viewers who don't know about that, could you explain that -- the history of that relationship. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Skull and Bones has been an all-male group, was an all-male group beginning in 1832 when it started, up until 1991. And what happened was there was basically a 20-year fight between the younger members of Skull and Bones and the older more staunch old blue members. In 1991, the seniors in Bones, these are the 22-year-olds who were actually in the Tomb that year at Yale, (the Tomb is the name of their building, by the way) in 1991, the Bones seniors intended to tap women, but the alumni of the society heard about the plan, changed the locks of the Tomb and threatened to shut down the society completely. When the seniors threatened a lawsuit, Bones held a vote that narrowly endorsed admitting women, the day before initiation a group of Bonesmen led by William F. Buckley obtained a court order blocking the initiation. The group claimed that admitting women would lead to (and I’m quoting here) “date rape in the medium term future.” Eventually, Bones held a second vote that again narrowly admitted women. Both Bushes have refused to disclose which way they voted. Senator Kerry and former Senator David Born both said they voted to admit women. Once the women were initiated, several of the older members, including a former congressman who I spoke with, distanced themselves from the society. JUAN GONZALEZ: What about George Bush on this issue? Have we ever found out how he voted on this defining moment? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: No. Both Bushes have not disclosed the way they voted. AMY GOODMAN: Although Bush was quoted as saying, and this was George Herbert Walker Bush, is that right, saying that women would be the downfall of Yale? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That's George W. Bush. AMY GOODMAN: George W.? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: George W. said in the 1980's, that -- to a woman who was a graduate of Yale -- that women would be the downfall of Yale. There are many other instances, some of which I point out in my book, that lead to -- lead one to assume that he voted against admitting women. AMY GOODMAN: We just heard Kevin Phillips give us kind of a chronology of people who are in Skull and Bones, and its significance in the U.S. establishment, for example, in the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency, with Robert Lovett. Can you talk more about this, for those who would say, come on as Juan was saying before, you are talking about some college club. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Yeah. I actually want to back way up and talk about, at least as mention exactly what Skull and Bones is, because while some people on the East Coast have heard about the society, other people across the country have no idea that we are looking right now if the polls are correct, at what would be the first Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones presidential election. That's pretty weird. Skull and Bones is America's most powerful secret society. It's based at Yale, where it's headquartered in a building called the Tomb, and Skull and Bones has included among its members, presidents, including presidents George W. Bush and his father, as well as William Howard Taft, Supreme Court Chief Justices, C.I.A. officials, cabinet members, congressmen and senators. What makes it so staggering that we could have a Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones, Kerry versus Bush election is that this is a tiny tiny club. There are only 800 living members. Only 15 per year. It's staggering that two of them could be facing off for the presidency and so many of them have achieved positions of prominence. One of the interesting and I think disturbing things about Skull and Bones is that its purpose is to get members into positions of power and have those members hire other members into prestigious positions. This is something we have seen with George W. Bush since his ascendancy to the presidency, he has put several Bones members into prestigious positions, such as Bill Donaldson, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The number two and number three guys in the Justice Department, the guy that puts out all of Bush's secrecy memos. His assistant Attorney General is a major Bonesman. Bonesman Frederick Smith was Bush's top choice for Secretary of Defense until he had to withdraw for health reasons. The general council of the Office of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense’s representative to Europe. The list goes on and on and on. That's something that's interesting, because George W. Bush likes to feign his distance from Yale, from Bones, from Northeastern establishment elite connections, and yet he's going ahead and following Skull and Bones to the letter. JUAN GONZALEZ: And besides seeking to employ or promote Bonesmen, is there any other responsibility that Bonesmen are supposed to have to each other? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Well, there's loyalty of course, to each other. They're supposed to call each other up. I revealed the code words in my book, so I assume they have since changed them, but it used to be, “Do you know General Russell. General Russell was the founder of Skull and Bones. All a Bonesman had to do was call up another Bonesman, maybe even if they have never met, and they would cough up money or connections or a plan. AMY GOODMAN: We have to break for 60 seconds, but Alexandra, if you could stay with us just for a few more minutes? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Sure. AMY GOODMAN: I want to find out that very special number that many Bonesmen use, maybe even John Kerry, and also about your own membership in a secret society in Yale. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Okay. AMY GOODMAN: Stay with us. AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Alexandra Robbins. Her book is, "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, The Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power.” Alexandra Robbins, the number. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That would be 322. AMY GOODMAN: Explain the significance of that. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Okay. So, according to Skull and Bones lore, and this is something that both Senator Kerry and president bush would have learned, in 322 B.C., a Greek orator died. When he died, the goddess Eulogia, the goddess, whom Skull and Bones called the goddess of eloquence, arose to the heavens and didn't happen to come back down until 1832, when she happened to take up residence in the tomb of Skull and Bones. Now Skull and Bones does everything in deference to this goddess. They have songs or they call them that sacred anthems that they sing when they are encouraged to steal things, some remarkably valuable items, supposedly, they are said to be bringing back gifts to the goddess. They begin each session in the tomb, and they meet twice weekly by unveiling a sort of a guilt shrine to Eulogia. That's the point of the society. They call themselves the Knights of Eulogia. That's where the 322 comes in. JUAN GONZALEZ: John Kerry, in terms of the number 322. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: I spoke with somebody close to Kerry, a member of Skull and Bones. He said that Kerry actually uses 322 as a code in his daily life. AMY GOODMAN: Talk about how some people use it as the extension of their phone and other passwords. Alexandra Robbins, you, too, are a member of a secret society at Yale. Can you explain what that is? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Sure. I was a member. Ever since “Secrets of the Tomb” came out, I cannot get members of my own society to talk to me. I believe that means I’m out. Which is okay, because you only joined it for the free alcohol in the first place. The society is called. Scroll and Key, the second oldest society at Yale. It was helpful for me to tell the Bonesmen whom I interviewed, I interviewed more than 100, that I was a member of Scroll and Key. They assumed that it has a similarly prestigious roster, although no presidents, that I would be able to put their information in context and align with them in their views towards secret societies, which of course, I didn't. I don't believe these kinds of secret societies have a place in this country or world unless they have value to the community. And Skull and Bones stands out as, I believe, the one Yale secret society that doesn't do anything for the community or for any other entity other than itself. AMY GOODMAN: Why was John Kerry recruited? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That’s a good question. I could go look up his Skull and Bones bio, but they basically choose people who they -- whom they believe will reflect honor and prestige back on the society. They are basically trying to figure out, okay, who is the who's who here of the Yale junior class who is going to be the most successful. One other thing interesting about Kerry that I wanted to mention is that both of his wives have been directly related to members of Skull and Bones. A sister and daughter which is another connection to Skull and Bones that people don't usually know about. AMY GOODMAN: Alexandra Robbins, our guest, “Secrets of the Tomb” is her book. What about the induction ritual. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That's a weird one. It's sort of a cross between Harry Potter novel and a haunted house. The heart of the initiation is a ceremony that takes place in Skull and Bones’ most secret room which now we know is probably called -- well, you would think it probably is, I can tell that you it definitely is called room 322. It's also called the Inner Temple. I did get a hold of the script for initiation. I lay that out in my book. But to give you a little teaser, there is somebody dressed as the devil, somebody dressed as Don Quixote, somebody who is dressed as a pope who has one foot sheathed in a monogrammed white slipper resting on a skull, and the other knights are dress as alumni or patriarchs. In part of that ceremony, the neophytes must kiss the pope's foot, drink quote, unquote, blood from the eurich, which is a skull container and the initiation ends when the initiator is shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote as the shrieking crowd falls silence and Quixote taps the junior on the shoulder with a sword and he says, “By order of our order, I dub you the knight of Eulogia.” JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the articles you wrote elicited a direct response and maybe a threat? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: When I wrote the first article for "Atlantic Monthly," I dismissed Bones as a harmless organization, because my secret society didn't have the power agenda, so I didn't think that Bones did either. After the article came out, I got a call at my office from the New Yorker from a journalist whom I knew by name to be a member of Skull and Bones. He scolded me for writing the article. He said, I’m quoting, “Writing that article was not an ethical or honorable way to make a decent living in journalism.” He asked me how much I had been paid for the story. I refused to tell him and he hung up on me. 15 minutes later, he called back. He says, "I have just gotten off the phone with our people." I laughed. I knew he meant other Bonesmen because I didn't think somebody would actually say our people. He told me that the society demanded to know where I got my information. I wouldn't tell him, of course, and then he spent the next 15 minutes or so, berating me for writing about Skull and Bones for having the gall to expose thing about his secret society. He ended the conversation by saying, “There are a lot of us at newspapers and political journalism institutions across the country. Good luck with your career.” He slammed down the phone. I was 23 then. I was an aspiring investigative reporter, so that did shake me a little bit, but what really appalled me was that I found out since that in the years since that call, this guy has been actively going out and trying to destroy my career as a journalist, simply because I wrote about Skull and Bones. AMY GOODMAN: Well, would you like to let us know who he is? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: I wish I could. Don't want to give him any fodder. AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting. At the beginning of this segment we quoted Kerry’s campaign spokesperson and she is quoted in the "Boston Globe" saying, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry." We're used to politicians declining to speak about something. That's no problem, but it sort of gives new meaning to or new meaning behind what she is saying. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: If this turns out to be a Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones election. I guarantee people across the country are going to clamor for more information on the secret society. I think this is the point of my book and probably the point of your program, too. I don't think that the elected officials who represent our country especially the president should be allowed to have an allegiance to any secret group. Secrecy overshadows democracy. We need a transparency so we can hold elected officials accountable. I don't think its coincidence that I what I would call the most secretive government in America today since the Nixon era is run by the world's most infamous secret society. That's something we want to avoid in the future. JUAN GONZALEZ: You mentioned that -- or the caller mentioned there were many journalists who were members of Skull and Bones. It would be interesting to perhaps keep track of the journalists who are, and how they're covering the current presidential race and analyze their coverage of both Kerry and Bush. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: There are a slew who are members of Skull and Bones, and some of them are biased. Some of them are not. Dana Milbank of the "Washington Post" is certainly not a biased journalist. He doesn't hold allegiance to his Skull and Bones connections, which is nice. There are others who follow their profession more than the society, but you will get people in Skull and Bones who favor Skull and Bones. That's the point of the group. AMY GOODMAN: Who are the other reporters who are Skull and Bones? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: There's a list of them going back to Henry Lucent in New Haven. There are the founders of "Time" magazine. "Time" and "Newsweek" have Skull and Bones origins, which is kind of strange. AMY GOODMAN: Who else? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: I could give you the list, but I think I will hold off. AMY GOODMAN: When it comes to, you know, who are Skull and Bones, and who covers this issue, what kind of coverage has the john Kerry connection to Skull and Bones gotten? George w. Bush and George Bush Sr., we -- that has been covered somewhat. ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Little to none. And when people have tried to ask him about it, he clams up. I heard this second hand. I didn't actually watch the show myself. I don't know how reliably to take this, but somebody told me that Kerry was asked by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" directly about Skull and Bones, and according to the person who saw this he said, Kerry looked like he was about to pass out. He wouldn't say a word. People don't think much about Kerry and Bones. I think partly because for George W. Bush, his Skull and Bones connections sort of work with the whole theory that he's riding his father's coattails and that he has gotten his way in life because of his connections, which I would agree with, and which I have traced in secrets of the tomb, to align closely with his Skull and Bones connections. He turned to Skull and Bones throughout his career for help. Even his Rangers deal, which is supposed to be the one thing he achieved on his own, had at least one Bonesman involved. Kerry has not relied on Skull and Bones. He hasn't made it a huge part of his life in terms of something that would boost his career or really put the -- propel him although he has turned to Skull and Bones in his personal life. But Kerry has been just as involved as Bush, I think. Although he will be as quick to deny that as the president will. AMY GOODMAN: Does it matter to Skull and Bones who wins this presidential race? ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: No. That's a good question and one that I asked many Bonesmen and the way they describe it is a win-win situation. As long as there's a Bonesman in the White House there are going to be many more Bonesmen in the administration. AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for joining us. Alexandra Robbins has been our guest. Her book is "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, The Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power.” Alexandra Robbins, a member of another Yale secret society, or at least she was, and also worked for the "New Yorker" magazine among other publications. © Copyright 2004 Democracy Now!
as found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones Skull and Bones From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Emblem of the Skull and Bones societyThe Order of Skull and Bones is a secret group based at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut. Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Bonesmen 3 The Skull and Bones "Tomb" 4 Numerical symbolism "322" 5 Trivia 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links [edit] History The group was founded in 1832 by Phi Beta Kappa pledges William Huntington Russell and Alphonso Taft. [1] The first Skull and Bones class, or "cohort," was the very next year, 1832-33. The society was all male until 1992. Traditionally, the Yale Daily News published the names of newly "tapped" members of all major secret societies at Yale, but this practice was abandoned during the student rebellion of the sixties. It has since been reinstated informally by the campus tabloid The Rumpus. Hence, while the society's current membership rosters and activities are not officially disclosed, the membership is in fact a matter of knowledge among the incoming and outgoing Yale senior class, university administration, active alumni from other societies, and underclassmen. This may be said of the other societies, as well, particularly Scroll and Key and Wolf's Head. The society inducts only rising seniors during the late junior year prior to their graduation. By reputation, "Bones" tapped the current football and heavyweight rowing captains as well as notables from the Yale Daily News and Yale Lit before the 1970s. However, the group's decision, after much dispute, to admit women eventually diversified the membership. Numerous undergraduate constituencies are better represented among the recently-tapped membership compared to the cohorts, or delegations, that included the 27th, 41st and 43rd Presidents of the United States. [edit] Bonesmen Main article: List of Skull and Bones Members Skull and Bones 1947, with George H.W. Bush just left of clockMany people believe that the membership of Skull and Bones had been totally secret. However the membership for each year is held in the Yale University archives. The membership rosters cover the years 1833-1985, with some additional years. The top repetitive families in Skull and Bones are also known because in 1985 an anonymous source leaked rosters to a private researcher, Antony C. Sutton. This leaked 1985 data was kept privately for over 15 years, as Sutton feared that the photocopied pages could somehow identify the member who leaked it. The information was finally reformatted as an appendix in the book Fleshing out Skull and Bones, a compilation edited by Kris Millegan, published in 2003. Many influential figures have been in Bones, and influential families have often had multiple members over successive generations. Bonesmen range from U.S. Presidents such as George H. W. Bush, and William Howard Taft along with Supreme Court Justices, business leaders and U.S. Both John Kerry and George W. Bush were members of Skull and Bones. They refused to talk about their common membership in Skull and Bones, despite being asked on television about it. Bush: "It's so secret I can't talk about it." Interviewer: "What does that mean for America?" Bush refused to answer that question. In another interview, when Kerry was in turn asked what could he reveal about Skull and Bones, Kerry said: "Well not much, because it's a secret... Sorry, I wish there was something I could manifest. [edit] The Skull and Bones "Tomb" The Skull and Bones tomb.Beginning in 1833, one of the responsibilities of the cohort of fifteen seniors is to select fifteen new junior members to replace them, which is called being "tapped" for the society. Tapped members meet in the Bones "Tomb" on certain evenings of each week for the duration of their senior year. According to "dissident" Bones members interviewed by Alexandra Robbins for her book Secrets of The Tomb [p. 5], members dine off a set of Adolf Hitler's silverware while in the tomb, consuming expensive gourmet meals with each other over the span of the year. Members are given new code names. The members call themselves "Knights," and simultaneously call everyone else in the world at large "barbarians." Another dissociation is that clocks in the Bones "tomb" run intentionally five minutes ahead of the rest of the world, to give the members an ongoing sense that the Bonesmen's space is a totally separate world — and a world just a bit ahead of the curve of the rest of the "barbarians" outside.[citation needed] [edit] Numerical symbolism "322" Skull and Bones paid obeisance to Eulogia, the goddess of eloquence, who took her place in the pantheon upon the death of the orator Demosthenes, in 322 B.C., and who is said to have returned in a kind of Second Coming on the occasion of the society's inception. Today the numerical symbolism number 322, recalling the date of Demosthenes' and Aristotles' (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) death, appears on society stationery. The number has such mystical overtones that in 1967 a graduate student with no ties to Skull and Bones donated $322,000 to the society. The number 322 has also been a particular favorite of conspiracy-minded hunters for evidence of Skull and Bones's global connections. It was the combination to Averell Harriman's briefcase when he carried classified dispatches between London and Moscow during World War II. Antony C. Sutton claims that 322 doubles as a reminder of the society's mother organization in Germany; the American group, founded in 1832, is the second chapter -- thus 32-2. [2] [edit] Trivia Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable. Please check for any inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed. The only known chapter of Skull and Bones outside Yale was a chapter at nearby Wesleyan University in 1870, which in 1872 became an independent society under the name 'Theta Nu Epsilon'. Other claims are made for chapters and "groves" in Germanic areas of Europe for other "death cults", but this does not seem to be realistic, since German fraternities with comparable influence like Askania-Burgundia are organized in a quite different way. Still other sources claim the funding for the bonesman was derived from one family by the use of American ships faster than British ships of the day, smuggling opiates and spices out of the Orient past any blockades to avoid UK taxes to the crown. It is suggested as a reason as to why the skull and crossbones is the emblem. The connection for the British East India flag coincidence of Washington's choice for a flag is also suggested. Skull & Bones inspired the secret society in the 2000 film The Skulls. A letter, sent by member Winter Mead to member F. Trubee Davison in 1918, said Geronimo's skull and other remains were taken from the leader's burial site and deposited at the Skull and Bones headquarters.[3] The fictional character Montgomery Burns on The Simpsons is a Bonesman from the class of 1914. [edit]
Animal rights, welfare and abuse concerns One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that zoosexual activity is harmful to animals. Some state this categorically; that any sexual activity is necessarily abuse. Critics also point to examples in which animals were clearly abused, having been tied up, assaulted, or injured. Defenders of zoophilia argue that animal abuse is neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia, and that just as sexual activity with humans can be both abusive and not, so can sexual activity with animals. The Humane Society of the United States states categorically its belief that: "Not all cases of animal sexual abuse will involve physical injury to the animal, but all sexual molestation of an animal by a human is abuse." [27] Andrea M. Beetz, PhD. in her book "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002) reports: "In most [popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration." In comment on Peter Singer's article "Heavy Petting", which controversially argued that zoosexual activity need not be abusive and if so relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, then president of the American animal rights group PETA, added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." (A few years later, Newkirk wrote to the editor of the Canada Free Press in response to a column by Alexander Rubin, making clear that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation, and all sexual activity, with animals. This was necessary since some had sought to interpret her former statement as condoning zoosexual activity. Accordingly, the response was a clarification of her position regarding zoosexual acts, rather than a different response per se to Singer's actual philosophical point, namely "if it isn't exploitation and abuse [then is there any moral basis for objecting?]") Dr. LaFarge, an assistant professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, who is the Director of Counseling at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and works with the New York correctional system, is quoted in a media article (1999) as reporting that: "it's important to make the distinction [between bestiality per se, and zoophilia] because zoophiles try not to hurt their animals..." "There is no evidence yet that zoophilia leads to sexual deviation, but that's not to say that's not the case. We do make the link between other forms of physical violence against animals as being a predicator of physical violence against women and children. I would go on to say that someone who is sexually violent with an animal ... is a predator and might very well do that toward people." [28] It is also reported[28] that: Surprisingly, many zoophiles join animal-rights activists in their opposition to animal pornography because the films objectify the critters, and mistreat the animals. "Things are done to elicit behavior," explains [one zoophile]. "For instance, they allow a dog to become dehydrated so he will lick almost constantly." Ernest Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate term "zoosadism" for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Some extreme examples of zoosadism include necrozoophilia, the sexual enjoyment of killing animals (similar to "lust murder" in humans), sexual penetration of fowl such as hens (fatal in itself) and strangling at orgasm, mutilation, sexual assault with objects (including screwdrivers and knives), interspecies rape, and sexual assault on immature animals such as puppies. Some horse-ripping incidents have a sexual connotation (Schedel-Stupperich, 2001). The link between sadistic sexual acts with animals and sadistic practices with humans or lust murders has been heavily researched. Some murderers tortured animals in their childhood and also sexual relations with animals occurred. Ressler et al. (1986) found that 8 of their sample of 36 sexual murderers showed an interest in zoosexual acts. (Main article: Zoosadism) Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: Humboldt Berlin University Sexology Dept (list of paraphilias) sex-lexis.com and sexualcounselling.com. Historical and cultural perspectives Main article: Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia Caveat - It is important to be aware that some of the descriptions in antiquity may have been written from a political agenda, that is, with the intent of portraying a given target group intentionally negatively. Reader judgement is necessary. Prior to and outside the influence of the major Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), sex with animals was sometimes forbidden, and sometimes accepted. Prehistoric man probably was not bound by any self-image in regard to sexuality, and "was likely to have made many such attempts." In recorded history, "Bestiality... existed as a rather widespread practice in all the nations of antiquity of which we have adequate records. Where it is not specifically mentioned, it may be legitimately inferred on the basis of the over-all evidence."[29] It was often incorporated into religious ritual. Some cultures, principally in the Far East and North America, were more open about sexuality than the West, whilst in others (for example herding and nomadic cultures in parts of Africa and the Middle East) it was considered a normal phase that most youths went through but adults usually outgrew. Several cultures built temples (Khajuraho, India) or other structures (Sagaholm, barrow, Sweden) with zoosexual carvings on the exterior. In the West, the most explicit records of sex involving humans and animals activity are associated with reports of the murderous sadism, torture and rape of the Roman games and circus, in which some authors estimate that several hundreds of thousands died.[30] Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as Pasiphaë and the Bull, were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) devour their victims afterwards. [31] Being sentenced to forcible sex by dogs and horses as a method of torturous punishment or execution also occurred in the Far East. In the Church-oriented culture of the Middle Ages, zoosexual activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as "both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man".[32] In the 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment took much that had been under the field of religion, and brought it under the field of science. As with homosexuality a variety of mixed views resulted[33] which persisted through until around 1950, when researchers such as Kinsey followed by R.E.L. Masters began researching sexuality and sexually fringe topics (including zoophilia) on their own terms. Health and Safety There are many infections that are transmissible between animals and humans, called zoonoses, as documented by the National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Some of these diseases may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, saliva, feces and blood of animals. This means that sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. It is advisable for practitioners of zoophilia to assess their relative risk, since risk varies for each species involved, for each disease mentioned below (and others not mentioned), and for each region in the world. Brucellosis Brucellosis in humans is a potentially life-threatening multisystem disease that is extremely difficult to treat, and in many countries up to 10% of dogs carry this bacterium, which is a major threat to the health of veterinarians and people who handle the blood or semen of infected animals. In the USA, there are only about 100 cases of human brucellosis diagnosed[34] per year (although some sources consider it underdiagnosed and underreported[35]), but many other countries have much higher rates. There are about 500,000 animal-to-human infections a year worldwide, according to the CDC. High risk areas include the Mediterranean Basin (Portugal, Spain, Southern France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, North Africa), South and Central America, Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. Dogs can be infected with Brucellosis without showing any signs or symptoms, and infection can only be diagnosed with specific blood tests. General dog-borne diseases Dogs, the most popular animals for zoophilic sexual activities, can transmit the following zoonoses to humans according to the CDC. Zoonosis Mode of transmission Canine brucellosis semen Leptospirosis semen and urine Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) semen and urine (inter alia) Rabies saliva-to-mucous membrane Campylobacter (campylobacteriosis) fecal-oral Cryptosporidium (cryptosporidiosis) fecal-oral Giardia (giardiasis) fecal-oral Hookworm fecal-oral Salmonella (salmonellosis) fecal-oral Toxocariasis (dog roundworm) fecal-oral Dipylidium (tapeworm / flea tapeworm) flea Leishmania (leishmaniasis) sandfly Lyme Disease tick Ringworm contact Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever tick Other species-borne diseases Each animal species may carry a specific range of diseases that can be transmitted to man. Some species, such as horses, carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world, for example Hendra virus. HIV HIV (the "AIDS" virus) is fragile and only lives in primates (humans, apes and monkeys) and is not believed to survive long in other species. Allergic Reactions Sensitization and resulting allergic reactions to animal fluids, such as semen, can sometimes occur, ranging from mild irritation to anaphylaxis[36]. Allergies to pet hair and dander are very common. Trauma, bites and other physical injury Animals may be injured by humans through ignorance of physical differences, forcefulness, or, for female animals, excessive friction or infection. Humans may also be at substantial physical risk and seriously harmed by sexual activity with animals. Larger animals may have the strength and defensive attributes (e.g. hooves, teeth) to injure a human, either in rejecting physical or sexual contact, or in the course of sexual arousal. For example, the penis of a sexually aroused dog has a broad bulb at the base which can cause injury if forcibly pulled from a body orifice, and equines can thrust suddenly and "flare",[37] and many animals bite as part of sexual excitement and foreplay. In July 2005, a 45 year old aerospace engineer, Kenneth Pinyan, died in Enumclaw, Washington from internal injury after being anally penetrated by a stallion.[38] Pregnancy Humans and other animals cannot impregnate one another. Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations Platonic love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual interest, sometimes very strongly. Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social arguments. They include: "Sexual activity between species is unnatural." "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the "yuck factor". (For contrasting view see: Wisdom of repugnance) "Sexual contact with animals exposes people to elevated risk for infection with zoonotic diseases" "Animals are not sapient, and therefore unable to consent." (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)[39] "Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships with humans." "Zoosexual relations are simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners." "Sexual acts with animals by humans are always physical abuse."[40] "Animals mate instinctively to produce offspring (or: only have sex for reproduction), hence they are deceived when these activities are performed." [41] "It takes advantage of animals' innate social structure which forces them to please a leader." "Humans are guardians in charge of animals, so a sexual relationship is a betrayal of the trust earned by this duty of care." "Zoosexuality is 'profoundly disturbed behaviour.'" (cf. the UK Home Office review on sexual offences, 2002)[42] "It offends human dignity[43] or is forbidden by religious law." Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality state that: "'Natural' is debatable; it's also not necessarily relevant." (ie, naturalistic fallacy) "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way." [44][45] "Animals do form mutual relationships with humans." "Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships[19]; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans." "Many zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; tending to oppose the view that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'." "It is a misperception that zoosexual relations need necessarily be inherently harmful/abusive. Usually it needs only sensitivity, mutuality, and understanding of everyday animal behavior."[46][47] "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning." "Animal and human social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and can easily encompass dynamically changing roles and leads." "People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to also take responsibility for its sexual drive. Neutering and ignoring are a failure to accept animals as they are, often used to avoid facing an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or 'best care'." [48] "Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can unambiguously solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language. Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible." [49][45] "The psychological profession consensus does not consider it intrinsically pathological. Academic and clinical research consistently tends to substantiate rather than deny zoophiles' claims." "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and are personal; many individuals do not consider them relevant." They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). [Also see: speciesism] [50] Critics of this reasoning state that animals can communicate internally (hence consent) within their own species, but cannot communicate cross-species. Others state that animal communication is clear and unambiguous cross-species as well. In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the "British Journal of Sexual Medicine" commented over 30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced." (Jan/Feb 1974, p.43) People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.[51] Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.[51] Ethologists who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans; their research is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, many individuals may be more accepting in private than they make clear to the public. Regardless, there is a general societal view which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition. Mythology and fantasy literature Europa and the Bull by Gustave Moreau, c. 1869From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Ugaritic mythology, the god Baal is said to have impregnated a heifer to sire a young bull god. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan, and her children Helen and Polydeuces resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced Europa in the form of a bull, and carried off the youth Ganymede in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. King Peleus continued to seduce the nymph Thetis despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake. The god Pan, often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex. As with other subjects of classical mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture. In Norse mythology, Loki had intercourse with a stallion, in the form of a mare, and gave birth to Sleipnir. The Sagaholm, a Swedish barrow from the Nordic Bronze Age, contains a number of Petroglyphs, some of which depict Zoophilia. Fantasy literature has included a variety of seemingly zoophilic examples, often involving human characters enchanted into animal forms: Beauty and the Beast (a young woman falls in love with a physically beast-like man), William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream (Queen Titania falls in love with a character whose head is transformed into that of a donkey's), The Book of One Thousand and One Nights (a princess champions a man enchanted into ape form), the Roman Lucius Apuleius's The Golden Ass (explicit sexuality between a man transformed into a donkey and a woman), and Balzac's A Passion in the Desert (a love affair between a soldier and a panther). In more modern times, zoosexual relations of a sort has been a theme in science fiction and horror fiction, with the giant ape King Kong fixating on a human woman, alien monsters groping human females in pulp novels and comics, and depictions of tentacle rape in Japanese manga and anime. The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, an 1820 Hokusai woodcut depicting a woman being sexually molested by a pair of octopuses.Modern erotic furry fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that consider and consent to sex in the same manner humans would. "Furry" characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the Vulcans and Klingons in Star Trek, or elves in fantasy fiction. Animals and anthropomorphs, when shown in furry art, are usually shown engaged with others of similar kind, rather than humans. Media discussion Because of its controversial standing, different countries and medias vary in how they treat discussion of zoosexual activity. Often sexual matters are the subject of legal or regulatory requirement. For example, in 2005, the UK broadcasting regulator (OFCOM) updated its code stating that: "Freedom of expression is at the heart of any democratic state. It is an essential right to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas. Broadcasting and freedom of expression are intrinsically linked. However, with such rights come duties and responsibilities ... The focus is on adult audiences making informed choices within a regulatory framework which gives them a reasonable expectation of what they will receive, while at the same time robustly protecting those too young to exercise fully informed choices for themselves ... "OFCOM sets out a watershed and other precautions for explicit sexual material, to protect young people, and specifies that discussion of zoosexual activity along with other sexual matters may take place, but in an appropriate context and manner." [29] The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of Omaha the Cat Dancer, a furry comic book, which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by Toronto police for pornographic depiction of bestiality (as noted, furry art is not usually considered "bestiality"), and the subject of praise by the New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality. References to zoosexual activity or bestiality are not uncommon in some media, especially cartoon series such as Family Guy (episode: "Screwed the Pooch") and South Park (Recurring themes), satirical comedy such as Borat, and films (especially shock exploitation films), although a few broadcasters such as Howard Stern (who joked about bestiality dial-a-date on NBC) and Tom Binns (whose Xfm London Breakfast Show resulted on one occasion in a live discussion about the ethics of zoosexual pornographic movies at peak child listening time) have been reprimanded by their stations for doing so. In literature, American novelist Kurt Vonnegut refers to a photo of a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a Shetland Pony in The Sirens of Titan, Slaughterhouse Five, and God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, while John Irving's novel The Cider House Rules repeatedly mentions a pornographic photograph depicting oral sex on a pony. In Clerks II Randal orders a donkey show as a going away present for his best friend Dante, in which it is referred to as "interspecies erotica" by the male performer. Pornography Main articles: Obscenity, Pornography, Legal status of Internet pornography Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the United States, zoosexual pornography (in common with other pornography) would be considered obscene if it did not meet the standards of the Miller Test and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission across the internet. Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are as of 2005 in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Extreme Associates (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [30]). Using animal fur or stuffed animals in erotic photography (in a sense, the combination of necrophilia and zoophilia) doesn't seem to be taboo, nor do photographs of nude models posed with animals provided no sexual stimulation is implied to the animal. Stuffed animals are sometimes used in glamour erotic photography with models touching their sexual organs against such animals, and likewise models may be posed with animals or on horseback. The subtext is often to provide a contrast: animal versus sophisticated, raw beast versus culturally guided human. (Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.) The potential use of media for pornographic movies was also seen from the start of the era of silent film. Polissons and Galipettes (re-released 2002 as "The Good Old Naughty Days") is a collection of early French silent films for brothel use, including some animal pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930. Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the Internet, due to their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark. Prior to the advent of mass-market full-color glossy magazines such as Playboy, so-called Tijuana Bibles were a form of pornographic tract popular in America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and celebrities.[52] The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1969-72, along with other well-known porn stars such as the Americans Linda Lovelace (Dogarama, 1969), and Chessie Moore (multiple films, c.1994). Another early film to attain great infamy was "Animal Farm", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.[53] Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In 1980s, "bestiality" was a central theme in Italian adult films featuring actresses like Denise Dior and Marina Hedman, manifested early in the softcore flick Bestialità in 1976. Today, in Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations, zoosexual materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies such as Topscore and Book & Film International, and the genre has stars such as "Hector" (a Great Dane starring in several films). Many Hungarian (Suzy Spark, Silvi Anderson et al) and Russian (Pantera aka Jordan Elliot, various girls filmed by Club Seventeen) mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in zoophilia pornography in their early careers.[54] Best-known current performers in Europe include Andy aka Anna Dyna[55], Bilara, Adilia "the Sinful Lady". In Japan, zoophilia pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Russian female models performing fellatio on non-human animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese mosaic censor. Brazil is also a substantial producer of zoophilia pornography, many films featuring "she-males". Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers such as Jeremy Jaynes (8th most prolific spammer, sentenced to 9 years for spamming) and owners of some fake TGPs, who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users' attention. Social community Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community" or monolithic subculture, in the same sense as the gay community or any other alternative lifestyle communities, is a controversial question. Some zoophiles point to the number and quality of computerized meeting-places in which zoophiles can meet and socialize, the manner in which this extends to offline social networks, and the trend of social and cultural evolution of community consensus over time, or use the term to imply "the community of zoophiles in general". Others point to the differing viewpoints and attitudes, the trust issues and risks due to lack of safety inherent in socializing, and lack of any true commonality between zoophiles beyond their orientation. Whether or not it should be construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date. Prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. (This almost certainly still describes the majority of zoophiles; only a small proportion are visible online). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic social networks of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the internet and its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. The popular[56] (top 1%) newsgroup alt.sex.bestiality (reputedly started in humor[57]), personal bulletin boards and talkers, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s, rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and forums. By around 1991 - 1993 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved. This changed significantly around 1995-96 (due to the double impact of Miletski's research and the unrelated mid/late-1990s boom in zoosexual pornography), and then a few years later again around 1998-2000 in the wake of the controversy over the first proposed public US appearance of a zoophile on the Jerry Springer show ("I married a horse", 1998, pulled before viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 Philip Buble case (in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog attend judgement as his "wife"). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as attempts to state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, others saw them in a negative light as ill-advised, futile, harmful, or ultimately egoistic attempts to obtain a public hearing which could only backlash strongly both legally and otherwise against zoophiles. There was also a perception that as knowledge of zoosexuality as a lifestyle became wider spread, the smaller but more formative social groups were being diluted by large numbers of newcomers who had not grown up within the same "culture" or communal values, and many website owners came to be less interested compared to the past. In 1996, a zoophile version of the Geek Code was created, known as the Zoo Code, intended as a shorthand "signature" for zoophiles to describe themselves, their philosophies, and their stances on certain common issues such as animal welfare and vegetarianism. It achieved some degree of popularity for a time and is still occasionally encountered today, having also been translated into French and German. In the wake of these changes, a number of the older pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net between 1995 and 2001, and many of the more established individuals and social groups at that time withdrew[58] from the online community, perceiving the risks and benefits to no longer be worth it, as they already had sufficient offline friends amongst other zoophiles. This led to a period of change and consolidation during the late 1990s and early 2000s as old sites closed and the older and newer 'generations' mingled. Most of the major "talkers" faded and closed too, especially following the increasing popularity of instant messaging and an incident on "Planes of Existence" (Germany, 2000). At the same time, many other social groups online drew lessons from these and other incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended to replace the previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and conduct. Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can be broken down into several categories. Some sites restrict or prohibit explicit material (such as pictures, stories, contacts, etc), while others embrace these explicit aspects. Some zoophilic websites are run by professional or amateur pornographers, marketing pictures, stories and videos. A few provide personal perspectives and information relating to it. There also exist sites providing support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth.[14]
as found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiality Zoophilia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Bestiality) This article is about zoophilia, the affinity with (or sexual attraction towards) animals. For other uses, see Zoophilia (disambiguation). The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page Zoophilia, from the Greek Ζωο (zôon, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a non-human animal. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the full spectrum of human/animal orientation. A separate term, bestiality (more common in mainstream usage and frequently but incorrectly seen as a synonym), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of zoophilia — which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity — this article uses zoophilia for the former, and zoosexual activity for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles; and not all zoophiles are sexually interested in animals. Common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse. There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as a sexual orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person, and research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims. Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship that can last for years and which is not functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. Terminology Each of the major terms in this field is used in more than one way, depending on context. The general term zoophilia was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by Krafft-Ebing in his book Psychopathia Sexualis (1886). In sexology, psychology and popular use, it has a variety of meanings, revolving around affinity, affection, or erotic attraction between a human being, and a (non-human) animal. It can refer to either the general emotional-erotic attraction to animals, or (less commonly) to the specific psychological paraphilia of the same name.[1] The terms zoosexuality, signifying the entire spectrum of emotional or sexual attraction and/or orientation to animals, and zoosexual (as in, "a zoosexual [person]" or "a zoosexual act"), have been used since the 1980s (cited by Miletski, 1999). Technical discussion of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation in psychology is discussed in that article. Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the zoophile label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead. The ambiguous term sodomy, usually referring to non-procreative sex,[2] is sometimes used in legal contexts to include zoosexual as well as homosexual acts. Zooerasty is an older term, not in common use, for objectified sex with animals in a masturbatory manner. In pornography, human–animal sex is occasionally described as farmsex, dogsex, or animal sex; these terms are often used regardless of the context or species involved. Bestiality signifies a sexual act between humans and animals. It does not by itself imply any given motive or attitude. It is not always certain whether acts such as kissing, intimate behavior, frottage (rubbing), masturbation, or oral sex are considered 'bestiality' in all cultures or legal systems, or whether the term implies sexual intercourse or other penetrative activity alone. In a non-zoophilic context, words like bestial or bestiality are also used to signify acting or behaving savagely, animal-like, extremely viciously, or lacking in human values. The spelling beastiality is nonstandard. Amongst zoophiles and some researchers,[3] the term bestialist has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare. This usage originated with the desire by some zoophiles to have a way to distinguish zoophilia as a fully relational outlook (sexual or otherwise), from simple "ownership with sex." Others describe themselves as zoophiles and bestialists in accordance with the dictionary definitions of the words. Finally, zoosadism refers to the torture or pain of animals for sexual pleasure, and also includes willfully abusive zoosexual activity. Extent of occurrence Main article: Demographics of sexual orientation The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty, largely because feelings which may not have been acted upon can be difficult to quantify, lack of clear divide between non-sexual zoophilia and everyday pet care, and reluctance by most zoophiles to disclose their feelings due to fear of both social and legal persecution. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it. [4] Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexual activity, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 40-60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the Kinsey reports, but some later writers consider these uncertain.[4] Anecdotally, Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality My Secret Garden comprised around 190 women's contributions; of these, some 8% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoosexual activity.[5] Not all people live near animals. Urban dwellers, who usually lack contact with animals, were estimated by Kinsey (1948) to have only one zoosexual contact for every 30 of the average rural dweller. By 1974, the farm population in the USA had reduced by 80% compared to 1940, causing a greatly reduced opportunity for living with animals; Hunt's 1974 study suggests that the demographic changes affecting this one group led to a significant change in overall reported occurence.[6] Sexual fantasies about zoosexual acts can occur in people who do not wish to experience them in real life, and may simply reflect normal imagination and curiosity. Latent zoophile tendencies may be common; the frequency of interest and sexual excitement in watching animals mate is cited as an indicator by Massen (1994) and commented on by Masters (1962).[7] Legal status Main article: Zoosexuality and the law Zoosexual acts are illegal in many jurisdictions, while others generally outlaw the mistreatment of animals without specifically mentioning sexuality. Because it is unresolved under the law whether sexual relations with an animal are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment", this leaves the status of zoosexual activity unclear in some jurisdictions. Laws on zoosexuality in modern times are often triggered by specific incidents or by peer pressure.[8] Whilst some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "sodomy" or "bestiality" which lack legal precision and leave it unclear which exact acts are covered. Other factors affecting the operation of law include enforced assumptions as to abuse, creative use of alternative laws, and the impact of uncodified cultural norms, prohibitions, and social taboos. Posner (1996) states: "[T]here is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early common law, there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of [cruelty to animals] statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anticruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while antibestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards." [9] Whilst zoosexual acts are legal in some countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, it is illegal in Great Britain (for penetrative acts), Canada, and much of the United States and Australia amongst others. Countries such as Belgium, Germany and Russia are in between the two as they permit zoosexual activity but strictly prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography. A detailed list of countries and laws can be found at zoosexuality and the law. In Sweden, a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents, although noting that "the rise in documented cases did not necessarily mean that there was a de facto increase", and distinguished zoosexual activity from incidents involving physical injury (zoosadism). The Animal Welfare Agency gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban. [24] In New Zealand, the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue. In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others." In the United States, many state laws against "sodomy" (usually in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts in Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that perceived moral disapproval on its own was an insufficient justification for banning a private act. On the other hand, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida (State vs. Mitchell) demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes would instead be applied, and Muth v. Frank showed that some courts might be "desperate to avoid the plain consequences" of Lawrence and may make "narrow and strained" efforts to avoid seeing it as relevant to other consensual private acts beyond the realm of homosexuality.[10] Finally, the 1999 Philip Buble case showed that when a self-confessed zoophile is assaulted and the assault is motivated by his zoophilia (ie hate crime), a jury can convict the assailant and a judge give a stern sentence, despite the controversial nature of the cause. Old Peruvian law banned unmarried men from owning female alpacasIn some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (a relative of the llama). Zoophiles Zoophilia as a lifestyle Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at or before puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Kinsey found that the most frequent incidence of human/animal intercourse was more than eight times a week, for the under-15 years age group. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. As with human attraction, zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time. Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do. They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack, and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed.[11] Although some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem, others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships. The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known[11] [12] This situation is comparable to "outing" and "the closet" of homosexuality, with coming out of the closet sometimes humorously referred to as "coming out of the stable".[citation needed] Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), and the impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and zoophiles cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss).[13] [14] Some of these concerns may be qualitatively similar to historical perceptions in other sexual groups that have been legal or illegal at different times in history. Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoosexual activity, although seemingly condemned by some religions, is not a major focus of their teachings. Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (eg Monogamy), animal-style relationships (each make own sexual choices), physical intimacy (non-sexual touch, mutual social grooming, closeness), or other combinations. Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals which is secondary to human attraction; for others the bond with animals is primary. Miletski argues that a scale similar to Kinsey's could be applied for this.[15] In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in others it is hidden. This can sometimes give rise to issues of guilt (as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or jealousy within human relationships [25]. In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with. Not all zoophiles are able to keep animals, or at least not those animals that they feel attracted to, and because of this some resort to trespassing on property to have sexual contact with animals. This practice, known as fence hopping, is often condemned by other zoophiles. Non-sexual zoophilia Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications. Definitions of zoophilia include "Affection or affinity for animals", "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals", "Attraction to or affinity for animals", or "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact" [16] The common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of affective bond to animals beyond the usual, whether emotional or sexual in nature. Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com (memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other pet marriage sites. Zoophiles and other groups Zoophiles are often confused with furries or therians (or "weres"), that is, people with an interest in anthropomorphism, or people who believe they share some kind of inner connection with animals (spiritual, emotional or otherwise). While the membership of all three groups probably overlap in part, it is untrue to say that all furs or therians have a sexual interest in animals (subconscious or otherwise). Many furs find anthropomorphic adult art erotic and enjoy the companionship of animals, but have no wish to extend their interest beyond an affinity or emotional bond to sexual activity. Those who consider themselves both zoophiles and furries often call themselves zoo-furs or fuzzies. The size of this group is not known, although an oft-cited figure is 2 - 5% of furries[17], which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally. Expressions of fur fetishism such as fursuiting, are usually considered a form of costuming, rather than an expression of zoosexual interest and are usually legal. Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual puppy or pony play (also known as "Petplay") or animal transformation fantasies and roleplays, where one person may act like a dog, pony, horse, or other animal, while a sexual partner acts as a rider, trainer, caretaker, or breeding partner. These activities are sexual roleplays whose principal theme is the voluntary or involuntary reduction or transformation of a human being to animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no implicit connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. They are instead more usually associated with BDSM. Zoosexual activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be considered extreme, or edgeplay. Sciences studying zoophilia Zoophilia is in the main covered by four sciences: Psychology (the study of the human mind), sexology (the study of human sexuality), ethology (the study of animal behavior), and anthrozoology (the study of human-animal interactions and bonds) The nature of animal minds, animal mental processes and structures, and animal self-awareness, perception, emotion in animals, and "map of the world", are studied within animal cognition and also explored within various specialized branches of neuroscience such as neuroethology. Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other (non-science) fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, animal rights and animal welfare. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of psychiatry if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context. Perspectives on zoophilia Psychological and research perspectives DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified". The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960. There have been several significant modern studies, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions: The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz) Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)[18] Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz)[19]; Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)[20] Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality. (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters) The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens". More recently, research has engaged three further directions - the findings that at least some animals appear to thrive in a zoosexual relationship,[21] the weight of psychological research that zoosexuality is closer to a sexual orientation than a sexual fetish, and the finding that science apparently is closing in on confirming the capacity for authentic emotion in animals, and their enjoyment and choice of actions (including sex) driven by an internal feeling that certain things are pleasurable.[22] Mis-citation of research At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia, as the results would be based upon populations pre-selected as knowingly having high proportions of criminal records, abusive tendencies and/or psychological issues. This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate pathology) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers. An example of such a statistic is a dubious[23] statement cited frequently[24] by PETA that "96% of people who commit bestiality will go on to commit crimes against people", which is sourced from a study of such a population. When read in full however, the study also includes the following caution regarding interpretation of their results: "It is difficult to assess 'normality' in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities ... It is possible that among other populations ... sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans." This qualification by the authors regarding misinterpretation of their paper is not mentioned by PETA. A further source of misinterpretation is that the 96% statistic is a highly controversial figure even amongst offender populations. The choice of survey quoted ignores contradictory evidence and clarifications from other studies. It is based upon a total of 24 individuals who admitted to serious sexual assault on humans, and the headline finding has not been replicated in any other large scale study of either offending or non-offending populations. Religious perspectives Several organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexual activity, with some variation and exceptions. Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. Some theologians (especially Christian[25]) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for an animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas described it along with homosexuality as the worst sexual sins "because use of the right sex is not observed." Alternatively, many Christians and some non-Orthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical laws as binding upon them, and may consider them irrelevant. Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the Qur'an, or because sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery.[26] Though the book Tahrir-ul-Vasyleh does exist, there is widespread suspicion concerning the existence and authenticity of such a "fourth book". There are a few unsubstantiated references in Hindu scriptures to religious figures engaging in sexual activity with animals (e.g. the god Brahma lusting after and having sex with a bear, a human-like sage being born to a deer mother), as well as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the temple complex at Khajuraho. Some Vedic rituals actually involve zoosexual activity, such as the Ashvamedha. Orthodox Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to married couples, thereby forbidding zoosexual acts. A greater punishment is attached to sexual relations with a sacred cow than with other animals. Buddhism addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as pederasty, adultery, rape, or prostitution. Various sexual activities, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns. In the Church of Satan, sexual acts involving children and/or animals are universally condemned, as are those in which a human who is too naïve to understand is involved. The Satanic Bible states (p.66) that animals and children are treated as sacred as they are regarded as the most natural expression of life. Animal studies perspectives Main article: Animal sexuality The common concept of animals as heterosexual and only interested in their own species, is seen as scientifically inaccurate by researchers into animal behavior. Animals are, in the main, considered as sexual opportunists by science, rather than sexually naïve. Ethologists such as Desmond Morris who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies, have consistently documented significant masturbation and homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual animal couples, homosexual raising of young, and cross-species sexual advances. Haeberle (1978) states that sexual intercourse is "not so very unusual" between animals of different species as it is between humans and animals, a view with which Kinsey (1948, 1953) concurs.[27] Peter Singer reports of one such incident witnessed by Biruté Galdikas (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on primates): "While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." [26]
as found on: http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=5716388 Penis Surgery Gone Wrong: Man Sentenced For Mailing Bomb to Doctor Nov 21, 2006 10:14 PM EST PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A Pennsylvania man angry about his penis-enlargement surgery mailed a bomb to his doctor. Now he's been sentenced to four years and ten months in federal prison. Authorities say 25-year-old Blake Steidler of Reamstown mailed the bomb because he was angry about how his surgery turned out. He mailed it last year from North Bloomfield, Ohio, to the doctor in Chicago. After returning home, he told police what he had done. The bomb was retrieved from the mail and destroyed. No one was injured. In addition to the prison term, Steidler was sentenced Tuesday to five years supervised release, and a $2,000 fine. Defense lawyer Luis Ortiz said earlier that his client is mentally ill.
as found on : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/21/earlyshow/contributors/melindamurphy/main668323.shtml Gastric Bypass Surgery Gone Bad Study: 1 In 50 People Die Within A Month Of Surgery NEW YORK, Jan. 21, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (CBS/The Early Show) Quote A recent study by researchers at the University of Washington found that 1 in 50 people die within one month of having gastric bypass surgery, and that figure jumps nearly five-fold if the surgeon is inexperienced. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (CBS) Gastric bypass surgery, the drastic procedure used to help some obese people lose weight, continues to grow in popularity. It's estimated that 140,000 people had this procedure in 2004, with the number expected to grow even higher this year. And for the majority of patients, this surgery is a lifesaver, but not for all, reports The Early Show correspondent Melinda Murphys. Like many people who seek out this surgery, Dave Weindel had been morbidly obese for most of his life. So he was eager to have surgery to help him lose weight, get healthy, and live longer to watch his four young children grow. "I graduated from eighth grade a couple years later," Christy Weindel says, crying. "And he wasn't there for that. And he wasn't there for prom. And I just got married in September. And he wasn't there for that. It's really tough. Christy Weindel lost her father when she was 12 years old. Dave Weindel died three weeks after having gastric bypass surgery. "I had to come home and had to tell the kids that their dad died. Was very, very hard," says, Cathy Weindel. According to Weindel's wife, it wasn't supposed to turn out this way. She says, "Well, they told us it was major surgery. But they said, 'You know, you're going to be home in three days.' " Weindel's surgery was July 17, 1998. His stomach was reduced to the size of an egg and his intestines were re-routed. The surgeon told Cathy Weindel the operation went well. But within days, Weindel's health worsened. He was transferred to a second hospital, where a CT scan revealed a large abscess. Weindel was treated, but his health continued to decline. Cathy Weindel says she thinks her husband knew what was happening to him. "I still remember, and I still see this in my mind," she says very emotionally. "When they're shutting everything down and there was nothing else they could do. I was talking to him. And I saw a tear come out of his eye. And, I mean, it still stays with me." Dave Weindel died three weeks after his surgery. He was 38. The official cause of death: abscess, pneumonia and a pulmonary embolism. Was Dave Weindel's case a complete anomaly? Not really. A recent study by researchers at the University of Washington found that 1 in 50 people die within one month of having gastric bypass surgery, and that figure jumps nearly fivefold if the surgeon is inexperienced. Attorney Herman Praszkier says, "You want to know, basically, as much information about the surgeon's background as you can. Anyone who evades your question, get up and walk out." Praszkier represented Cathy Weindel in her lawsuit against her husband's surgeon and the hospital. It was settled days into the trial and was the first of a dozen gastric bypass malpractice cases he's handled. Praszkier explains, "The most common problem in bariatric surgery in the cases I take (which are only death cases) is that the post-operative care was insufficient." Nora Malone is Praszkier's most recent client. She tried to talk her husband, Ron, out of the surgery. "I said, 'Let's go. Let's just go.' And he said, 'Oh, I'll be OK, honey. You'll be so proud of me when I get out of here,' " Malone recalls. Nora Malone met her husband when he was a naval officer stationed in the Philippines in 1973. They had three daughters. Their daughter. Liberty. says, "When they went to talk to the doctors, they came back thinking it was a good thing. You know, he'd get off his high blood pressure medicine, his diabetes medicine." Malone had laparascopic gastric bypass surgery just before Thanksgiving 2003. "They said there's no risk," Nora Malone says. But days after the surgery, Ron Malone became very ill. Doctors told his family there was a leak - and operated again. He didn't improve. Nora Malone recalls, "And I said, 'I think you have to do something, doctor.' And he said, 'Mrs. Malone, trust me, your husband is OK.' " On Dec. 9, 2003, Ron Malone died during his third surgery. The official cause of death: cardiac arrest. More accurately, Malone died from complications of gastric bypass surgery. Dr. Harvey Sugerman says, "There is a risk of a leak following gastric bypass that can be fatal." Dr. Sugerman is a retired bariatric surgeon and the president of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery (ASBS). He says early diagnosis of a problem is the key. "I think some doctors got into it without adequate training and experience and felt that they could do this," Dr. Sugerman says, "The ASBS is very concerned about deaths after obesity surgery. And we are doing everything we can to improve quality care by establishing the Center of Excellence program." This program will have stringent guidelines that must be met in order for a bariatric surgery facility to be called, "a Center of Excellence." When the program launches in June, information will be posted on a Web site to help patients find quality doctors and hospitals. Unfortunately, it comes too late for Ron Malone. And too late for Dave Weindel, whose wife no longer believes in the surgery. "I don't think it's worth it," Cathy Weindel says "It tears your family apart." Like these stories, the other finding in the University of Washington study is that men are more likely to die than women. However, the study did find that if a patient survived more than a year after the surgery, then the benefits to their long-term health far outweigh the risks of the procedure. So what can a patient considering this surgery do to stay safe? Evaluate the center/hospital where you are having the surgery. Ask the surgeon doing the operation how many procedures have they done, what's their complication rate and what's their mortality rate. And ask what steps will be taken if a complication occurs.
last post
14 years ago
can view
can comment

other blogs by this author

 14 years ago
You too many mind..
official fubar blogs
 5 years ago
fubar news by babyjesus  
 9 years ago
Scrapper Kustom's Offic... by SCRAPPER  
 12 hrs ago
e by e  
 10 years ago
fubar.com ideas! by babyjesus  
 7 years ago
fubar'd Official Wishli... by SCRAPPER  
 8 years ago
Word of Esix by esixfiddy  

discover blogs on fubar

blog.php' rendered in 0.2652 seconds on machine '223'.