soc.support.zoophilia

61 views
Skip to first unread message

Barry O'Grady

unread,
Dec 15, 1994, 12:25:01 PM12/15/94
to
Can anyone think of a reason why soc.support.zoophilia should not be
created?

You can do as I do, and vote against the newsgroups you don't
want to read by simply not reading them.

Chris Newport

unread,
Dec 15, 1994, 3:30:36 PM12/15/94
to
In article <1994121517...@perth.DIALix.oz.au>

Several good reasons, the first being that it is immoral ( and illegal )
to use the net to promote and advocate the sexual abuse of animals.

Many very young people have access to the internet, they must be protected
from the above.

The whole concept is SICK anyway.

IMHO if the group is created ( which it should not be ) then it should
be called alt.sex.animals.sexual-abuse.advocacy .

At least if the group was correctly named we could more easily control
it's availability to children.

--
B'Shalom from Chris Newport
Clevedon, Avon, UK

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. ( big bang theory ).

Bruce Baugh

unread,
Dec 15, 1994, 11:40:34 PM12/15/94
to
ba...@perth.dialix.oz.au (Barry O'Grady) wrote:
:Can anyone think of a reason why soc.support.zoophilia should not be

:created?
:
:You can do as I do, and vote against the newsgroups you don't
:want to read by simply not reading them.

Groups take up space on sites. Not much space - a few bytes for a
directory, a line in each of a few config files, plus whatever traffic
there is. But the total becomes quite large fairly quickly. So some
of us vote against groups that seem to us, for whatever reason, to be
ill-considered. I voted against s.s.z because my analysis of the
traffic on alt.sex.bestiality didn't suggest enough traffic for the
new group.

bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
List Manager, Christlib, where Christianity and libertarianism intersect
"Lacquered frog bands are no longer popular with America's trendsetters,
Max. We'd be hosed." - Steve Purcell, SAM AND MAX: FREELANCE POLICE

Michael Handler

unread,
Dec 16, 1994, 5:55:45 PM12/16/94
to
In article <787523...@netix.demon.co.uk>,

Chris Newport (cnew...@netix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Several good reasons, the first being that it is immoral ( and illegal )
> to use the net to promote and advocate the sexual abuse of animals.

Please explain what laws soc.support.zoophilia would violate.
Remember, Usenet is international. Thanks!

> Many very young people have access to the internet, they must be protected
> from the above.

What are "very young people" doing reading *Usenet* without
parental guidance? If their parents want an online service where they can
let their child roam freely without running into any objectionable
material, let them go use Prodigy.

> The whole concept is SICK anyway.
> IMHO if the group is created ( which it should not be ) then it should
> be called alt.sex.animals.sexual-abuse.advocacy .

Feel free to run an RFD or send a newgroup message for a group
opposing the zoophiles. If you have the traffic, that is.

> At least if the group was correctly named we could more easily control
> it's availability to children.

Uh-huh.

--
Michael Handler <gre...@netaxs.com> Philadelphia, PA
Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics s.s.y.g-l-b co-moderator

You're only as elegant as your actions let you be

Horse Person

unread,
Dec 16, 1994, 10:43:31 PM12/16/94
to
> : I may propose it if soc.culture.zoophilia passes. After all, *that*
> : proposal is nothing more than soc.torturing.animals.is.justified.
>
People who disagree with zoophilia might consider voting YES for the
newsgroup and then posting reasoned discourse on why they disagree.
I understand that any viewpoint will be permitted by the moderator
provided it is reasonably written.

Steve Gilham

unread,
Dec 19, 1994, 5:55:14 AM12/19/94
to
Bruce Baugh (bru...@teleport.com) wrote:
> ill-considered. I voted against s.s.z because my analysis of the
> traffic on alt.sex.bestiality didn't suggest enough traffic for the
> new group.

Did that allow for the wider distribution of soc.* over alt.*? Sites
such as ufl.edu carry everything - including obscure Finnish groups
(sfnet.*) - EXCEPT alt.* ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |Lives of great men all remind us
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |We may make our lives sublime
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |And departing, leave behind us
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)223-300111 x2904|Footprints in the sands of time.

Karl A. Krueger

unread,
Dec 19, 1994, 8:26:33 AM12/19/94
to
In article <787523...@netix.demon.co.uk>,

Chris Newport <cnew...@netix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <1994121517...@perth.DIALix.oz.au>
> ba...@perth.dialix.oz.au "Barry O'Grady" writes:
>
>> Can anyone think of a reason why soc.support.zoophilia should not be
>> created?
>Several good reasons, the first being that it is immoral ( and illegal )
>to use the net to promote and advocate the sexual abuse of animals.

You are making two charges here: a moral one and a legal one. First,
let me remind you that it is not your job to be moral censor of USENET.
Second, let me remind you that the majority of USENET users are in
civilized countries with free-speech laws, so it is NOT illegal. Third,
let me remind you that zoophilia is not sexual "abuse". As has been said
earler, anyone who tries to have sex with a horse that does not WANT to
have sex, is going to be in pretty bad shape.


>Many very young people have access to the internet, they must be protected
>from the above.

Oh. The parental argument. If Mommy doesn't want Junior reading it,
Mommy can tell Junior no. Just like if Mommy doesn't want Junior reading
Daddy's Playboys.


>The whole concept is SICK anyway.

You're just a BIGOT anyway.

--
-- Karl

Bruce Baugh

unread,
Dec 19, 1994, 11:16:50 AM12/19/94
to
ste...@arc.ug.eds.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:

:Having had time to ponder my previous response, I notice the
:contradiction in the above argument. Note that the less traffic there
:is in a group, the less overhead that group will be; and if you take
:a.s.b already, the incremental overhead will reduce towards the
:minumum of the config line and directory entry.

Precedent. One empty, or nearly empty, newsgroup is not a problem.
But then its existence is a powerful argument in favor of creating
the next nearly empty newsgroup. And the next. And the one after that.
And so it goes.

Nor do I think that low traffic means a group is undesirable in
all circumstances. But I'm more open to the argument in the cases
of technical/professional groups. Quite possibly this is culture lag
on my part.

The other reason, by the way, I voted against soc.support.zoophilia
is that it seemed (and seems) to me that a moderated alt group would
be a good next step. It provides everyone (okay, everyone with alt
access) an opportunity to see just how the group actually works when
spun off from alt.sex.bestiality. I'm more willing to see experiments
in alt than in the Big 7.

Bruce Baugh

unread,
Dec 19, 1994, 11:12:21 AM12/19/94
to
ste...@arc.ug.eds.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:

:Did that allow for the wider distribution of soc.* over alt.*? Sites


:such as ufl.edu carry everything - including obscure Finnish groups
:(sfnet.*) - EXCEPT alt.* ?

No, it didn't since I don't have any real sense of a good ratio to
apply. Nobody else has brought up that particular point yet. If you
want to suggest a rough ratio, I'd be happy to apply it.

Steve Gilham

unread,
Dec 19, 1994, 7:15:53 AM12/19/94
to
Bruce Baugh (bru...@teleport.com) wrote:
> Groups take up space on sites. Not much space - a few bytes for a
> directory, a line in each of a few config files, plus whatever traffic
> there is. But the total becomes quite large fairly quickly. So some
> of us vote against groups that seem to us, for whatever reason, to be
> ill-considered. I voted against s.s.z because my analysis of the
> traffic on alt.sex.bestiality didn't suggest enough traffic for the
> new group.

Having had time to ponder my previous response, I notice the


contradiction in the above argument. Note that the less traffic there
is in a group, the less overhead that group will be; and if you take
a.s.b already, the incremental overhead will reduce towards the
minumum of the config line and directory entry.

I also beg to differ the assertion that low traffic == bad; on the
contrary, to take an example from a group I follow regularly,
sci.astro.research has maybe 10-12 posts *per week* and thereby
extracts most of the worthwhile material from sci.astro - even the
slow-motion debate involving Eric "The Big Bang Never Happened" Lerner
and more conventional thinkers was conducted with scholarly decorum.

Steve Gilham

unread,
Dec 20, 1994, 8:22:45 AM12/20/94
to
Bruce Baugh (bru...@teleport.com) wrote:
> ste...@arc.ug.eds.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:

> :Did that allow for the wider distribution of soc.* over alt.*? Sites
> :such as ufl.edu carry everything - including obscure Finnish groups
> :(sfnet.*) - EXCEPT alt.* ?

> No, it didn't since I don't have any real sense of a good ratio to
> apply. Nobody else has brought up that particular point yet. If you
> want to suggest a rough ratio, I'd be happy to apply it.

The statistics I have to hand (of Jan 1994's traffic, as posted to our
internal discussion system, by our sysadmin, for the purposes of
illustrating the amount of disk space we might need to maintain a
comprehensive local feed, so I'm not sure of its provenance and
reliability) suggest that 61% of sites carry a.s.b; what proportion of
the Usenet population that reaches, I would hesitate to guess (since
most of the .edu sites I have had access to provided limited - if any
- alt.* access, that probably affects a substantially larger part of
the Usenet population than the raw fraction of sites would suggest).

Even so, these data suggest that that group was 50th in order of
estimated readers, and about 140th in order of traffic (bytes/month),
putting it well ahead of many existing sci (e.g. sci.chem, sci.bio),
comp (e.g. comp.lang.lisp, comp.multimedia) rec (e.g. rec.music.folk,
rec.food.recipes) and soc (soc.culture.usa [I refrain from the obvious
UK based comment], soc.history) groups (choosing a couple of innocuous
seeming groups from each with about half or less the traffic on a.s.b).

Bruce Baugh

unread,
Dec 20, 1994, 7:39:41 AM12/20/94
to
ste...@arc.ug.eds.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:

:Even so, these data suggest that that group was 50th in order of


:estimated readers, and about 140th in order of traffic (bytes/month),

Right, but the charter of s.s.z would remove a lot of the current
traffic. (Rightly so - the signal-to-noise ratio was appallingly bad.)
What's left after the flamage, people looking for *.personals.*
groups, and the like, is substantially smaller.

Mitchell Golden

unread,
Dec 20, 1994, 2:40:22 PM12/20/94
to
Barry O'Grady (ba...@perth.dialix.oz.au) wrote:
: Can anyone think of a reason why soc.support.zoophilia should not be
: created?

What's wrong with the argument that it belongs under alt, like all
the similarly controversial groups?

Albert Cheng

unread,
Dec 20, 1994, 1:27:59 PM12/20/94
to

In article <3d41m9$p...@plato.simons-rock.edu>, ka...@plato.simons-rock.edu (Karl A. Krueger) writes:
>In article <787523...@netix.demon.co.uk>,
>Chris Newport <cnew...@netix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <1994121517...@perth.DIALix.oz.au>
>> ba...@perth.dialix.oz.au "Barry O'Grady" writes:
>>
>>> Can anyone think of a reason why soc.support.zoophilia should not be
>>> created?
>>Several good reasons, the first being that it is immoral ( and illegal )
>>to use the net to promote and advocate the sexual abuse of animals.
>
>You are making two charges here: a moral one and a legal one. First,
>let me remind you that it is not your job to be moral censor of USENET.

It is a good reason to vote on a group on moral grounds. You may not
like it but that is your problem. Also, when you said others should
not vote on moral grounds, you are advocating your own brand of
moral values. So, don't stop others from believing in their own.

>Second, let me remind you that the majority of USENET users are in
>civilized countries with free-speech laws, so it is NOT illegal.

Having sex with animals is illegal. It breaks the humane ordinance
in my town.

Aslan

unread,
Dec 20, 1994, 3:13:04 PM12/20/94
to
In article <3d7bv6$5...@necco.harvard.edu>,

Just like any group dealing with homosexuality. Or Big Bang therory. I
hear that's still controversial. Lots of topics in physics are
controversial, along with discussion of HIV and AIDS. Better move all of
them to alt. Whoops... after all that is done, you've nothing but alt
groups.

Alex

--
===============================================================================
Alex Goepel jhe...@iastate.edu
3618 Ontario Ave Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50010 (515)-292-4900

Christopher Bradford Stone

unread,
Dec 20, 1994, 9:54:36 PM12/20/94
to
In article <3d77nf$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,

Albert Cheng <ach...@ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Second, let me remind you that the majority of USENET users are in
>>civilized countries with free-speech laws, so it is NOT illegal.
>
>Having sex with animals is illegal. It breaks the humane ordinance
>in my town.

A few clarifications are in order here.

Discussion of illegal behavior is generally *not* illegal (I am speaking
of the USA, here). The behavior itself is. Thus, there is no *legal*
barrier to this group per se. Whether we *ought* to have a group devoted
to the discussion of illegal behavior is of course another matter.


--
////// // // ////// // ////// Christopher B. Stone
// ////// ///// // ///
// // // // // // /// "Consensus is the negation
////// // // // // // ////// of leadership." -Margaret Thatcher

John Payson

unread,
Dec 21, 1994, 12:01:56 AM12/21/94
to
In article <3d6tu7$r...@desiree.teleport.com>,

Bruce Baugh <bru...@teleport.com> wrote:
>ste...@arc.ug.eds.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:
>
>:Even so, these data suggest that that group was 50th in order of
>:estimated readers, and about 140th in order of traffic (bytes/month),
>
>Right, but the charter of s.s.z would remove a lot of the current
>traffic. (Rightly so - the signal-to-noise ratio was appallingly bad.)
>What's left after the flamage, people looking for *.personals.*
>groups, and the like, is substantially smaller.

But would it shrink the readership? 50th in order of estimated readers is
no small potatoes. If you assume there to be 5,000 newsgroups, a.s.b is,
according to Arbitron, in the top %l of readership. That would suggest
interest...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal si beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )

Steve Gilham

unread,
Dec 21, 1994, 7:55:00 AM12/21/94
to
Bruce Baugh (bru...@teleport.com) wrote:
> ste...@arc.ug.eds.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:

> :Even so, these data suggest that that group was 50th in order of
> :estimated readers, and about 140th in order of traffic (bytes/month),

> Right, but the charter of s.s.z would remove a lot of the current
> traffic. (Rightly so - the signal-to-noise ratio was appallingly bad.)
> What's left after the flamage, people looking for *.personals.*
> groups, and the like, is substantially smaller.

I will now proceed to take my same data and argue a converse point to
that I took after.

Indeed - for all I know, back in January, a.s.b had a temporary spike
in popularity (readership and traffic both) while someone was
uploading a story and/or image archive - material that would
definitely be out of charter for s.s.z; this is why I qualified the
reliability of the data. I would also be unsurprised to find that the
readership was inflated by having the magic word SEX in the group's
name attracting the casually prurient.

Additionally, the 140th place is certain to be unrealistically high, given
that my source data purports to be the 400 most widely read groups
(which excludes high-traffic - but apparently select readership - ones
like rec.games.frp.* that I would estimate as comparable in traffic
with sci.astro which carried twice the bytes/month of a.s.b and was at
55th place of the 400 groups as sorted by traffic). This just goes to
illustrate the old saw about there being 3 kinds of lies.

Without a crystal ball, it's hard to judge whether, should s.s.z pass,
the popularity and traffic would tail off (the prurient finding
nothing of interest) or snowball (as the forum becomes respectable).
The only analogy I can think of is to consider what might have
happened had Usenet been around 30 years ago, and a proposal for
soc.support.homosexuality been made (before any consensual male
homosexual activity was legalised in the UK, for example) and compare
that with the current actual status of groups such as soc.motss and
soc.bi; concluding that there's quite a gulf between the two social
contexts.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Dec 20, 1994, 8:32:03 PM12/20/94
to
In article <3d4m98$d...@desiree.teleport.com>,

Bruce Baugh <bru...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Precedent. One empty, or nearly empty, newsgroup is not a problem.
>But then its existence is a powerful argument in favor of creating
>the next nearly empty newsgroup. And the next. And the one after that.
>And so it goes.

So?

If you reword that to use the word "unread" instead of "empty" I'll agree
with you, but that's exactly what the poll is supposed to determine.
Adding *extra* votes because you *think* the group isn't important is
just going to distort the results.

Jay Herlihy

unread,
Dec 22, 1994, 11:30:37 AM12/22/94
to
ka...@simons-rock.edu writes:

>Chris Newport <cnew...@netix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> ba...@perth.dialix.oz.au "Barry O'Grady" writes:
>>
>>> Can anyone think of a reason why soc.support.zoophilia should not be
>>> created?
>>Several good reasons, the first being that it is immoral ( and illegal )
>>to use the net to promote and advocate the sexual abuse of animals.
>
>You are making two charges here: a moral one and a legal one. First,
>let me remind you that it is not your job to be moral censor of USENET.

A person votes on whatever damn basis he/she feels like. Some
oppose this group because of moral beliefs, others says it's wasted
bandwidth, others say it's be better in the alt.* hieraechy.
Personally, I vote NO on this group based on the first two arguments.

>Second, let me remind you that the majority of USENET users are in
>civilized countries with free-speech laws, so it is NOT illegal.

Some places it is, some it isn't.

>Third,
>let me remind you that zoophilia is not sexual "abuse". As has been said
>earler, anyone who tries to have sex with a horse that does not WANT to
>have sex, is going to be in pretty bad shape.
>

Having sex with one that cannot give consent is usually called
RAPE in most of your 'civilized' countries.
--
From the often twisted & deviant mind of: j_he...@oz.plymouth.edu
-Axl @)-->--- http://oz.plymouth.edu/~j_herlih/ j...@wiz.plymouth.edu
"In Christianity neither morality nor a...@csos.orst.edu
religion comes into contact with reality at any point." - Nietzsche

VGR (Craig Pell)

unread,
Dec 23, 1994, 1:38:19 AM12/23/94
to
In article <3dc9jd$9...@oz.plymouth.edu>,

Jay Herlihy <j_he...@oz.plymouth.edu> wrote:
>
> A person votes on whatever damn basis he/she feels like. Some
>oppose this group because of moral beliefs, others says it's wasted
>bandwidth, others say it's be better in the alt.* hieraechy.
>Personally, I vote NO on this group based on the first two arguments.

The point has been, the whole time, that you *can* vote for any reason
you please, because UseNet is intended for adults who can manage their
own actions and act (and vote) responsibly. Without abusing the system
to impose their view on as many others as they can.

>>Third,
>>let me remind you that zoophilia is not sexual "abuse". As has been said
>>earler, anyone who tries to have sex with a horse that does not WANT to
>>have sex, is going to be in pretty bad shape.
>
> Having sex with one that cannot give consent is usually called
>RAPE in most of your 'civilized' countries.

This is certainly a topic that belongs on soc.support.zoophilia, and you're
welcome to bring it there. Nice to see you can complete a whole post with-
out swearing. You missed the point entirely, though: while a horse can't
"consent," it can most certainly "not consent" by slamming its hooves into
your abdomen. Try it.
--
: $000C35FA : "It's like / "The size of the brain \
VGR : (1812 Overture) : having a | is no measure of its |
: I GIVE UP : child hug | capacity." |
: YOU MUST BE A VIDEO WHIZ : your neck." \ - Mr. Johnathan Frisby /

Dr. Cat

unread,
Dec 24, 1994, 7:14:28 AM12/24/94
to
Christopher Bradford Stone (cbs...@tucson.princeton.edu) wrote:
: In article <3d77nf$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
: Albert Cheng <ach...@ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: >Having sex with animals is illegal. It breaks the humane ordinance
: >in my town.

: Discussion of illegal behavior is generally *not* illegal (I am speaking

: of the USA, here). The behavior itself is. Thus, there is no *legal*
: barrier to this group per se. Whether we *ought* to have a group devoted
: to the discussion of illegal behavior is of course another matter.

Actually, it's not even as simple as the question of a group about
discussing illegal behavior. I don't know what the laws are in other
countries, but in the United States it is illegal to have sex with
animals in some states, and it is legal in other states.

***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragons's Eye Productions ** Come play DragonSpires!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
(Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs.) ** has everything you need!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages