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]

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.

I have actually met these animals personally and I'm more likely to trust my own eyes than whatever someone I don't know has written, but I will check out the article. It sounds like you are trying to justify killing these animals, which was the exact point I was making in the first place.

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.

You misunderstood what I said. I interviewed animal rescuers who think zoophilia is wrong, and they discussed their feelings on the consent issue. They were quoted in the book.

 

[JSGOTI]

Okay my friends, I've got some rather exciting developments to announce!

It looks like an anonymous benefactor decided to give us all some new reading material and provided us with @CarreenMaloney's book.
https://my.mixtape.moe/fkpnxf.pdf

Love,
Your friendly neighborhood JSGOTI

 

[BE 911]

I have actually met these animals personally and I'm more likely to trust my own eyes than whatever someone I don't know has written, but I will check out the article. It sounds like you are trying to justify killing these animals, which was the exact point I was making in the first place.

Are you serious right now? lol

First of all, this is the actual work of a veterinarian, a professional in the domain, that demonstrates that there are repercussions for the animal to do anything with them sexually, both from a physical and psychological standpoint. You trying to deny this because you observed a few animals in a shelter is insanity.

Secondly, I am NOT for killing animals, and this is what people like Spink have manipulated you to believe, that people against animal fucking must certainly be the same people that are totally okay with animals being euthanized, experimented with, etc. Do you think anyone is actually happy with animals being euthanized because one sicko decided to have fun with them? Of course not. None of us here want any animals euthanized because of someone like Spink thinking their dog is inviting them for a private one hour session.

There is no other agenda here than saying animal fucking is wrong and that it causes harm to animals, and if you were opening your eyes for a second you would realize that people like Spink employ tactics that consist of making people like you think we are okay with all these other things. He is a proven liar, egomaniac, and will debate with obtuse arguments to get his way in. Wake up.

 

[Rabid Weasels]

If being ok with eating animals and not ok with fucking them is morally hypocritical, fine. I'm ok with that.

 

[crunchysalty]

Okay my friends, I've got some rather exciting developments to announce!

It looks like an anonymous benefactor decided to give us all some new reading material and provided us with @CarreenMaloney's book.
https://my.mixtape.moe/fkpnxf.pdf

Love,
Your friendly neighborhood JSGOTI

Lol I guess @Null is getting an email soon.

So you "observed" these raped animals? Did you get actual animal experts reports on their behavior? Where is the scientific research behind your claims?

I'm thinking it was written for the sheckels.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

I'm not attacking you for writing a book about the guy, or for talking to him. I was a member of a forum he was on, dedicated to the discussion of illicit drugs, where he discussed fucking animals in some depth; so I can't really be attacking you for talking him about fucking animals, either. You have strange way of presenting things, though. You are actively jumping through some serious mental hoops to present animal-fucking as some kind of moral dilemma on par with the various complaints that PETA presents against unpleasant practices in agriculture. This isn't journalistic objectivity. Many very good books have been written about drug dealers, serial killers, murders, child molesters, and so on, without actively trying to create a cloud of moral ambiguity around these sorts of practices (with the possible exception of the drug dealers, I guess.)

It seems that you were disturbed by animal rape, but then even more disturbed by euthanasia of victims of animal rape, and then got a hold of an interesting story, which seems to have taken you into some really bizarre places ... you say yourself you hung around animal rapists and then animals they were raping on numerous occasions, and are actually using this to debate against the harms of animal rape, or at least, again, create the aforesaid cloud of moral ambiguity. Which is just absolutely bizarre to me, coming from someone who very clearly feels emotions about bad things happening to animals. The only thing that I can conclude, from the evidence here and on your website, and from Doug's use of your "brand" so to speak, is that you, like the "zoos" you cover, see getting fucked by humans as not necessarily falling under "bad things happening to animals."

If you wrote a book a horse fucking drug dealer, and interviewed him and his friends and so on, then that's one thing; you embedded yourself, it seems, in a culture that finds horse fucking to be OK, and it seems to have called into question your beliefs about animals, to the point in which you think that there's a legitimate "question" about whether fucking animals is an OK thing to do. If that is not indeed where you started out from in the first place.

Of course, you'll say, I haven't read your book. But that this is the perspective you take is blindingly obvious from the way that you present everything, including (especially?) since you've joined this site in what is looking more like attention seeking.

Writing the book I get. Using regular journalistic practice of being relatively objective with your sources, and so on, I get. All the other extra stuff, I don't. You very clearly have (right here, I don't need to have read your book to have seen the relevant post here) put animal rape into a category with the agricultural-industrial use of animals. That is apology for animal rape. Period. Or, just a really deranged approach to morality that might be influenced by the bizarro-land sexual identity politics of the past decade or so. Hard to say. Something doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[AnOminous]

It looks like an anonymous benefactor decided to give us all some new reading material and provided us with @CarreenMaloney's book.
https://my.mixtape.moe/fkpnxf.pdf

I'm not sure what the point is, since it's already available from the author's website.

 

[BE 911]

I'm not sure what the point is, since it's already available from the author's website.

It's only a short preview of the whole thing. She came here to advertise her book. I guess that option was taken away.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

Ok, let's see the literal start of the book ...

There is just so much wrong with this sentence that it's incredible. Using a tactic well-known to pedophiles, you make the animals "share" in their "secret lives with" the perverts who abuse them. And this highly emotive fixation on having these animals being put down, which is some really bizarre obsession of yours, while the feeling-tone of the second part of the sentence is in a totally different direction, that totally is OK with people rapefucking animals.

I'm pretty sure my initial impression of you was the correct one, in that you are a "person of interest" yourself. This means more or less what it says, but on this site in particular it has a particular connotation--people have often come on here to try to defend their various degeneracies against putative slander against their putatively good name. It doesn't tend to work out very well for them, though.

Your book is out for us to read now, and (thankfully) we don't have to put money in your pocket to read it. I will buy a copy if you turn out not to be an animal rape apologist though. In fact, fuck it, I'll buy more than one and apologize to you publicly.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

The ethicist Peter Singer analyzes the philosophical implications of this and other questions, but it's hard to imagine a worse place to discuss it than here. It would just descend into pure unadulterated autism in no time at all.

That aside, though, people including people who actually lived with Spink, have reported outright violent and physically abusive behavior from him towards animals, including one dog who suffered a punctured lung. So even if you decided to disregard or even sympathize with zoophiles, there is plenty of cause to think Spink is frankly a piece of shit. He appears to have an explosive temper and people have reported all kinds of dreadful behavior from him toward other people as well as animals.

He's just a bad person even if you disregard emotional trigger issues like the zoophilia.

 

[GethN7]

Ok, let's see the literal start of the book ...

View attachment 594560

There is just so much wrong with this sentence that it's incredible. Using a tactic well-known to pedophiles, you make the animals "share" in their "secret lives with" the perverts who abuse them. And this highly emotive fixation on having these animals being put down, which is some really bizarre obsession of yours, while the feeling-tone of the second part of the sentence is in a totally different direction, that totally is OK with people rapefucking animals.

I'm pretty sure my initial impression of you was the correct one, in that you are a "person of interest" yourself. This means more or less what it says, but on this site in particular it has a particular connotation--people have often come on here to try to defend their various degeneracies against putative slander against their putatively good name. It doesn't tend to work out very well for them, though.

Your book is out for us to read now, and (thankfully) we don't have to put money in your pocket to read it. I will buy a copy if you turn out not to be an animal rape apologist though. In fact, fuck it, I'll buy more than one and apologize to you publicly.

I'm giving this book a look over right now, and while it tries to remain factual and isn't whitewashing the fact Spink is an animal fucker, this crap is bending over backward to try and make me pity the dog raping bastard based on what I've read so far.

And it's not working. If anything, I not only hold contempt for Spink, I also hold contempt for the asshole trying to make him look sympathetic.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

Very, very, very first impressions:

I've done just a little page flippping.

It's even more sympathetic to him than I was thinking.

When he said "hagiography?" He's talking about this shit.

 

[AnOminous]

And it's not working. If anything, I not only hold contempt for Spink, I also hold contempt for the asshole trying to make him look sympathetic.

He is an incredibly manipulative dude and, for some time, quite successful at it. The very fact that he has committed a series of crimes that would send most people to prison for life and got the equivalent of slaps on the wrist for it are part of this. The man is clearly a high functioning sociopath, although he was more high functioning in the past and has decompensated.

 

[GethN7]

He is an incredibly manipulative dude and, for some time, quite successful at it. The very fact that he has committed a series of crimes that would send most people to prison for life and got the equivalent of slaps on the wrist for it are part of this. The man is clearly a high functioning sociopath, although he was more high functioning in the past and has decompensated.

Read a little more, and my opinion has gotten even worse when it stopped trying to be factual and dipped into outright shameless apologism.

Let's just say by the end of Chapter 3 you will find the urge to rage become overpowering.

 

[OG 666]

Just for some additional context on the book, here are a couple of tweets about it from some of Doug's self-admitted zoophile friends.

And here's an excerpt from a review of the book, written by Mr. Spink himself.

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

So the question, is @CarreenMaloney
(a) a naive animal rights activist and the victim of a manipulative sociopath;
(b) a batshit insane SJW who thought that trying to make calling trannies "he/him" a crime wasn't cutting edge enough;
(c) into some freaky shit with animals herself; or
(d) just plain fucking autistic?

 

[Nasty]

All I can think about right now is the book Red Zone and how it detailed the sexual abuse of dogs, who displayed repeated signs of aggression, and then eventually mauled Diane Whipple in a hallway.

 

[The Littlest Shitlord]

Sounds like run of the mill controversy-baiting to me; clickbait before clickbait was invented. If you write a book that raises a question like "Is sex with animals actually that bad?" and then answers "Yes, of course is is" no one is going to bother buying that. Why spend the money and reading time to find out what you already know?

 

[Jigaboo Jones]

That's my point about the question; she could've written a perfectly respectable true-crime book about his degeneracy. But she is on a mission of some kind, or has gotten into some kind of Spinking cult. I think it goes beyond controversy baiting to sell books.

 

[GethN7]

That's my point about the question; she could've written a perfectly respectable true-crime book about his degeneracy. But she is on a mission of some kind, or has gotten into some kind of Spinking cult. I think it goes beyond controversy baiting to sell books.

Been reading some more, and the book is definitely written from a pro-zoophile sympathizer POV at the very least, which is fucked up enough.

Edit: Ok, I was wrong, it's practically trying to pull at your heartstrings to sympathize with mentally ill people who get hard when they look at dogs and it definitely tries to go for the "these people feel so persecuted and that they feel they have a special connection with animals no one else understands" angle.

That said, I'm gonna go get some Pepto-Bismol, this shit is stomach churning to read.