    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Alt.sex.bestiality P.I.P.s, Version 1.03                   Posted !NOW_MONTH!
    [Zoophilia and The Law -- History]                  Revised 28 February, 1997
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                ,--,
          _ ___/ /\|              [ This section written and compiled by
      ,;`( )__, )  ~                L'Etalon Doux (na63019@anon.penet.fi)
     //  // \ '--;                  (The Gentle Stallion) ]
    '    \     |
          ^    ^
    ============================[A - INTRODUCTION]===============================
    The church, which until the time of Henry VIII still had
    jurisdiction over all sexual crimes, issued  "Penitential Books"
    which described in the minutest detail all forbidden sexual acts
    and the punishment which was attached to them.  Some of these
    books survive in The British Library.  They are written in Latin
    and, according to Rattery Taylor, author of "Sex in History," are
    so explicit that they would immediately fall foul of the English
    obscenity laws if published. The five penitential codes contain
    some 22 paragraphs defining every conceivable form of Sodomy.

    Before we go on to looking at some specific cases, we should look
    at why the church was so keen to seek out practitioners of un-
    natural acts, the infamous "crime against nature."

    The church, even at this time, was still directly involved in what
    it saw as the fight against superstition and Paganism.  Much use
    was still made of spells and curses, potions containing the
    penises and testicles of bulls and horses were widely believed
    to have magical, rather than medical, powers to improve a man's
    potency, or to win over a shy virgin.

    Many of these beliefs were handed down from pre-Christian
    religions in which the sexual union of human and beast were part
    of their animistic rites.  There were certainly very active horse
    cults both in Ireland and the Nordic Lands which persisted well
    into the fifth century.

    Within living memory, a hangover from these times was still
    practised in Iceland.  The stallion fight, although no one would
    suggest it has retained it's original meaning, was still to be
    seen at the turn of the century.  It consisted of two stallions
    fighting over an in-season mare in the middle of a large arena.
    The winner then favoured the mare with as many coverings as he
    could manage before the next pair came in to the arena for the
    entertainment of the crowd.

    It is easy to see that this display of masculine strength and
    sexual potency was originally a way of selecting the best beast
    to be offered in sacrifice to the gods.  The interested reader
    may wish to know that such stallion fights are still practised
    publicly in the Phillipines.

    ==============================[B - CASE STUDIES]=============================
    We will now go on to a few of the reported cases.  We must
    remember here that Europe was completely dependent on agriculture
    and opportunities were avilable to all and taken by many more
    than were ever caught.  In winter, the animals lived in the lower
    part of the house and the people in the upper part in order that
    the animals could provide a rudimentary form of heating and be
    safe from hungry wolves.  It is easy to imagine a lonely farmer
    choosing to warm himelf by seeking "body warmth" from his horse.

    In many non-European cultures, sexual acts between humans and
    animals were never taboo.  They were, for instance, not punished or
    even considered socialy unacceptable among Hopi Indians and Kupfer
    Eskimos in America or among the Kusaia and Masai Tribes in
    Africa.  Indeed, it has been reported that Masai adolescents
    frequently used donkeys as a sexual outlet.  In Peru, Dr.
    Francisco Guerra found that no less than six percent of the jugs
    used by the native indians contained bestiality motifs, as
    opposed to the three percent which depicted homosexuality.  The
    rest were concerned with hetrosexual sex acts, oral, anal, etc..

    In 1468, one Monsieur Jean Beisse was convicted of copulating with
    a cow and a goat.  Jean, the cow and the goat were all burned at the
    stake.

    In 1601, 16 year old Caudine de Culam was convicted of intercourse
    with a dog.  Both were hanged and their bodies burned.

    November 1607, a young boy convicted and hanged for copulating
    with a mare.  The mare was killed at the foot of the gallows with
    a poleaxe.

    In 1649, M. Vijon burned for having sex with a bird.

    In Pilgrim Father's Plymouth Colony a divorce law enacted in 1639
    mentions bestiality specifically as a ground for divorce.

    Cotton Mather in his book "The history of New England," written
    at the end of the seventeenth century, describes how a Weymouth
    man, who had been a lifelong Sodomist, was first made to watch as
    3 sheep, 2 sows, 2 heifers and a cow, all of which had been his
    sexual partners, were hanged.  It seems that in this puritanical
    world that the animals involved were just as guilty "before God"
    as the man himself.  He was executed in the same manner shortly
    afterwards.

    Another case from New England in the mid-seventeenth century
    concerns one Thomas Granger, an imbecile from Duxbury.  He had
    copulated with a mare, a cow, 2 goats, five sheep, 2 calves and
    a turkey.  He ended up on the gallows of course.

    For a first class demonstration of how effective torture can be we
    turn to a man who admited, under torture, to sodomising a sow,
    knowing full well that he would hang for it.  The evidence was
    that a piglet had a human appearence, and "a flecked eye exactly
    like his...because of this he was suspected and admitted his
    guilt."  It is, of course, an absolute impossibilty for a man to
    father a pig.  We must then assume that the poor man decided that
    hanging was better than to allow the torture to continue.

    A transcript survives of a case in Virginia at about the same
    time. It appears that one Nathaniel Moore had tied a calf to a
    tree and performed anal sex with it. It is not recorded whether
    the beast was a bull or heifer.  Robert Wyard, a prosecution
    witness, gave the following statement:

         Saw him buggering the said calf four or five times. In his
         action Nathaniel had the calf by the tail his yard
         thrusting into the calf several times, wiping his fingers
         on the calf's side and wiping it's breech with his hand.

    He called his wife over.

         Do you see what yonder fellow is doing? Who is it?

         It is your servant Nathaniel.  What a villain he is.

    The two approached very close to the scene and were eventually
    spotted by our "villain."  He had carried on without noticing
    until they were close enough to see everything clearly.  At that
    time, he had not yet extricated his penis from the animal's rectum.

         Villain.  What are you doing here?

         Nothing.  Resting the calf.  What should I do?

         You villain, you lie, your buggering the calf and we stood
         looking at you. Villain, you have done enough to be hanged.

    Nathaniel was found guilty of sodomy.  The witness does seem to
    behaved rather oddly though. Not only does he not call out to
    this "Villain," but he goes in closer and watches quietly until
    discovered.  Could it be that he wanted to watch?

    At this time many cases of bestiality came to light.  Women were
    a scarce commodity to the first settlers in the new world.  The
    rape of a woman would mean a living witness and certain
    execution.  The rape of an animal that can not speak was, on the
    other hand, a relatively safe way of releasing sexual tensions,
    assuming that there were no observers around!

    In 1683, Denmark passed a law making both homosexuality and
    bestiality punishable by burning.  In 1711, it was decided that
    those convicted should be garroted as well as burned.

    In England in 1821, the law read: "Any person, who commits the
    crime of sodomy, either with a man, or with any animal, and is
    found guilty, will be put to death."  The sentence was always
    death of course, but as the presence of semen in the animal had
    to be proven to get a conviction until this date, many of those
    charged had to be released.  In order to raise the
    conviction/hanging rate, the evidence required was changed so
    that it was no longer necessary "to prove ejaculation, rather
    intercourse shall be deemed to have occured if penetration has
    occured."

    If no penetration had occured but a witness observed someone
    "attempting" to copulate with an animal, the sentence was 10
    years.

    The law was revised in 1861 and the sentence reduced to life
    imprisonment.  This law remains to this day!

    In August, 1888, a Mr. Vizetelly was prosecuted for publishing
    obscene literature.  He pleaded not guilty.  The book in question
    was a translation of Emile Zola's "La Terre" -- "The Land" -- now
    accepted as a literary masterpiece the world over.  During the
    tria the jury were so visibly shocked by one of the quotations
    which was read out in court that Vitzetelly was advised to change
    his plea to Guilty.  The passage in question is so beautifully
    written that I quote it in full:

    "Carefully, as though undertaking something of great importance,
    she stepped quickly forward with pursed lips and set face;
    concentration made her eyes seem even darker. She had to reach
    right across with her arm as she grasped the bull's penis firmly
    in her hand and lifted it up.  And when the bull felt that he was
    near the edge, he gathered his strength and, with one single
    thrust of his loins, pushed his penis right in.  Then it came out
    again."

    The defendant was fined 250. 3 months later, he was again on
    trial for selling Zola translations and served 3 months in
    prison.

    "One E, aged 35, a labourer, who was sentenced by the 8th
    Tribuneral Correctionel of the Seine to three months imprisonment
    for an outrage on public decency."

    He was accused of having committed acts of bestiality on fowls.

    These acts had occurred at a lodging-house keeper's in the Rue
    des Gravalliers.  This man had found one of his fowls dead.  He
    observed E, one of his lodgers, and surprised him at the moment
    the act was being consummated.  The fowl was injured and E had
    feathers and traces of blood upon his dress." (Tardieu Attentats
    aux Moers.)

    Men and Dogs - curious Observations It is not unusual to see our
    judges sentencing prisoners who have been caught in the very act
    of bestiality in public places.

    Thus, a Chambre Correctionelle of Paris, on Jan 5th 1880,
    condemned to four months' imprisonment and a fine of 16 francs,
    and old man of 74, who was arrested on the 2nd of the month in
    a urinal, in Rue Publa, at the moment when, having introduced
    his penis into the jaws of a large Newfoundland dog, he was
    proceeding to manualize the animal.

    And another sentence of six months imprisonment and 16 francs was
    pronounced on one D, born in Paris, married and the father of
    three children, who was surprised in a urinal on the Boulvard
    Voltaire, on his knees with a dog between his thighs.  The
    officer who stated the facts, pointed out in his report that,
    guided by the plaintive cries of an animal, he was induced to
    enter the urinal, and there arrested the accused whose dress was
    covered with water. (Pouillet.)

    Pouillet's two observations do not acquaint us with the mental
    condition of the two men caught "in flagrante delicto."  In these
    two cases, the animals played a passive part.  It is not the same
    in the following observation, due to Tardieu, in which the
    animal, on the contrary plays the active part.  It deserves to
    be quoted in extenso on account of the anatomo-physiological
    discussion to which it has given rise.

    "The third case of bestiality, which gave rise to a quite recent
    prosecution, was the occasion of a medico-legal report, very new
    in its object, on the part of a veterinary surgeon, whose latest
    opinion I reproduce; but I ought previously to give an account
    of the circumstances in which the act occurred, and those which
    resulted from the proces-verbal, which follows, and which I quote
    in extenso.

         On  April 28th, in the year 1892, we, a commissary of
         police, from information which we received regarding
         an outrage against public decency, committed by one
         N, a surveyor of roads, and learning that every
         information regarding this loathsome act could be
         supplied by one L, a labourer, caused the said L, to
         appear before us and he there stated as follows:

         "On the 17 inst., about 10 o'clock in the morning, I
         was working between the Lacroix and Robert Joly roads.
         L was employed in cutting withies in the wood not far
         from me: at this time I wanted to smoke a pipe, and
         left my work to go and ask L for a match; After going
         about 50 metres, I heard a rustling in the wood to my
         left, and I stopped short; the noise still continuing,
         I turned aside from my original direction and took a
         few steps forward.

         All at once I noticed a dog which I recognized as
         belonging to M. I advanced a few paces further with
         much precaution, and I observed the said N, surveyor
         of roads, with his trousers down and his sexual parts
         exposed, his body bent with his face towards the
         ground, his head being turned almost in my direction.

         There I saw N and the dog leaning one against the
         other; N in the above position with his right hand
         behind his back, caressing the dog and pulling about
         its genital parts with his fingers; I remained thus as
         a spectator for several minutes; when the act was
         consumated, I saw the dog's member coming out of N's
         fundament.

         N then raised his head, and seeing me wanted to set
         the dog upon me to bite me, several times crying out
         "Bite him!" I observed to N that the dog was no worse
         than he, and that I was not afraid of it.

         I went away directly, and a few paces from the spot,
         I met A, and I told him that if I had known that he
         was so near to me, I should have called to him to let
         him see the act of which I had just been a witness,
         and which I hastened to relate to him."

         L, aged 16, a labourer, was also heard as a witness in
         the above affair, and declared as follows:" on April
         17th, I was cutting withies in the forest of
         Rambouillet. About half past nine I saw the said N,
         surveyor of roads, accompanied by M's dog; I remarked
         to N that it was fortunate that my father was not
         there at that moment, or he would not go into the
         forest with the dog, seeing that it was expressly
         forbidden;  upon this he laughed at me, and
         disappeared with the dog into the midst of the wood.
         About a quarter past ten, I heard a dog barking.  I
         left my work to see if the dog were hunting.  When I
         reached the Alle des Chantillons, I saw the said A.
         When I got near him, he said to me, If I had known
         that you were so near to me, I should have come to
         look for you, to let you know something awful, which
         I have just witnessed."

         Here the witness L made  word for word the statement
         as it is written above, related to him by L
         immediately after the act had been consummated, and
         adds that since that day the dog cannot leave N.

         N, aged 43, surveyor of roads, was questioned on the
         facts which are alleged against him, and he replied as
         follows: "On the 17th inst.,about 10 o'clock in the
         morning, as I was going to my work at a stone quarry
         situated in the forest, I was accompanied by a large
         dog belonging to M, a farmer. When I reached the wood,
         and was in rather a dense spot, and believing myself
         to be sheltered there from everybody's gaze, I
         unbuttoned and took down my trousers; I then bent
         downwards with my face almost against the ground, and
         presented my posterior to the dog to lick me, which he
         did.  This was done with the intention of allaying the
         pain caused me by my thighs rubbing together as I
         walked.

         It is no good my laying any further stress upon other
         points; it is true I was seen in the wood, and in the
         position which I have just indicated to you by the
         said L, but what he asserts is only a falsehood."

         N was indicted and tried for an outrage on public
         decency, and was sentenced to a year's imprisonment.
         The Court of Appeal of Paris, being of the opinion
         that it had not been established that copulation
         between the man and the dog took place, but that N had
         indulged in obscene manoeuvres in public, reduced his
         sentence to three month imprisonment.

         In the course of the pleadings, the following piece of
         evidence was produced. It deserves to be quoted.

         Medico-legal consultation by M. Janet, veterinary
         surgeon at Rambouillet, May 14th 1872.

         Question : Can a dog perform anal copulation upon a
         man?  No I think not, for the following reasons:

         1st, because the penis of the dog has a very special
         conformation which is only suitable for generation
         with his own species.

         2nd, because its penis, which is very pointed and
         slender, has an interior bone covered with very
         sensitive erectile tissue, which, during accoupling,
         swells considerably, forms a plug inside the vagina,
         and prevents the dog from withdrawing immediately
         afterwards, the ejection of the spermatic secretion
         being very slow, which explains why one often sees
         dogs and bitches unable to separate, and remaining
         joined together as long as the erectile tissue has not
         shrunk nor become soft and flaccid again.

         In this painful situation, these poor beasts are very
         frequently the victims of odious brutalities.

         When bitches are on heat, that is to say in a state of
         extreme excitement through venereal desires, the
         vaginal opening becomes dilated very easily, and the
         mucous membranes acquire a great elasticity; it is
         then that the dog is able to introduce his penis into
         it, which is very difficult for him when the bitch has
         returned to her normal state.

         How then could the dog, which cannot cover the bitch
         when she is quiet, on account of contraction and
         resistance of the vaginal tissues, succeed in
         introducing his penis into a man's rectum?  This
         appears to me impossible, for the reasons which I have
         just given, and also for the following physiological
         reasons, which I will endeavour to make clear.

         1st On seeing a man's posterior, I do not think that
         it is the nature of the dog to feel such venereal
         desires as on seeing a bitch.

         2nd The anatomical constitution of his penis, which is
         very flexible at its point, does not give enough
         stiffness for him to introduce it into a man's anus
         and to overcome the very great resistance of the
         sphincter, the circular muscle of the anus, the
         contractility of which is excessively powerful.

         3rd The man's buttocks also display a surface large
         enough to put the dog further away, and to prevent the
         introduction of the penis, the length of which is
         diminished in proportion as the internal bone which
         forms a protuberance, is brought near to the point. In
         this case only a rubbing of the penis on the skin is
         possible.

         4th The man being on his knees with his hands resting
         on the ground, facilitating by his position the
         pederasty of the dog, will never attain his object if
         the animal, not being very tall, cannot encircle his
         body with his two forepaws so as to have a solid point
         of support.

         I have acquired the certitude of what I have stated by
         placing the dog upon a man who was willing to lend
         himself to the experiment.  Placed, kept there, and
         held up as he was by me, the dog (the same one that
         appeared in the case) if he had been accustomed to the
         action, would have been eager to try to satisfy his
         genesic desires,  on the contrary, he showed
         indifference, did not understand what was asked of
         him, and tried to get away;  he has given us evident
         proof of unwillingness and innocence.

         If, contrary to all physiological estimation, the dog
         had succeeded in overcoming all the obstacles and in
         completely introducing his penis into the man's
         rectum, the effect of the erectile tissue of the bone
         would immediately have been produced, and caused the
         enormous natural swelling (as in the bitches vagina
         during the process of covering) which would have
         compelled the two creatures to remain stuck together
         during the entire period of the energetic contraction
         of the sphincter.

         You see here then this most curious picture: the man
         compelled to remain in the quadruped position, and he
         on his part, and the dog on his, obliged to pull in
         order to free themselves from the bond which attaches
         them; the man unable to get up or stand upright
         without lifting the dog from the ground, causing
         himself extreme pain and exposing himself to be
         dangerously bitten.  In this case the monstrosity
         would be undeniable.

         I conclude therefor that the fact of pederasty of the
         dog with the man is impossible, owing to the
         anatomical conformation of the one and the penis of
         the other.

         I have made numerous researches in many works, but
         have not found a single similar case of bestiality.

         I should not venture, I confess, to make such a formal
         pronouncement in the negative.  And without wishing to
         enter here into unnecessary detail, I shall confine
         myself to recalling the fact that too numerous
         instances of bestiality have been positively verified
         in the case of women of evil life for us to exonerate
         the canine species of acts similar to that which has
         just been related  (Tardieu)

    Dr. Jacobus X.. Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital
    Sense (1901)

    In a suggested change to the law in Switzerland, in 1909, the
    "crime" of bestiality was deliberately left out.

    In 1944, an American soldier was convicted by general court-
    marshall of sodomy with a cow and sentenced to a dishonourable
    discharge and 3 years hard labour. The cow was spared, but in
    England into the 1950's, animals were still sometimes ordered to
    be destroyed in such cases.

    In 1962, Illinois became the first American state to revise it's
    criminal code along the lines suggested in The Model Penal Code
    (devised by American Law Institute).  Specifically, oral genital
    contacts, and anal intercourse between consenting adults in
    private and sexual acts with animals are no longer criminal
    offenses.  Connecticut, New York and Kansas have also made some
    revisions in this area.

    California Penal Code  paragraph 286:

    Sodomy-Punishment : Every person who is guilty of the infamous
    crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal,
    is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison of not less
    than one year.

    In the Former Eastern (Communist) half of Germany, Bestiality was
    not an offense.  Bestiality ceased to be a crime in West Germany
    when the law was removed from the "Straf Gesetz Buch" in 1969 due
    to lack of use.

    Sodomistic intercourse with animals has also been removed from
    the list of criminal sexual offenses in France, Belgium, Italy,
    Portugal, Holland and Russia.  Such cases are now dealt with
    under indecency and animal cruelty regulations and are most
    unlikely to receive a prison sentence.  In those countries such
    as Great Britain, which have not updated their laws, the penalty
    is, normally,  still life imprisonment, i.e.; the modern
    equivalent of a death sentence.

    In England, a legal precedent has been set which frees any woman
    of a sodomy charge if she was acting under coercion.

    _____________________________________________________________________________
    The Times, December 13th, 1991

    "NO EXCUSE FOR DOLPHIN SEX ACT"
    An Animal rights campaigner accused of outraging public decency
    by committing an obscene act with a dolphin might have done so
    to persuade the animal to prefer him to other swimmers, a court
    was told yesterday.

    David Wood for the prosecution, told Newcastle upon Tyne crown
    court, that Alan Cooper, aged 38, might have performed the act
    on Freddie, a 12ft. bottle-nose dolphin, because there was a great
    deal of competition to swim with the dolphin.

    When Mr. Cooper saw a boatload of people approaching, Including
    Peter Bloom, curator of a dolphinarium, who he particularly
    disliked, "it may have been tempting to do something which he
    knew the dolphin would like,"  Mr. Wood Said. However, the reason
    for Mr. Cooper's action was irrelevant and he had outraged the
    boat passengers by going way beyond decent behaviour.

    Mr. Cooper, of Gorton, Manchester, denies outraging public decency
    by masturbating the dolphin off Amble, Northumberland.

    Tony Jennings, for Mr. Cooper, said that Mr. Bloom, who prompted
    the complaints, was a sworn enemy of his client.  He said Mr.
    Bloom had the audacity to condemn Mr. Cooper for the alleged
    sexual act, yet he had trained dolphins to jump out of the water
    and remove a bikini top from a woman swimmer for a film sequence.

    The trial continues today.
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    Comment:

    The above case is chiefly of interest because of the charge;
    "Outraging Public Decency."  It should be noted that no cruelty
    charge could be brought as even the prosecution admits that he
    was doing "something which he knew the dolphin would like."
    Indeed, had there been no "public" present to be "outraged" at the
    event, the charge could not have been brought at all.

    That being said, the English legal system is notorious for
    bringing charges even for sexual acts committed in private. A
    Conservative MP Harvey Proctor was convicted of "Gross Indecency"
    for beating male prostitutes with a cane.  The beatings were
    agreed and paid for and took place in private.  The case only
    came to light when one of the prostitutes decided to make even
    more money by selling the story to one of the more salacious
    Sunday Tabloids.  In a more recent case, the Appeal Court upheld
    a prison sentence handed down to sado-masochists for assault even
    though it took place in a private house among consenting adults.

    Although the dolphin case is clearly concerned with a human-
    animal sex act, no charge of Sodomy can be brought under English
    law for the masturbation of an animal.

    This simple fact releases Mr. Cooper from the risk of a long
    prison sentence because, for the more serious charge of attempted
    Sodomy -- that is a clear intention to achieve rectal or vaginal
    penetration with any animal -- carries a ten year maximum
    sentence.  Sodomy, if penetration can be proved "beyond a
    reasonable doubt," carries a maximum of life imprisonment.  Note
    that ejaculation need not occur.

    It should be noted here that dolphins are notoriously randy and
    there are many reports from trainers and divers of male dolphins
    masturbating themselves on rubber dinghies or diving suits.  They
    are also one of the select group of mammals, other than man,
    which engage in sexual intercourse among themselves purely for
    pleasure.
    _________________________________________________________________
    The Sunday Sport, December 15th, 1991
    (This newspaper is the British equivalent of The Weekly World News;
    a tabloid of the worst kind.  Therefore, whether or not this story
    actually occurred is in doubt.)

    "MUFFIN THE MULE"
    A sex starved wife was granted a divorce because her hubby
    preferred love with his mule.  Huriye Karacak, 42, suspected that
    husband Husamettin, 55, was being unfaithful because he stayed
    out night after night. But then she found him having sex with the
    family's mule at their farm in Sivas, Turkey.  Judge Selemi
    Ayyildiz tried to reconcile the couple but finaly agreed a
    divorce when Hussamettin refused to sell the animal and said
    "it's beautiful and does not nag."
    ________________________________________________________________
    Comment:

    We must assume from this report that no specific charge was
    brought with regard to the regular sexual intercourse between
    Hussamettin and the mule.

    Turkey, although an Islamic country, does not adhere to "Islamic
    Law" as practised in many other countries in the region.  Under
    Islamic law, the penalty for Sodomy with an animal is death.

    This does raise a few interesting questions. If we take the case
    a few hundred kilometres south, we find that the wife would have
    no right to request a divorce from her husband.  It also raises
    the probability that she would never reveal her husband's
    particular sexual leanings because, firstly, it would mean
    admitting that her husband, given the choice between having sex
    with her and a mule, had chosen the latter.  She would also
    lose her bread winner in a country where paid work for women is
    frowned upon.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                  This text is posted on the eighth of every month.
         The FAQ and the PIPs for alt.sex.bestiality can also be found via:
              The Web at Stasya's ZooPage (http://www.stasya.av.org/)
                         E-mail at imazoo@dnx.net (Ima Zoo)
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=