From: "Einhorn Servant" 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.