HERE IS THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW WITH E.F.A. MEMBERS AS CONDUCTED BY THOMAS FRANCIS OF 'VILLAGE VOICE MEDIA.' THE INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE VIA E-MAIL ON MAY 13TH, 2009 AND WAS FEATURED IN THEIR AUG. 20, 2009 COVER STORY. THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW IS REPRINTED HERE WITH THE PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED:
Good afternoon Mr. Francis,
Are you there?
Please drop a note when you are ready, and we can begin.
We are here.
I am one of the webmasters here at www.equalityforall.net and would prefer to remain anonymous. But I have Sir Tijn Po on the line who is willing to partake in the interview, on the record. He is one of our non-Zoo members and has been instrumental - through his film, COMING SOON, as well as by other means - in getting us significant international attention. All of our Zoophile members were reluctant to go on the record with their real names.
I understand completely your need for anonymity. Thank you for accommodating me. I have questions for all of you. But for the sake of your convenience, would you prefer that I ask questions of the zoophiles first? Or would you rather I ask my questions of Sir Tijn Po first? I have no preference.
In addition, in your response can you please give yourselves pseudonyms? It would make it much easier for me to keep track of who is talking.
There are only two of us here now. I think you can ask your questions in any order. If I respond I will preface it with "WEBMASTER". If Tijn answers I will preface it with "STP". If you have a question specifically for one of us, just write so at the beginning of the question.
OK. For Webmaster: I will be quoting you in the article I write, and I'll be identifying you to the reader with a pseudonym. So would you like to choose your own fictional name? Or would you rather let me choose one for you?
I am also obligated to explain to my readers exactly why you asked to remain anonymous, and I would like for you to do so in your own words: What are your reasons for not speaking under your actual name?
Can you please provide a few identifying characteristics about yourself -- not enough to give away your identity, of course. But can you say
* what country you live in?
* your approximate age?
* your sex?
* your occupation?
* your race?
* the type of animal(s) you are attracted to?
And please add any other background details about yourself that you think are relevant to our discussion.
WEBMASTER: I would most prefer to be identified as "E.F.A. Member".
I can give a few details about myself. I am a male in my twenties. I live in the Czech Republic. I am a writer. Caucasian. And I love all animals but would prefer not discuss exactly which animals I am sexually attracted to. My main reason for doing this interview is as a member of E.F.A., whose main tenet is "Equality For All", meaning all creatures. This means that we have many activities and aims (visit www.equalityforall.net for details) including supporting "extreme" expressions of inter-species love. By "extreme" I mean including sexual expressions, but we have absolutely no tolerance for forced sexual interaction with any species, or inflicting pain of any sort. In that sense I support zoophilia with any animal - if done sensitively and painlessly. But my own specific sex acts are private (just as they would be for a Gay-Rights activist - you can discuss his or her ideas and experiences with Gay-Rights without having to know his or her exact fetishes...)
If, however, you want some more nitty-gritty details about Zoos' sex lives I can offer to send your e-mail address to all of our members and perhaps some of them will contact you with some "juicier" material. I, myself, would prefer to focus on the philosophical and political implications of E.F.A. and the Zoophile-Rights revolution.
The reason I want to remain anonymous is something I have in common with most Zoos who support the Zoophile-Rights movement but are afraid to go public - afraid primarily for the safety of their animals. In my case I can't get fired from my job since I'm self-employed, nor am I afraid of "damaging" my career or being ostracized by family and friends. But I am afraid of having my animals harmed, or taken away, due to bias. Almost all zoophile E.F.A. members have the same fear - for now. It it weren't for this reason I would gladly go public and take any risk necessary.
Thanks for that answer. I'll abbreviate you "EFAM" in future questions.
And I would greatly appreciate more email addresses, not necessarily to get "juicy" material but because it's always great to get a variety, and I'd like my article to emphasize how zoos come from a great many backgrounds, in all shapes and sizes and ages...
My next question is for STP:
Tell me about Devilhead Films. Are you located in the Czech Republic and Austria? What first compelled you to take an interest in the subject of zoophilia? Having shown your film in different countries, perhaps you can tell me about how attitudes toward zoophilia may vary between nations? In particular, have you drawn conclusions about the difference between American attitudes and those in Europe?
(Sorry if the font is different. In an effort to speed up our dialogue, I'm preparing questions while you're preparing your answers.)
WEBMASTER: I'll send out your e-mail address in our next newsletter. I hope some of our members will contact you.
I also wanted to formally thank you on behalf of E.F.A. for your articles. You seem to be extremely rational and the questions you've been raising are exactly what we're trying to do. Keep up the good work!!!
STP (dictated to, and slightly paraphrased by, WEBMASTER):
Hello Mr. Francis,
Kudos for your journalistic efforts!
DEVILHEAD FILMS is currently located in the Czech Republic. I assume you mentioned Austria because some portions of COMING SOON were filmed there. But it is actually a mobile company. Our next project will probably be filmed in the States (I'm American). You can probably get the best idea about DEVILHEAD FILMS through its website, www.devilheadfilms.com, but I would describe it in short (as I believe it‘s described on the site) as trying to create films "that stimulate our minds, hearts and libidos at once." It seems quite uncommon to me to find art or entertainment - especially film - that is at once highly thoughtful, emotional and sexual at the same time. It is my theory that this is still some residue from Biblical discomfort with sexuality and its view that (aside from reproductive acts) it is lower, or dirtier, than other human faculties. Thus, even when people embrace sexuality, porn, etc. it never really mingles with philosophy or serious emotional exploration. They always remain in separate categories. DEVILHEAD FILMS was founded with the intention of creating works that try to embrace the harmony and equality between all of these functions. COMING SOON, our first completed feature-length production, seems to have achieved this. Viewers and critics, as well as one our great heroes, Philosopher Peter Singer, have lauded the film's philosophical and thought-provoking qualities, few people watch the film without being moved to tears by several of the characters' stories, and although there isn't porn (Zoo porn would have created all sorts of legal obstacles) it is certainly erotic and - by conventional Western standards - perverse.
That is at once an explanation about DEVILHEAD FILMS, as well as what initially brought me to the subject of COMING SOON. Pure philosophical exploration of something that is still highly tabboo and, as your articles show, quickly becoming more and more illegal. As a philosopher, I am always curious to explore these tabboos to see if I think they are justified in being tabboo (such as rape, pedophilia, animal abuse, etc.) or are they tabboo just because society hasn't gotten over its Biblical bias yet. Remember (to quote some people from COMING SOON) how long it took to get used to divorce, masturbation, out-of-wedlock relationships and children, inter-racial marriage, masturbation, homosexuality, female equality, racial equality, etc. etc. etc. In many of these areas we're still getting used to it.
Throughout the filming I became convinced that zoophilia - defined as non-violent, loving, inter-species sexuality - is just another step in the direction of overcoming Biblical influence, and returning to pre-Biblical harmonies and tolerance. (See Peter Singer's article, HEAVY PETTING, for a similar view).
As far as audience reaction is concerned, I haven't been present at many screenings, but we've had many post-screening discussions that were recorded and filmed and the trend - in both the States and Europe - is that about 50% of viewers, when asked - after seeing the film - whether or not they would support an organization like E.F.A., raise their hands in the affirmative. The film hasn't had its official U.S. premiere yet, and the screenings in the States were informal and underground, so I guess the reactions aren't typical of the average movie-goer. In Europe, however, many of the screenings were in mainstream cinemas and the reactions seem to be the same everywhere. As the Zoophile "Jeremy" told you, you can never become a Zoo just by hearing about it, etc. But the viewers, most of whom never gave it any thought before seeing this film, were shocked to find themselves supporting something that they would have instinctively rejected only a few hours earlier.
The attitudes of U.S. theater operators has been different than their European counterparts. They all claimed to like the film but were petrified about showing it due to potential public outlash. This was a couple years ago before the film was available on-line. Perhaps it will be different now that the film has been seen all around the world and has been garnering almost unanimous praise.
WEBMASTER: My ear is killing from the phone. I have to hang up and let STP go for a couple of minutes. Sorry :-)))
Thanks very much for that response, STP and I congratulate you for dealing with such a controversial subject with such tact.
My next question is for EFAM:
EFA is a bold, fascinating enterprise. Can you describe how / when / why it came to be? Am I right to suspect that the internet played a key role in bringing zoos together?
WEBMASTER: STP will be back in a couple of minutes, but I first wanted to comment on the question about responses from different countries. We actually have more members from the U.S.A. and other countries than from Europe. Almost all of them heard about us through the film which they've seen on the Internet.
The e-mails we get, as well as comments on our site, on YouTube, Amazon, Zoo chat clubs, etc. are primarily positive. Americans who aren't Zoos seem to be yucked out by it and are less afraid to share that fact :-) But philosophically they seem to be open to us after some discussion.
The two most common reasons for being against E.F.A. are either believers who quote the Bible - not much room for discussion there. Then there are those who point to the problem with animal consent. This was already mentioned in your other blogs and articles but I just want to add two points:
First of all, when people hear of zoophilia for the first time they immediately think of horny men penetrating anything and everything without concern for the "penetrated". But zoophilia is much, much wider. This includes women who let themselves be penetrated. Men who let themselves be penetrated (Eumanclaw...), men and women who service the animals orally, or manually, etc. When we ask people if they would support the acceptance of this type of zoophilia which cannot possibly be described as abusive - which is very pertinent to the legislation question you've been covering - their argument falls apart, and they usually admit so, after getting yucked out, of course :-)
Another point is that if they were trully worried about the question of consent, why are they not worried when animals are killed, neutered, castrated, declawed, experimented with, torn away from their families, domesticated, kept on farms, in circuses, pulling carriages, used for leather, etc. without the slightest expression of consent. Why is only when it comes to sex that people freak out? Thus, I agree with STP on this one - and most people agree as well when posed with these questions - that it still residue from Biblical domination of Western culture.
The last point, if I may, is the absurd equation with pedophilia. We don't eat babies, enslave them, declaw them, etc. You know the argument...
Thanks Webmaster. I will get to the issue of consent and talk in more detail about the moral issues. But first can you be a bit more specific about EFA's emergence? Such as...
* When was it founded?
* Where is it based?
* How many members does it have? From how many countries?
* What kind of social functions happen through EFA?
* What are EFA's objectives -- past, present and future?
WEBMASTER: I can't speak for all Zoos, of course. And I'm pretty young and came of age with the Internet so I don't know what happened before. From what I'm told and read, Internet was very instrumental in bringing Zoos together.
I do want to repeat something about E.F.A. - it is not only a Zoophile-Rights organization. Zoophile-Rights is the most surprising, or shocking, for most people so it gets the most attention. But STP is only one of many non-Zoo members who A) agree with the need to get this message about Zoo-Rights out and help other groups that are persecuted - in fact it is the non-Zoo members who are most able to appear in public since they don't have to fear in the same way that Zoos do B) agree with broader implications of E.F.A. which they see as being anti the Biblical notion of animals being lower than man and in "man's dominion". Equality For All doesn‘t just mean equality for Zoos, but Equality For All creatures. No one wants to give animals voting rights, etc. But they shouldn‘t be abused just because of lower intelligence. Kids don‘t have voting rights, retarded people don't vote, criminals don't vote, but they are treated with respect. E.F.A. believes that the world is not just Man's toy and it should be treated with respect. THIS tenet actually attracts most of our non-Zoo members. Although we have people from all religions, including the Biblical ones, many members see us as being anti the Biblical notion of human superiority and a return to a more pagan harmony with other cultures and the rest of nature. Not much monotheism or "The path to the father leads through me" in E.F.A. We believe in many paths.
E.F.A. could never have spread as far as it did without the Internet. We operate with no funds (to keep money-hungry governments off our backs), so the free, lightning-quick Internet made us possible on an international scale.
As for the origin and development of E.F.A., I myself came on board after seeing COMING SOON. Its earlier origins and exact founders are quite vague. For now it works primarily through our website. Members are asked to explain their reason for joining and to express explicitly that they don't support abuse of animals. Other than that we require nothing from our members.
In fact there are already E.F.A. branches, or off-shoots. People write to us from around the world asking if they can set up E.F.A. in their countries and our response has been that provided they don't use it to make money, and don't turn it into a porn enterprise (as many Zoo websites have become), and never support abuse of any kind, they are permitted to use our name and logo. So we actually don't even know how many chapters and members there are around the world. We are the first Zoo-Rights group we know of, but we hope we won't be the last.
P.S. STP is back...
E.F.A. 2 (supplement to previous answer):
WEBMASTER: I actually answered some of these questions before you asked them :-), but I'll try to be more specific:
Our chapter is based in the Czech Republic but, as I already mentioned, most of our members aren't even from Europe so I guess you can say we're based in Cyberspace.
Whenever I asked about the exact date of being founded I received something to the effect of the following: E.F.A. isn't officially registered, doesn't charge anything, etc. As with the nature of the film, COMING SOON, everyone is a bit vague as to exactly what is what, how much is real, etc. I do know for sure that since COMING SOON started making waves - primarily on the Internet - people have been joining in larger numbers (we never disclose the exact figures) from all over the world. So regardless of how it came about, it's here now and it isn't going anywhere.
This was enough info for me, since the ideas expressed on our site, in our newsletters are exactly how I feel. If the nature of E.F.A. ever changed or became commercial I would be out.
The objective is to promote discussion and social awareness about animal inequality as well as Zoophile persecution. When people hear about it and think about it we believe their attitudes will change. Slowly, but surely.
We never have porn or sex at our meetings so as to avoid any legal problems whatsoever. Our function is purely philosophical, activist, etc.
Here, for example, is a recent petition we put together in reference to the very legislation you're currently covering:
There haven't been numerous signatures yet - people are wary of giving their e-mail addresses when it dones to anything connected with zoophilia… But we can see the traffic that comes to our site from the link in our petition and we are thrilled by how far this has gotten around.
E.F.A. is young and constantly changing according to suggestions from our members. But the core tenets - described above - will probably never change.
Thanks again Webmaster. I've got a follow-up question to that, but first I'll put another one to STP:
Judging by your answer to my last question, it sounds like your own perspective was broadened by making the film and that a significant portion of the audience had that same experience. By the same token, I'm sure you've encountered (as I have already) friends and family who have a completely closed mind on this subject. Given the wide range of reactions, I'd be curious about your view of whether the non-zoo society will ever be as accepting of zoophiles as most of Western Society is of gays? Do you tell your zoo friends to hold out hope for change? Or would you suggest to them that they not get there hopes up, lest they be disappointed?
STP: Very, very good question.
Yes, my own view was certainly broadened in the making of this film as well as in subsequent discussions, interviews, E.F.A. activities, etc. But when I say my view was broadened, it is only that I came to see zoophilia as just another sexual preference that I can never "understand" but I see no reason not to tolerate. But I was already of the opinion that sex in general is a personal matter. I'd like to quote a statement from one of the people in COMING SOON which didn't make it into the film but, ironically, probably had the strongest effect on me: One of the female E.F.A. members asked how much of sexual and romantic attraction can you ever explain? Even in the most "traditional" heterosexual relationships which can perhaps be "explained" as keeping the species going, how can you explain why you love one person and not another? And then the next day you love another person, etc. Why some prefer blondes, others brunettes, etc. Why men have nipples and enjoy their stimulation (not much reproduction there...) Why some people enjoy this fetish, odor, shape, position, act, etc. while others prefer the exact opposite. So no matter what, you have to accept that we are passive when it come to our preferences - we wait for our hormones to tell us what we'll be attracted to... In that sense, how is heterosexuality more "rational“ than Gay, Zoo, etc.? I loved it when she put it that way.
However, for people who don't believe that sex is a private matter, usually due to the Bible, Quoran or other religions, there is no explaining or persuation possible. See Prop 8 and the like.
But for those who accept, or perhaps even celebrate, sexual diversity and privacy, I think there is hope. I see it happening in real-time when I watch the afore-mentioned post-screening discussions. People from all walks of life, all ages, etc. change their opinion while watching a two-hour film. Imagine what will happen when more people - including yourself - raise the question?
Who would have thought Obama could have won a few years ago? But it happened. I believe people would like to live and let live. But either their faith or clergy don't let them, or their habits don't let them. Habits can be overcome.
In that sense I feel as though I'm in the same boat as Zoos, and that's why I joined and try to help E.F.A. - since I believe that at the core a lot of social struggle, at least in the West, is Bible vs. the rest of the world. I'm certainly not on the side of the Bible.
One more quick point: The response from the Gay community towards COMING SOON and E.F.A. has been primarily extremely positive for reasons that I mentioned above. They, too, see us all as in the same boat. Some Gays resent it since they feel it contributes to the insane "slippery slope" argument and may interfere with, or slow down, their own efforts. But the Gays we encountered personally see it the other way around - the "slippery slope" is precisely the opposite, if you allow Zoos to be persecuted, who will be next, Gays? We either all fight for rational tolerance, or we can slip back into the Dark Ages...
WEBMASTER; Well said, Sir Po!!!
E.F.A. 2 (supplement to previous answer):
STP: One more point: Zoos often laugh at my optimism and explain that if I were a Zoo I probably wouldn't be that brave. They're probably right. I realize that I can't fully understand their inner fears and trauma. Thus, I never judge Zoos who choose to remain anonymous. But my personal view is my personal view.
WEBMASTER: I happen to share STP's optimism about the future. At least in the legal sense, where people will start differentiating between abusive Zoo-sexuality - which I think SHOULD be outlawed and penalized - and non-abusive Zoo-sexuality which should not be persecuted. But I can't imagine ever having a Zoophile U.S. president :-))) Gay yes, but not Zoo, at least not in my lifetime.
I'm going to pick up on a point that STP made in his answer, but I think we'll lead into it with the following question, for Webmaster:
Can you pursue political objectives through EFA, such as fighting laws against acts of bestiality that do not distinguish between consensual sex and rape? If so, please describe how EFA has done so. If not, please describe why not and whether you have hope that it can be more politically active in the future.
WEBMASTER: We certainly have been active. Did you get the link to the petition I sent?
Any limits on our activities are just due to our limitations in size. But we are whole-heartedly against legislation that doesn't distinguish between abusive and non-abusive Zoo-sexuality.
We sent out newsletters to our members about this legislation. We're doing this interview right now :-) We try to get the word out about COMING SOON which has proven to be the most persuasive tool to date, we try to get members to join chats and leave comments in relevant message boards, etc. But as mentioned, people are a bit wary to even have their e-mail addresses, or IP addresses, made public.
STP: when your article comes out we can put it on www.comingsoon.cz which gets a lot of international traffic.
WEBMASTER: In general, we try to be a bit broader than just targeting a particular piece of legislation since the problems we are trying to combat are far wider. But if there is anything more we can do, please let us know.
E.F.A. 2 (supplement to previous answer):
WEBMASTER: I also wanted to recommend trying to contact Professor Singer about the whole topic. He's a huge authority and is quite accessible.
Also, you may want to try contacting the better known Animal-Rights people to get their views as to why they differ from E.F.A. when it comes to Zoo-sexuality (PETA has actually reluctantly embraced it when Singer defended it...). I think it's because they're afraid of being seen as insane and losing support for their other causes, so they throw Zoos - many of whom are the biggest Animal-Rights activists in the world - under the bus.
STP: I have to go soon, but I wanted to make one more point about the whole Bible, slippery-slope issue. It's not just that the Bible outlaws so many things that we've become accustomed to, but it also supports so many things that we angor, such as death sentences for adulterers (viz. Today's Taliban and other "honor killings"), polygamy, sale of minors for marriage, slavery, etc. How many people want Biblical values when those are put on the table?
And why is there is so much more blood than semen in films and cartoons? It's the Bible, stupid!
Yes, I did get the link to the petition. But still it seems to me that zoos' need for anonymity handcuffs the community's efforts to mobilize in a political way. Which leads to the question I thought it would...
(You may want to collaborate on this one) STP, you mentioned in your last answer that you've received particularly positive reactions from gays who've seen your film. I haven't received quite the same reception when I've raised the subject with gay rights groups in the U.S.
I have tried to describe to them the similarities between their campaign and challenges facing zoophiles who would seek to open minds about their own minority sexual orientation and to live without fear of discrimination or persecution. So far those groups have refused to comment, much less share with zoophiles the social progress their gay rights movement has made. (In fact, the most influential LGBT organization circulates talking points that specifically discourage their spokespersons from mentioning human - animal sexual relationships.) What's more, many leaders in the gay community were outraged after former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania made comments comparing gay marriage to a human-animal sexual partnerships, suggesting a belief that while homosexual relationships were as socially acceptable as heterosexual relationships, a relationship involving sex with animals did not deserve the same open-minded treatment.
So I guess the question for you guys is whether that's surprising to you? Is it frustrating? Would you have expected more openminded-ness from gay rights groups? Or do you think they're under no obligation to acknowledge the political plight of zoophiles?
STP: On a practical level I understand them, since it requires "altruism" on their part for them to fight for something that isn't directly connected to their lives (a similar paradox was seen when unusally high black turnout in California helped pass Prop 8...).
But when they stop and think, they often realize that - as I mentioned before - the Zoo struggle is their struggle in a wider sense. But they often don't want to get mixed up with it. We had some of that approach here from the older members of the Gay-Rights movement in the Czech Republic. But it was a Gay-themed T.V. program on Czech national television that gave COMING SOON one of the most positive reviews ("A HIGHLY chilling tour de Force!") as well as huge exposure (see here for more: http://www.comingsoon.cz/php/en_recenzeareakce.php).
But these guys were younger and they shared my view that, if anything, this direction helps destroy the slippery-slope argument (Santorum is only one of many to use it) since when you actually confront the Zoo question and realize that it's not as horrible as you may have thought it destroys the fear that makes the slippery slope argument work.
WEBMASTER: From my experience, I agree. Younger Gays seem to embrace us. Perhaps not publicly but in e-mails they do. I agree with STP's earlier point that the slippery-slope argument should be reversed and presented to the Gay community: if you leave us hanging and to fend for ourselves, who's next?
I think that as the Gay-rights issue gets more accepted (don't you already have 5 states that allow Gay-marriage) perhaps in 10-15 years, and they won't feel so threatened, they will come around and help.
I can also understand them, since they're still feeling their own trauma, and its hard to think straight and help others when you're fighting for your own survival.
P.S. My fingers and back are getting a bit tired - it's been three hours already - and I will have to finish soon.
Last question (I promise.) I also have to leave for an appointment soon, and in case I can't be around to reply immediately to your last answer, I'd like to thank you (webmaster) again for your willingness to speak candidly with me about an issue that is so personal to you. Thanks to STP for providing an invaluable perspective and for a ground-breaking film that will be a big help informing my own work on this subject. Sorry about those sore fingers. If you would like more time to answer this question, please feel free to write tomorrow. Final question:
What is the "effect" on zoophiles of laws against all sex with animals? It would seem that it would drive zoophiles into lives of seclusion and paranoia-driven fear. On the other hand, it's clear to that some zoophiles have no interest in being open about their orientation; I almost get the sense that openness would spoil part of the exhilaration they derive from their relationship with animal(s). Is that possible?
In closing, I realize that we haven't addressed the issues concerning alleged links to pedophilia and the hot topic of consent. But it's only because I've covered those subjects in great detail with the zoos I've interviewed so far, as well as researchers. And my sense is that you'll have a very similar perspective; in case you'd like to give your thoughts on those issues please feel free to do so in your next answer. Thanks again.
WEBMASTER: No problem about the sore fingers. That's part of my activism ;-) I thank you for your work and the chance to share our views and hopefully reach a wider audience.
You are very right about the fact that some love the thought of being subversive and underground, and legalisation would ruin that thrill.
As some of your interviewees ("Jeremy" I think) have mentioned, the Zoo community is certainly not uniform. There are many divergent views. Many fear that fighting for rights will only draw more persecution and legislation. Fair enough...
For us, however, ending up in jail for a loving, romantic relationship is simply unacceptable. And from our experience (seconded by what STP already said in connection with his film) a lot of the bias simply comes out of ignorance about the distinction between abusive and non-abusive relationships. Laziness and ignorance are often the reasons these are lumped together – in legislation and otherwise. I say "often the reason" since many are against any form, either because of belief or because they think their own fetishes are so special...
Most of our abuse and conflicts actually come from other Zoos who either want to stop the Zoo-rights movemnet, or are envious about the attention. A good example can be found on the Wikipedia Zoo Page where you will see that many fans of E.F.A. and COMING SOON tried including it into the article and it is precisely other Zoophiles who block it without any justification. They keep saying that there must be more "reliable sources"... I don't know what can be more reliable than all of the Czech media, TV, radio, print, award at the largest local film festival, Peter Singer, local European Parliament ministers, etc. And the film itself is on the Internet in it entirety, they don't need any sources to see that it exists. This is just an example of some inter-Zoo sabotage. It exists. But the support we've been receiving has FAR outweighed these instances.
STP: I, too thank you for this opportunity and for your kind words about the film. If you have any follow-up questions don't hesitate. The best way to contact me for this is through E.F.A., as I am currently traveling.
WEBMASTER: Ditto. Feel free to ask any other questions. We look forward to your article and all future endeavors.
Please also let us know if there is anything you think we can do to further this cause.
E.F.A. 2 (supplement to previous answer):
WEBMASTER: STP is gone, but I just realized that I didn't answer your last question about Zoo-Pedophilia, etc. You are right in assuming that I agree with Ms. Miletski and many people who have left comments on your Blogs. I also included some additional arguments in one of my previous answers. I think these arguments (equating Zoophilia and Pedophilia) are absurd. Most criminals masturbate, will we outlaw that as well?
Once again, thanks and good luck!