Inactive Douglas Bryan Spink / Fausty / Cross-Species Alliance / Exitpoint / @LeConteSpink - Pro-Zoophilia Activist, beyond-depraved criminal, owner of cryptostorm VPN, snitch, obtuse egomaniac, dead from cancer; He will not be missed.

[CarreenMaloney]

I’m the journalist who wrote Uniquely Dangerous, the so-called “shitty book” being referenced in this thread. I’ve noticed visitors coming to my site (uniquelydangerous.com) from Kiwi Farms, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to provide additional information.

I began working on this story in 2010, when Doug Spink’s cabin was raided in northern Washington State. He was living about 20 miles from my home, but I’d never heard of Spink before. To be honest, I didn’t even know what the word zoophilia meant, despite volunteering in animal welfare for many years. I first heard about the raid on the day it happened. I was texted by staff members from inside the Whatcom Humane Society, the shelter that took Spink’s animals. I had connections there because I had written for—and about—WHS for a decade, both as a volunteer ghostwriter and as a reporter covering goings-on at the shelter for magazines such as Modern Dog and Animal Sheltering, a Humane Society of United States publication.

I was concerned about the fate of the animals, and grew deeply saddened and horrified to learn that the animals belonging to zoophiles are often killed, but not by the zoophiles. They are destroyed by the authorities because they are considered an offense to human dignity that must be snuffed out in order to restore the species hierarchy. It was this disturbing tendency that drove me to write Uniquely Dangerous. I noticed that people who, at first, acted concerned about the animals didn't give a fuck when I informed them that the animals in these cases were often killed. So what was really going on under the surface?

This is not a flimsy piece of work—the book took me eight years to complete. It is based on hundreds of interviews and thousands of documents, many of which were obtained using freedom of information requests. Even without the zoophilia component, it is the strangest, most complicated story I’ve ever encountered in my 30 years as a journalist. The narrative includes high-stakes drug smuggling, death-defying BASE jumping, and a valuable celebrity show jumping stallion at the center of a messy custody battle.

There are some truths in this thread, but many factual errors are showing up here, too. I won’t correct the mistakes one by one--you can read my 400-page book if you want to know more about what really happened--but I will clarify one point: Uniquely Dangerous is not Doug Spink’s book. It is my book. It’s true that he is the most prominent character in it, but I also interviewed dozens of other zoos to get this story. Spink wasn’t even given the chance to read the manuscript before it was published. He shared his story with me with the understanding that he wouldn’t have any control over its content. And contrary to what’s been suggested here, he isn’t profiting from it, either.

If you want to read the first third of my book for free, you can download it in PDF form from my website at uniquelydangerous.com. I can be contacted there if you have additional comments you’d like to share.

 

[Nasty]

@CarreenMaloney

“They are destroyed by the authorities because they are considered an offense to human dignity that must be snuffed out in order to restore the species hierarchy.”

I should inform you right away that you’ve been seriously tricked by zoophiles. The majority of animals rescued from zoophiles are not euthanized. The horses were sent to HopeForHorses, and some dogs were euthanized because they were too aggressive to rehome — the same dogs that were noted as lunging at people in public while owned by Doug Spink.

I’ve seen many cases of animals being sexually abused and then rescued by animal control, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard of an animal being euthanized if there wasn’t a serious, deadly, or dangerous issue with it.

This crap about “the animals are euthanized!!” is the first lie a zoophile will spit out when you talk about reporting someone to the police.

You’ve made some sick bedfellows.

 

[BE 911]

I’m the journalist who wrote Uniquely Dangerous, the so-called “shitty book” being referenced in this thread. I’ve noticed visitors coming to my site (uniquelydangerous.com) from Kiwi Farms, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to provide additional information.

I began working on this story in 2010, when Doug Spink’s cabin was raided in northern Washington State. He was living about 20 miles from my home, but I’d never heard of Spink before. To be honest, I didn’t even know what the word zoophilia meant, despite volunteering in animal welfare for many years. I first heard about the raid on the day it happened. I was texted by staff members from inside the Whatcom Humane Society, the shelter that took Spink’s animals. I had connections there because I had written for—and about—WHS for a decade, both as a volunteer ghostwriter and as a reporter covering goings-on at the shelter for magazines such as Modern Dog and Animal Sheltering, a Humane Society of United States publication.

I was concerned about the fate of the animals, and grew deeply saddened and horrified to learn that the animals belonging to zoophiles are often killed, but not by the zoophiles. They are destroyed by the authorities because they are considered an offense to human dignity that must be snuffed out in order to restore the species hierarchy. It was this disturbing tendency that drove me to write Uniquely Dangerous. I noticed that people who, at first, acted concerned about the animals didn't give a fuck when I informed them that the animals in these cases were often killed. So what was really going on under the surface?

This is not a flimsy piece of work—the book took me eight years to complete. It is based on hundreds of interviews and thousands of documents, many of which were obtained using freedom of information requests. Even without the zoophilia component, it is the strangest, most complicated story I’ve ever encountered in my 30 years as a journalist. The narrative includes high-stakes drug smuggling, death-defying BASE jumping, and a valuable celebrity show jumping stallion at the center of a messy custody battle.

There are some truths in this thread, but many factual errors are showing up here, too. I won’t correct the mistakes one by one--you can read my 400-page book if you want to know more about what really happened--but I will clarify one point: Uniquely Dangerous is not Doug Spink’s book. It is my book. It’s true that he is the most prominent character in it, but I also interviewed dozens of other zoos to get this story. Spink wasn’t even given the chance to read the manuscript before it was published. He shared his story with me with the understanding that he wouldn’t have any control over its content. And contrary to what’s been suggested here, he isn’t profiting from it, either.

If you want to read the first third of my book for free, you can download it in PDF form from my website at uniquelydangerous.com. I can be contacted there if you have additional comments you’d like to share.

I would like to ask a few questions if you don't mind. Before this however I will say that my only grudge with the book isn't that it's a bunch of lies (I can't say since I haven't personally read it) but rather that Spink likes to hide his version of the story behind that paywall. I hope you understand that this can be seen as a sort of joke if not a scam to people that want to know the integral version of the story, which I am interested in since we took time writing this thread.

1. If you so deeply care about animals and learned what zoophilia meant on the spot, why did you still decide to work with Spink and get his story out? I surely wouldn't expect someone like you to side with someone like Spink, which has been accused of having sex with animals and abusing them.

2. What makes you so sure that Spink's testimony is the correct one here? Spink likes to say that this book is the one that disproves many "myths" about him, yet I do not expect much coming from him. It also has been showcased in this thread that Spink lies a lot and that time has proven that he contradicts himself. I would like to know if there are any facts backing up his claims.

3. You are saying that you are deeply concerned about the fact animals belonging to zoophiles are often euthanized and that you consider this an offense. However, I would like to know what your opinion is on the fact that many of these abused animals end up having behavioral issues, often deep, that cannot be fixed in any way because they ended up being sexually assaulted. They never really get to be the same anymore. What would be for your the correct course of action here? Since you obviously sided with Spink with this, I would also want to know what, for you, should be the correct course of actions for zoophiles like Spink if they end up getting caught doing this? Because ultimately we are speaking about the same thing here. This is what causes these animals to be euthanized.

I hope you see no ill intent in my questions. I am simply curious to know your side of the story.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

I was concerned about the fate of the animals, and grew deeply saddened and horrified to learn that the animals belonging to zoophiles are often killed ...

​

Since by odd coincidence this topic came up in totally unrelated research of mine, I'm going to Tl;DR out for a moment about Jewish stuff.

Funny you should mention that. I recently came across a bit of commentary on the relevant Biblical Law, which is, as I'm sure you are aware having written a book on the subject:

If a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast, &c. (Levit. xx, 15f.)

More interestingly, commenting on this text, the Babylonian Talmud states that this is done so that the beast is not to be a cause of scandal, so that people will not see it and say, "this is the beast that so-and-so lay with." (Tractate Sanhedrin, 55) I'm curious as to whether you came across that in your research about just how far back thinking on this subject goes.

To go on,

Spoiler: continues...

Id. also treats the pressing question "what if a Jew commits bestiality in ignorance?" but is more notorious for arguing for nine and three years old as important boundaries in Jewish legal thinking with regards to the age of consent. It was the latter topic that had gave me occasion to read that noxious little text, but the mental image of rabbis deeply pondering over the question of "a Jew committing bestiality in ignorance" is a hard one to forget.

Not one germane to the topic at hand, though.

When I first read the Bible, the reason for slaying the animal under the Levitical system wasn't exactly clear to me and I remember wondering about it, assuming that it was about taint of impurity (which is is touched on the tractate as well) but it's actually more about the problem of scandal.

Of the animal (let us remember the context: this is a living agricultural instrument and food source, and a valuable one, worked in the fields, eaten of, and so on; which is given in trade, sacrificed to God, and also lives around the people in, and I do not intend to make a pun here, "intimate" quarters), it has become irrevocably tainted in some manner that is neither physical nor simply spiritual, but in the social sphere. Seeing so-and-so's sheep with whom he molested, walking around in a small community (remember, again, our context, which is small pastoral communities) is a reminder about the act of molesting sheep.

The sheep-molester was put to death (by stoning), so as touching bad things happening to animals there is a sort of justice being done, but why are the further bad things happening to the animal? Needless to say, they weren't imagining cute puppies, and it is heartbreaking to think about euthanizing cute puppies. And at that point in time "cute puppies" weren't really a cultural thing, anyway; needless to say there was no "animal rights movement" to speak of ... pace Deut. xv, 4 on "not muzzling the ox," which is actually remarkably humane for it's time, as the animal who is working is allowed to stop for a snack once in a while, which shows this system was actually remarkably progressive as far as it dealt with animals.

But, and it rather pains me on rather more than one level to say it, I think the Talmudic sages were actually onto something here. There is something just so incredibly outside of the order of things regarding humans having relations with animals that the sages saw fit to just totally remove it's taint from existence, period. It is so against nature that it should not be suffered to continue exist in nature. That makes a degree of sense. I'm not necessarily advocating it, but, in context, it has it's internal logic to it.

And, as posters above point out, it's not the case anyway.

And even if it was, or in such case as as it is (due to the extreme behaviors of a traumatised animal needing to be put out of it's misery), then why the hell would you worry more about that than people who are churning out the traumatised animals? Yeah, worry about both, I guess, but there's a clear priority there.

(If anyone out there tries to make an analogy to human rape victims here, you're a terrible person.)

But, more concretely, my question to you is basically this: does the fact that the animals abused by Spink and his cohorts trouble you to a degree that you think that someone who fucks dogs has a valid opinion?

I agree wholeheartedly that this degenerate warrants a book written about him, sheerly, for it's narrative value, but I really, really don't understand your questions. I'm basing this off the reviews of your book which you yourself posted on your page, which speak to, I'm paraphrasing, your doing a thought provoking analysis of "complex questions" regarding "loving animals in an unorthodox way," and Spink being the victim of "injustice" and even some kind of prejudice.

You surely have material for a book in this guy's life. In the drug world, he was/is a rank amateur, a snitch and a shitbird of the highest order. As a person he is a sexual pervert and quite possibly a sociopath. BASE jumping is, I think, some yuppieish extreme sport stuff I couldn't be bothered to possibly care less about. The dog/horse stealing is a pretty entertaining little drama if you forget that the animals in question were being molested.

So, if you believe that there are complex moral questions about molesting animals as an issue of sexuality, and that it is in any way worth speaking about, then you are an exemplar of the very worst aspects of contemporary societal approaches to sexuality.

If you believe that this guy was in any way a victim of injustice then that's fucking rich, as, due to snitching, he got off colossally easy, and behaved with the police during some of his interactions with them in ways that could have gotten him shot or handled much more roughly than he actually was, and you either are extraordinarily naive, or were taken in by a sociopathic charlatan (that might be the case for both.)

Neither of those are complex questions worth probing. He was an animal molester, and that's not OK. And he was not a victim. Not of the criminal justice system, anyway. All told he wound up really, really good. He used the criminal justice system to victimize others, potentially, although we can't specifically point out cases, while looking out for #1, as a true sociopath does. Or just a plain coward.

If by a victim he was given the bad touch as a kid, etc. Then honestly, whatever. Who wasn't?

Those are pretty cut and dried points. Quite possible you could make a good book accepting them. But by what I've read, you didn't, but instead, to sell books, you opened up gray areas about molesting animals and made this jackass into some sort of victim; or you were wholly manipulated by him; or, you sympathize with him genuinely.

You even use the term "zoo", which I believe they call themselves, in what seems like a nonjudgmental or even affectionate way. You have every indicator of being a dog-molester-apologist. Please prove me wrong.

None of these are a good look.

Douglas Spink is a bad person. There is very, very little argument to be made here. He sought to make a living through crime (non-violent drug crime, yes ... but then he snitched. So even if you think 'A' is OK, then 'B' isn't.) Then he snitched. Throughout he molested animals. And he's a smug asshole to boot.

Plenty of good books and articles and such have been written about serial killers, pedophiles, etc. in ways that are "sympathetic," but not in ways that basically fundamentally agree that killing people and molesting kids is OK. Which is to say, they don't treat with it as a 'Moral question.'

I might be getting you all wrong. If so I apologize preemptively.

Please do tell, though.

 

[CarreenMaloney]

@CarreenMaloney

“They are destroyed by the authorities because they are considered an offense to human dignity that must be snuffed out in order to restore the species hierarchy.”

I should inform you right away that you’ve been seriously tricked by zoophiles. The majority of animals rescued from zoophiles are not euthanized. The horses were sent to HopeForHorses, and some dogs were euthanized because they were too aggressive to rehome — the same dogs that were noted as lunging at people in public while owned by Doug Spink.

I’ve seen many cases of animals being sexually abused and then rescued by animal control, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard of an animal being euthanized if there wasn’t a serious, deadly, or dangerous issue with it.

This crap about “the animals are euthanized!!” is the first lie a zoophile will spit out when you talk about reporting someone to the police.

You’ve made some sick bedfellows.

I have not been tricked by zoophiles. The animals are most definitely killed in many of these cases, and many people think that is the way it should be handled. They assume these animals will go around raping people in the community. Hope for Horses has come under fire for their treatment of animals, so if that's your main source, you need to find more credible ones.
And these are not my "bedfellows"--that is a pretty ludicrous comment considering the topic. I interviewed people on all sides of the discussion, including zoophiles, law enforcement, shelter staff, attorneys involved, etc.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

"Bedfellows" is hardly ludicrous. You seem to be thinking that someone like Spink has "a right to an opinion" that's sacred, that involves fucking dogs, or there exists a version of reality in which the things he does are OK, or that that these things are up for debate. You are shielding him, in various ways. Perhaps even (I'm conscious this I'm getting this word from a third party) making him out to be a victim.

He is somewhat of a charismatic guy in a creepy way, and he is not stupid, and he is capable of being far more articulate than he currently is on Twitter (and acting more dignified,as I've mentioned) You have perhaps fallen into this trap and his orbit.

 

[CarreenMaloney]

I would like to ask a few questions if you don't mind. Before this however I will say that my only grudge with the book isn't that it's a bunch of lies (I can't say since I haven't personally read it) but rather that Spink likes to hide his version of the story behind that paywall. I hope you understand that this can be seen as a sort of joke if not a scam to people that want to know the integral version of the story, which I am interested in since we took time writing this thread.

1. If you so deeply care about animals and learned what zoophilia meant on the spot, why did you still decide to work with Spink and get his story out? I surely wouldn't expect someone like you to side with someone like Spink, which has been accused of having sex with animals and abusing them.

2. What makes you so sure that Spink's testimony is the correct one here? Spink likes to say that this book is the one that disproves many "myths" about him, yet I do not expect much coming from him. It also has been showcased in this thread that Spink lies a lot and that time has proven that he contradicts himself. I would like to know if there are any facts backing up his claims.

3. You are saying that you are deeply concerned about the fact animals belonging to zoophiles are often euthanized and that you consider this an offense. However, I would like to know what your opinion is on the fact that many of these abused animals end up having behavioral issues, often deep, that cannot be fixed in any way because they ended up being sexually assaulted. They never really get to be the same anymore. What would be for your the correct course of action here? Since you obviously sided with Spink with this, I would also want to know what, for you, should be the correct course of actions for zoophiles like Spink if they end up getting caught doing this? Because ultimately we are speaking about the same thing here. This is what causes these animals to be euthanized.

I hope you see no ill intent in my questions. I am simply curious to know your side of the story.

I interviewed Spink just like I interview all relevant sources who will speak to me for every story I work on. I didn't "side with Spink," as you put it. For the posters here to suggest I shouldn't talk to him would be unethical behavior for a journalist. Everyone deserves a chance to speak in a story written about them, no matter who they are. That's how it should work. An interesting dynamic in this story is that people think it's a mortal sin to actually speak to Spink , despite all the people writing on and on about him. That's a strange phenomenon that doesn't apply in any other story I've covered when people have been accused of crimes. And I didn't do it to "get his story out"--can you really fathom that I would invest this kind of time and energy into getting the story out for someone I didn't even know? If you read what I had to go through to get it, which is detailed in the book, it was a nightmare. But I believe this is an important animal welfare story that goes way beyond the subculture of zoophiles to open a window into discussing all kinds of hypocrisies in our society regarding how we treat animals. For example, we are perfectly okay with sperm being collected from animals when it involves profit in the commercial breeding world--and that's legal. And what about all the other harmful things we do to animals that is considered normal, like eating them, skinning them, conducting painful experiments on them? I wanted to know why people were so much more upset about this topic than any other. That makes all the insults hurled my way as a result of doing this story totally worth it.
Also, I didn't just rely on whatever Spink told me--I made sure to back everything up with documentation, and if I didn't have documentation, I said so. A lot of these questions that you and others here are asking can be answered by simply reading the book. This is not a whitewash. There is some unflattering information in there about Spink that no one would put forward if they were actually controlling the content.
As for the behavior issues of these animals--I have met animals belonging to zoophiles (and interviewed many shelter workers who have encountered these animals too) and I did not see particular behavior problems because of what they've experienced. I have been in more than 100 shelters interviewing people over many years of writing about animal welfare.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

I said Spink was a bad person and his opinions should be discounted, not that you shouldn't talk to him as a journalist. Part of your job is to talk to bad people who will lie you and manipulate you, and duly discount their opinions, after documenting them or whatever else needs be done.

The assertion that Spink is any kind of victim, though, would be so totally out of touch with reality as to belie any claim to objectivity on your part.

(You're also not the only person in this thread who has spoken to Spink outside the scope of this thread, and by "spoken to" I don't mean just "yelled at on Twitter," but actually had a discussion with. I count at least four of us.)

But you ... you very clearly have an agenda. I'm just not totally clear what it is. Your blood is up now and you're talking about collecting sperm from animals for commercial purposes, and some of the other bad things that happen to animals like experimentation and so on. That is a place where ethics are up for debate for many reasonable people.

On the other hand, eating, skinning, etc. animals is all normative human behavior across nearly all cultures. Having sexual relations with them is not.

You making analogy between the two, it is hard not to call you an apologist for animal molesters.

 

[Marvin]

But I believe this is an important animal welfare story that goes way beyond the subculture of zoophiles to open a window into discussing all kinds of hypocrisies in our society regarding how we treat animals. For example, we are perfectly okay with sperm being collected from animals when it involves profit in the commercial breeding world--and that's legal. And what about all the other harmful things we do to animals that is considered normal, like eating them, skinning them, conducting painful experiments on them? I wanted to know why people were so much more upset about this topic than any other. That makes all the insults hurled my way as a result of doing this story totally worth it.

Most of those things are better regulated. They're also not tied to sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure involves a dangerous feedback loop. There's a conflict of interest involved where people are motivated to lie to themselves about their behavior.

It's why a child might be seen naked by a doctor, but sex with children is still outlawed.

 

[CarreenMaloney]

"Bedfellows" is hardly ludicrous. You seem to be thinking that someone like Spink has "a right to an opinion" that's sacred, that involves fucking dogs, or there exists a version of reality in which the things he does are OK, or that that these things are up for debate. You are shielding him, in various ways. Perhaps even (I'm conscious this I'm getting this word from a third party) making him out to be a victim.

He is somewhat of a charismatic guy in a creepy way, and he is not stupid, and he is capable of being far more articulate than he currently is on Twitter (and acting more dignified,as I've mentioned) You have perhaps fallen into this trap and his orbit.

I never said his opinion was sacred. What I said is that everyone who is written about should have a chance to tell their side of the story no matter who they are. I'm sure that's what you would hope for if a journalist came calling to tell your story. I can't put a lot of stock in how you have characterized my work when you haven't actually read my book. Come back to me with something smart to say when you actually read it. Without that this is just you speculating about what's written in it, and I don't have time to spend on that.

 

[BE 911]

For the posters here to suggest I shouldn't talk to him would be unethical behavior for a journalist. Everyone deserves a chance to speak in a story written about them, no matter who they are. That's how it should work. An interesting dynamic in this story is that people think it's a mortal sin to actually speak to Spink , despite all the people writing on and on about him. That's a strange phenomenon that doesn't apply in any other story I've covered when people have been accused of crimes.

I totally agree with you, but again there are things in this thread showcasing that Spink is a liar and particularly obtuse. Lying about snitching, lying about the ownership of Capone back on myhorseforum.com, and many other things will prove to you that Spink tries speaking his way out of things but fails miserably at it, because it is obvious that those are fabricated lies to sway the opinion on him and make it seem like what he does is okay. Again, what proof do you have that any of what he said isn't a bunch of dramatic sentences to make him seem like the victim of this story, where as in fact he is a total dumbass that cannot say the truth anywhere he goes?

But I believe this is an important animal welfare story that goes way beyond the subculture of zoophiles to open a window into discussing all kinds of hypocrisies in our society regarding how we treat animals. For example, we are perfectly okay with sperm being collected from animals when it involves profit in the commercial breeding world--and that's legal. And what about all the other harmful things we do to animals that is considered normal, like eating them, skinning them, conducting painful experiments on them? I wanted to know why people were so much more upset about this topic than any other. That makes all the insults hurled my way as a result of doing this story totally worth it.

If you are seriously conflating fucking with animals with ethical issues such as castration and experimenting on animals, as well as some vegan issues, I don't really know what to tell you. Again, I respect the view of someone who would fight against these things because there are legitimately many things to discuss when it comes to the well being of animals, but it's not because of this being a thing that you need to defend animal fucking as well. That is just complete insanity right here. Do you honestly support people having sex with animals because of corporations testing products on animals or that people are okay with eating them? Is this what you are REALLY saying here?

A lot of these questions that you and others here are asking can be answered by simply reading the book. This is not a whitewash. There is some unflattering information in there about Spink that no one would put forward if they were actually controlling the content.
As for the behavior issues of these animals--I have met animals belonging to zoophiles (and interviewed many shelter workers who have encountered these animals too) and I did not see particular behavior problems because of what they've experienced. I have been in more than 100 shelters interviewing people over many years of writing about animal welfare.

One: as I said earlier, my problem with all of these is that Spink is basically putting his defense in your book that you put behind an effective paywall. I understand that this is your job and that you need to make money off your work, but for someone that has been receiving legal problems after legal problems, putting your defense in a book is pretty rich if you ask me. Again, not discrediting your work here.

Two: It has been scientifically proven that sexually abused animals do not behave the same, because it is objectively sexual abuse. An animal cannot consent, no matter what the sexual configuration is. This is textbook abuse of animals. Coming from a fervent defender of the rights for animals, I am again pretty astonished you want to defend this position here. And here I am not talking about "bravery against the bigots", I am talking about objectively defending the abuse the animals for someone like you.

 

[CarreenMaloney]

Most of those things are better regulated. They're also not tied to sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure involves a dangerous feedback loop. There's a conflict of interest involved where people are motivated to lie to themselves about their behavior.

It's why a child might be seen naked by a doctor, but sex with children is still outlawed.

No, these things are not regulated.

I said Spink was a bad person and his opinions should be discounted, not that you shouldn't talk to him as a journalist. Part of your job is to talk to bad people who will lie you and manipulate you, and duly discount their opinions, after documenting them or whatever else needs be done.

The assertion that Spink is any kind of victim, though, would be so totally out of touch with reality as to belie any claim to objectivity on your part.

(You're also not the only person in this thread who has spoken to Spink outside the scope of this thread, and by "spoken to" I don't mean just "yelled at on Twitter," but actually had a discussion with. I count at least four of us.)

But you ... you very clearly have an agenda. I'm just not totally clear what it is. Your blood is up now and you're talking about collecting sperm from animals for commercial purposes, and some of the other bad things that happen to animals like experimentation and so on. That is a place where ethics are up for debate for many reasonable people.

On the other hand, eating, skinning, etc. animals is all normative human behavior across nearly all cultures. Having sexual relations with them is not.

You making analogy between the two, it is hard not to call you an apologist for animal molesters.

You can call me whatever you want. I am not apologizing for anyone's behavior. As a journalist who has covered a lot of topics, I told a story that I thought was interesting enough to be told. Clearly you think it's interesting too, or all of you wouldn't be spending time in here writing about it. I'm still mystified as to how you can come to all these conclusions about the book when you haven't actually read the book. You have no idea what's actually in there.

 

[Marvin]

No, these things are not regulated.

Animal experimentation and processing animals for meat and other byproducts is regulated.

Breeding animals is pretty unregulated, though again, it usually omits the sexual pleasure motivation.

I agree with you that talking about sex with animals in terms of "consent" is not really valid, because animals are property and don't consent to anything we do to them. However we still consider matters of cruelty to animals, and I think it's reasonable to outlaw sex with animals because you can't feasibly monitor it for violations. Perhaps not all sex with animals is cruelty, but I wouldn't trust a pervert motivated by their own sexual interests to evaluate that in an unbiased manner.

I'm still mystified as to how you can come to all these conclusions about the book when you haven't actually read the book. You have no idea what's actually in there.

Admittedly, that review sounded super creepy.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

I'm going off of several reviews of said book, which are highly suggestive that it presents Spink as a victim. (You chose to put these on your site, which if nothing else indicates what reviews you thought might make people want to buy your book. And those would be reviews that present Spink in a positive light. At least 2 of them. 1 in particular.)

And I've agreed that it's a story interesting enough to be told.

But you seem to be bending over backwards not to not apologize for animal rape. fuck it that made no sense ... you seem to be bending over backwards to not condemn animal rapists. Allowing for some moral gray area.

 

[CarreenMaloney]

I totally agree with you, but again there are things in this thread showcasing that Spink is a liar and particularly obtuse. Lying about snitching, lying about the ownership of Capone back on myhorseforum.com, and many other things will prove to you that Spink tries speaking his way out of things but fails miserably at it, because it is obvious that those are fabricated lies to sway the opinion on him and make it seem like what he does is okay. Again, what proof do you have that any of what he said isn't a bunch of dramatic sentences to make him seem like the victim of this story, where as in fact he is a total dumbass that cannot say the truth anywhere he goes?



If you are seriously conflating fucking with animals with ethical issues such as castration and experimenting on animals, as well as some vegan issues, I don't really know what to tell you. Again, I respect the view of someone who would fight against these things because there are legitimately many things to discuss when it comes to the well being of animals, but it's not because of this being a thing that you need to defend animal fucking as well. That is just complete insanity right here. Do you honestly support people having sex with animals because of corporations testing products on animals or that people are okay with eating them? Is this what you are REALLY saying here?



One: as I said earlier, my problem with all of these is that Spink is basically putting his defense in your book that you put behind an effective paywall. I understand that this is your job and that you need to make money off your work, but for someone that has been receiving legal problems after legal problems, putting your defense in a book is pretty rich if you ask me. Again, not discrediting your work here.

Two: It has been scientifically proven that sexually abused animals do not behave the same, because it is objectively sexual abuse. An animal cannot consent, no matter what the sexual configuration is. This is textbook abuse of animals. Coming from a fervent defender of the rights for animals, I am again pretty astonished you want to defend this position here. And here I am not talking about "bravery against the bigots", I am talking about objectively defending the abuse the animals for someone like you.

Please pass along your scientific proof that these animals behave differently. That was not what I observed. I don't think they deserve to die. Whether you believe what the zoophiles are doing is disgusting and awful or you believe it's okay, this story had news value, and that's why I chose to tell it. People have emerged from reading it with all different conclusions. It wasn't written to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

You have some very strange beliefs about animals. Journalistic objectivity is well and good, but why on earth is "is fucking animals OK?" a question? "Let's talk about the lifestyle of this interesting dude that fucks animals" might start a good book, but talking about "whether you believe fucking animals is right or wrong" is the start of a book that apologizes for fucking animals.

 

[CarreenMaloney]

I'm going off of several reviews of said book, which are highly suggestive that it presents Spink as a victim. (You chose to put these on your site, which if nothing else indicates what reviews you thought might make people want to buy your book. And those would be reviews that present Spink in a positive light. At least 2 of them. 1 in particular.)

And I've agreed that it's a story interesting enough to be told.

But you seem to be bending over backwards not to not apologize for animal rape. fuck it that made no sense

I can't be responsible for what people have said in the reviews. I believe another one of the reviewers called Spink "repellant," correct? And other people pop up in the book who despise him, and I've spoken to them too, and quoted them. But you choose just to focus on what supports your claims. Yes, I posted reviews to my site, but that doesn't mean that's my own opinion of my own book. I'm interacting with people who are appalled and angered by Spink, people who are friendly to Spink...all kinds of people. Even you. I chose to wade into a thread in which I knew I would be attacked just for speaking to Spink. I've never had people get so angry about me talking to a source before, no matter what their background, and I think that's an interesting dynamic.

You have some very strange beliefs about animals. Journalistic objectivity is well and good, but why on earth is "is fucking animals OK?" a question? "Let's talk about the lifestyle of this interesting dude that fucks animals" might start a good book, but talking about "whether you believe fucking animals is right or wrong" is the start of a book that apologizes for fucking animals.

That's not the start of the book. But you would know that if you had read it.

 

[BE 911]

Please pass along your scientific proof that these animals behave differently. That was not what I observed.

Sure thing. I recommend to you the work done by Martha Smith-Blackmore, especially her study called "Vetenary Forensic Pathology of Animal Sexual Abuse" which explores the depth of what sexually abused animals go through, written by an actual expert in the domain. Have a fun read.

 

[CarreenMaloney]

Animal experimentation and processing animals for meat and other byproducts is regulated.

Breeding animals is pretty unregulated, though again, it usually omits the sexual pleasure motivation.

I agree with you that talking about sex with animals in terms of "consent" is not really valid, because animals are property and don't consent to anything we do to them. However we still consider matters of cruelty to animals, and I think it's reasonable to outlaw sex with animals because you can't feasibly monitor it for violations. Perhaps not all sex with animals is cruelty, but I wouldn't trust a pervert motivated by their own sexual interests to evaluate that in an unbiased manner.

Admittedly, that review sounded super creepy.

Actually I believe the consent question is completely valid, and I interview animal rescuers in the book who confront that question head on.

 

[Marvin]

Actually I believe the consent question is completely valid, and I interview animal rescuers in the book who confront that question head on.

Animal... rescuers are entertaining this idea? Makes me wonder how thorough the background checks for those positions are...

Depending on the severity of their disorder, mentally disabled (human) adults are incapable of consent. I would think that standard would rule out pretty much all pets / working animals.