From: "Einhorn Servant" <einhornserv@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 01:37:15 PST

On The Common Mutilation of Male Horses' Sexual Organs:


or:

The "great" lie of:
Why the heartless mutilation of the sexual organs of a stallion is 
supposed to be good, why it pays financially to those who spread this 
"great" lie and why people who we expect to know best, spread it and 
actually (just about) believe it themselves...:


In this essay I will not speak about the shortsighted Caslick-operation 
on misbred breeding mares, where their vaginas and clitorises are sewed 
together to stop faulty air-intake and infertility, only to be cut open 
with a pair of scissors by the rough hands of horse-grooms before every 
foaling... I'll leave that for woman-rightists with a view beyond their 
own species...

To say it right up front: I do believe, that not everyone is predestined 
to, or capable of taking care of and dealing with a stallion properly.
Those people who might have difficulties with mares or castrated 
stallions should (most likely) not attempt to deal with a stallion, no 
matter weather 60 years of horse-experience or not.
Those people who can't deal with an intact (need I say this?) male horse 
should try a female horse or maybe something entirely else... (How do 
you like golf?)



The first question:
Why the heartless mutilation of the sexual organs of a stallion is 
supposed to be good:

This assumption origins to great parts in two main lies, which both stem 
from (the experience of) those people who generally had stallions for 
the last couple of hundred years: The horse-breeders.

Lie number 1:
Your horse is happier without its testicles.
(What an outrageous lie!)

Now why do people (especially men) find it so easy, to believe in this 
lie, considering, that they themselves would never part of their own?
- Because most humans don't like to hear a horny stallion "scream" for 
love and sex.
But then, it's not very nice to hear a child scream for its mothers' 
breast either... - Does this mean we should all cut our children's' 
vocal chords ?
Hardly! It means we should try to remove the cause (hunger, need for 
sexual satisfaction and compassion), not the symptom ("screaming" - or 
whatever other "vices" might be displayed...)!
Now I don't think cutting vocal chords or testicles off of an individual 
does much to still hunger or sexually pleasure an individual. - Do you?
At best, it could only satisfy the lazy egoism of short-sighted humans.

Lie number 2:
Since horses generally enjoy life more, when they can interact socially 
as much as possible with other beings, which are as horse-like as 
possible (horses), it is "cruel" to deny your stallion this pleasure (as 
if sex weren't a pleasure to males...). And hence, since it is not 
possible, to keep intact male horses together in groups, the balls need 
to be cut off, to allow your horse (now "gelding") this pleasure...

Well, where's the lie you might ask...?
- It's that intact male horses can't be kept together in groups.
Stallions (of all ages) which do not breed, can be kept together with 
other stallions without any problems, as long as none of them get the 
idea, that  they might actually be able to get laid with a mare and as 
long as they don't personally really hate eachother (yes, it happens, 
just like among humans...).
In nature, those stallions which get along well with eachother 
automatically form groups.
In captivity or human caretaking, where the spaces are usually quite 
limited, the horses can't do this separation of groups themselves (when 
they hate eachother), so the caretaking human needs to do this.
It's not hard to imagine, that stallions which learned to co-exist and 
cooperate (aswell as making and keeping friendships) with other 
stallions in "bachelor"-groups in their youth and teens, feel 
comfortable in such groups/herds a lot faster than solitarily raised 
horses. It's also not hard to imagine, that stallions which are denied 
to learn, how to get along with other stallions in their childhood and 
youth, are often impossible to keep with other stallions and usually 
have serious social disabilities and shortcomings, which can make 
interacting with other horses and humans difficult and dangerous.

Another argument (or should I say EXCUSE?) of people who mutilate the 
sexual organs of their stallion is that it is supposed to be good, 
because it makes dealing with the horse in question a little easier or 
more practical, for the person who can't.
However, this destruction of the horses' most tender and sensitive (in 
males unfortunately outer) organs makes most victims of this mutilation 
so confused, that they don't even know where to take a shit anymore...
(Stallions are by far the most cleanly about their droppings!)



The second question:
Why it pays financially to those who spread this "great" lie:

Easy: To the breeder, it pays because he/she will be the only one (next 
to the competition, which of course is ALL bad...) who can create, or 
has control over creating new, sellable horses. Besides, he/she 
eliminates the chance of making a capital mistake, by underestimating 
and selling a good breeding-horse (stud) to others (competition 
breeders).
To the vet who speaks after the breeder, it pays, because this is the 
most common paying work he/she can do on horses, where he/she can 
actually still cut live flesh, which he/she studied for so long to get 
to do...



The third question:
Why people who we expect to know best, spread this "great" lie and 
actually (just about) believe it themselves:

This is due to the normal (human?) shortsightedness and of not being 
able to know anything beyond ones' own field of perception...
Let us take a look at the field of perception of those people, who we 
usually believe, when they say something about stallions and weather 
they "need" to have their balls or not:
The horse-breeders (vets usually talk after them on these issues, as 
they don't learn much about horses except abstract anatomy and usually 
don't have any long-time one-on-one experiences with stallions)...

The "holy & knows-everything-better" breeder (as perceived by the 
average horse-owner) who has his horses for breeding only (money talks, 
bullshit walks), only has stallions at stud and young stallions, which 
are either meant for the knife or sold, before they can figure out how 
to live together with other non-breeding stallions, and before the 
breeder himself might discover, that even when they are sexually mature, 
many of them get along really good with eachother, aslong as their 
friendship isn't put to the test, by the hope/knowledge of getting to 
breed, if rivals are fought. (Although I have even heard of an exception 
to this rule aswell already: Three brother stallions, who were allowed 
to all breed a supplied infertile mare, which was constantly in heat, in 
turn, whenever they started fighting, got along real good in a common 
pasture... -Info supplied by Appyness)

This very limited perception of how stallions can live with their 
surroundings is the main source for breeders' misconception of 
stallions, because stallions who breed and have a human (or anything 
else) between them and their goal of happiness, will ALWAYS be the most 
difficult (if not theoretically impossible) horses to manage and to keep 
together with other stallions, because:
If a stallion is allowed to breed (with anything else than the human who 
seeks to control him), the human automatically becomes the enemy who 
seeks to control and therefore most likely (in the eyes of the stallion) 
take away breeding.
Why? Because horses think like horses (yep, got them horse-glasses 
on...), they will always look at humans as weird horses, but horses 
nonetheless, with social values just like other horses... (How about 
"equine equumorphism"?)
This means, that the enemy mentioned above could either be a rival 
stallion (ok, he's only got two legs, but he's piss-smart with them 
ropes and whips and stuff...) which MUST be fought AND chased away (far 
and forever), before successful (and joyful!) mating becomes a possible 
option, or, this enemy is just simply a nuisance, like a predator, a 
mare or a misbehaving foal, who seeks to stop, hinder and disturb any 
sexual activities, perhaps out of simple love- or sex-envy... (yes, 
horses are envious creatures aswell...)
Now, what does religion think about envy? - There, now you know that 
stallions are not only religious *smile*, but also right, to punish this 
kind of faulty "rival" behavior, because they are the rightful owners of 
their balls, and they decide who gets how much of their sperm 
(materialized affection) and when (if they are offered sex by a 
trustworthy partner)...

So you see, the point is, that whenever your stallion breeds with 
anything else than you, YOU automatically become your horses' enemy (if 
you can't bring it/him more pleasure...), and this always takes a lot of 
energy (mostly on the horses' side), to dispel...
Stallions who breed frequently (with other beings than their handlers), 
just simply get convinced frequently, that their  handler is some stinky 
rival, because he/she is just too darn in the way and way too darn close 
and at the same time dominant, in a stallions' (set by nature) 
ultimately dominant moment (not necessarily towards the mare beneath 
him, but certainly towards rivals). And the more time a stallion spends 
breeding and the more humans do things which annoy the stallion (like 
holding his lead-rope, putting him in the box and so forth), the more 
humans are seen as rivals, because these rivals obviously seek to 
control him and his ultimate goal of dominance: Dear ol wonderful sex.

Let me make a point here. The constant alteration of: "I'm dominant over 
you, - you're the most dominant being around", which stallions at stud 
must endure (and believe me, this is very hard on the horse...), or not 
having ones' own invaluable testicles anymore, or the lack of sufficient 
social contacts (like in solitary imprisonment in isolated box-stalls) 
are all very unsatisfying life-situations for the male horse.

Since breeders often only have stallions, which breed their live asses 
off for them, they know adult stallions (especially the intelligent ones 
with lots of feelings...) from experience only to be creatures who (to 
be able to do their "job") are most extremely opposed to being 
controlled in any way (hey, let's be honest here: how would you like a 
rival who wants to take 100% control over your sexlife and over who you 
see and when?), so they are perceived as "monsters"... (there go those 
beautiful balls and all that goes with it, of other stallions, in 
entirely different life-situations, which are not "needed" for 
reproduction...)

The situation of breeders' perception of stallions would be quite 
different, if they had stallions, which would either not breed at all 
(then the human can easily be accepted as a "leading" alpha-stallion in 
a "bachelor"-herd, who might simply take the privilege of breeding for 
himself), or if they would let the stallions breed (only or 
occasionally) with him/herself (as good as this is possible), in which 
case the stallion(s) could accept the human as their (only) (!lead!-) 
mare.
Anything else is, due to the true nature of male horses, simply an 
enemy/rival.




Conclusions to stallions WITH a sexlife:

Stallions at stud are subject to enormous social stress with their 
handling humans, as every breeding pretty much turns their world of 
social values upside-down. (It's hard not to get sick on that 
rollercoaster!)

In Europe there is a guy called Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling, which does 
seem to be quite knowledgeable of the workings of horses. His love and 
heart for horses is very big and that is why I respect him (among many 
other modern "horsepeople" across the world...). 
He tries to fight cruelty against stallions (at stud), by teaching 
horse-owners to (re-)acquire dominance over stallions (like between 
breeding...) with psychological tricks aswell as dominance-training 
(ground-work), instead of cruelty or brutality. All very good. - He can 
actually control his fully erect stallions 100%, next to a winking mare 
in heat, with only a halter and lead-rope (where other "professionals" 
need whips, nose-chains, hitting and a lot of screaming)...

However, I believe it is not possible to maintain a dominant position 
over an intelligent stallions', when he gets to actually successfully 
breed frequently (except perhaps if you are the being he breeds to), and 
any amount of social position-increase a stallion makes over his handler 
by breeding, must be dispelled again by dominance-training (hopefully 
with psychological tricks in ground-work, instead of cruelty or 
brutality...) after breeding.
This I believe, just because breeding (= sex/ultimate pleasure) is what 
males were created for, and when achieved, there couldn't possibly be 
any other rival, who/which is dominant.

As I have seen the enormous stress this places on stallions at stud (and 
on humans aswell in a few cases...), I think it might be more kind and 
good actually (unless the stallion would be allowed to be with his mares 
day & night, over a longer period of time), if stallions at stud were 
allowed to breed with one human, the stallion-handler, who would then be 
the only person to have sufficient "control" over the stallion, and who 
would collect his sperm (for example with the famous Crump-method) for 
artificial insemination.
Have you ever seen a mature stallion doing subordinate teeth-clapping 
after having his sperm collected on a mount by a stallion-handler with 
an artificial vagina? - I have, and I don't think this display of 
subordinance is directed at the mount, but rather at his 
stallion-handler...!
It seems, the further sexual acts are moved away from mares and towards 
the stallion handler, the easier it is for the stallion to accept the 
dominance of his handler, and the easier and more peaceful (harmonious) 
life gets, for the horse and humans alike...
Of course, these methods of sperm-collection most likely do not provide 
the stallion with the same quality orgasms (yet still with a pleasurable 
sexlife, if the stallion-handler/zoo owner is worth his pay/honor, and 
the breeder with good sperm), but instead, and this might weight more, 
with peace at heart and with his surroundings, which don't change status 
on him on a daily basis, and above all a trustworthy (satisfying) and 
stable relationship, which horses do seem to prefer and profit a lot of, 
if the stallion handler is a nice and good person to the stallion...
*Yep, a zoosexual relationship might actually be more natural to a 
stallion (psychologically - and hey, that's what counts!), than working 
at stud (a whorehouse without any real feelings and compassion, or 
broken hearts, much like porn film-production), and most definitely more 
natural than being butchered to fit the lazy egoism of mutilators!*




Afterthoughts:

Weather you want to be a professional or private stallion-handler as I 
described above, or just want to have a male horse (hopefully in a 
group-stall with other stallions), without trying to improve his 
physical sexlife of sweet dreams and masturbation (yes, they CAN do 
that, ALL by themselves...), just please don't draw a knife, when he 
asks for (more) love...

Also you shouldn't be surprised, when your stallion in a 
"bachelor"-group licks anothers' penis, gets his liked by another 
stallion, or if mounting with extended penises occurs.
As these things occur often in nature, they are natural, and a human 
engaging in the same activities with a horse is acting a hell of a lot 
more natural (and in favor of the horse, and thus responsible) than a 
human, for instance, who puts a saddle and a bridle on a horse and RIDES 
it...

This is why horsewhisperers were traditionally seen as magicians: They 
not only have the gift to hear what a horse WHISPERS to them (for 
example: please lick or rub my penis), but also do things which could 
tame the most dominant and wild stallion (by acknowledging their 
greatness and "secretly" returning some of their dominance, through 
fulfilling wishes such as the one in the example above...).
For these things they were burned as sorcerers ("zoosexuals" today) in 
the middle-age...
Only modern researching and horsewatching in nature is revealing that 
this "magic" is nothing else than loving horses in the way which IS 
actually natural to horses.


Castration of male horses from or by horsegirls (women) is an act of 
feminine envy and egoism, directed at, no, not even the stallions 
themselves, but at female horses, who threaten to steal and destroy the 
magic in the relationship women have to their male horses.
What is the magic in a sexual relationship for a woman? As opposed to 
males, it's romance instead of physical sex.
Hence, all horsegirls are "zoophiles", because the important part of 
their "sexual" relationships is romance.
The testicles of their "loved ones" can be spared in the fight over love 
and romance against the competition (female horses), because the 
important part of the relationship TO the horsegirl, romance, is not 
lost, and can be bought for a cheap price with the help of the next 
veterinarian in need of a little money.
However, this behavior of horsegirls (and women) is bestial and 
extremely egoistic and ignorant at best, because it doesn't spare a 
single thought or glance at the feelings or workings of (the will-be 
cruelly mutilated) males...
These women/girls, in their own favor, overlook greatly, the fact that 
males are completely different from women, in that physical love and 
therefore sexual intactness, not romance, is the most important part of 
males' sexuality, feelings and hope for happiness in life...

Horsegirls who castrate their "loved" animals are the equivalent of 
bestialists and animal-rapers (who don't give a damn about the workings 
and feelings of their partners), while horsegirls with stallions are the 
equivalent of male zoosexuals (who care about the happiness of their 
partners and about what aspects of life are important to them).
The non-heard-of horsegirl who sexually pleasures her intact male horse 
would then pretty much be the equivalent of a saint I guess, in my 
eyes...

However, no woman who supports castration of males can say anything 
against sodomy, bestiality or zoosexuality, because she herself is the 
woman-equivalent of a man who practices egoistic and ruthless bestiality 
in his own selfish favors.


Some people (zoo-bashers) criminalize mature and eligible citizens who 
have a right to vote and express their (political) opinions in their 
country. However, people who think of the conscience and will of other 
humans to be so inferior and lowly (criminal), cannot be expected to 
face animals with  decency and respect.

(To these people stallions are probably ALL criminals, before their 
vulnerable sexual organs are sliced bloody open and their testicles 
squeezed out into the open air, only to be cut off with a sharp knife or 
castrating pliers... And probably many animals remain to be criminals in 
the eyes of these people, even after having been punished with the 
permanent mutilation and destruction of their sexuality... (maybe that 
damn penis must go too?...))

In other words: Fighting AGAINST consensual sexuality and FOR animals 
(or their *rights*) does not mix at all, because adult animals ARE meant 
to be sexual beings, with an untouchable dignity and an own will.
(And no amount of castration, sexual destruction, destruction of the 
animals' personality or any other mutilation will change anything about 
that.)

How can someone who actually cuts the sexual organs (or has them cut) 
off of a live animal possibly ever be expected to face them with 
sufficient respect and to (at least) acknowledge their true own will, 
untouchable dignity and only-to-God-known mission and destiny in life?

Maybe God created humans to serve horses as much as he created horses to 
serve humans?
Who are you to say no? ?
He gave humans two sensitive and skillful hands which allow us to 
physically caress and pleasure horses in many ways.
He gave humans great intelligence and imagination, which allow us to 
mentally pleasure horses and think of better ways to make horses happy.
If we are indeed in a true partnership with horses, as many famous 
horsepeople say, then horses have held up their part of the partnership 
for the last couple of thousand years really good, by dieing for us in 
battle and providing us with their strength, speed and friendship.
It can only be proof of a good sense for harmony, to think that it's our 
turn now, to hold up our part of the deal a little higher, to 
compensate...
 

Whoever says anything against, -or even mocks dedicated and 
well-intended zoosexual acts, is in my eyes saying something against, 
-or even mocking my religion, and God, and therefore asking for the most 
stupid thing there is: Religious war.

Why can't humans live and let live?


A good horseman/woman sees things from the standpoint of the horse:

Do we humans, from the standpoint of the horse, have the "GOD-GIVEN" 
right to castrate horses, just because their desire for sexual 
satisfaction and tenderness might distract some of the  (for human 
females) all-important romance from the horses' relationship to their 
lazy-handed owners, or just because it might lead us or our children to 
"zoosexual" sympathy and actions?

Can a horseman/woman be "overly" humble, to believe, that he/she is not 
so great before God as to be allowed to claim this right?

Can a man or a woman be overly humble before God?

Hardly... from the standpoint of the horse...




PS:

If you feel this is "propaganda" for (zoo) love (uuh, yea... this might 
cause entire governments to crumble...), then tell me, what it is, that 
many vets, breeders and other "idiots" are doing, by spreading their 
ideals of destroying things which grow naturally in God's world full of 
beautiful wonders... at: einhornserv@hotmail.com


Written in May and June, 1998 by Einhorn Servant.
