Man Accused Of Sex With Dog And Horse
“A man faces a trial next week on charges that he had sex with a young neighbor’s dog and horse. John Coppes was arrested Dec. 13 in his neighbor’s horse pen. A 13-year-old girl said she saw Coppes with her Anatolian shepherd. Coppes is also charged with abusing the girl’s small Palomino horse. The bestiality charges each carry up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. If convicted, Coppes would not have to register as a sex offender. The 25-year-old from Polk County is free on bond but has been ordered to stay away from his neighbor and her animals. He also faces a criminal trespass charge. He had faced a public sexual indecency charge but Arkansas law requires the participation of two humans for a conviction.” — WIVB (US)
Mr Coppes has pled guilty to these charges and has been “expelled” from Polk County. Here is his picture. He’s tall and thin with a lightly scarred complexion and prominent cheekbones. There is something effeminate about the prim way he holds that placard. It makes you imagine he would be very gentle with his animal lovers… Do you think he looks like a “typical” bestialist? Is there such a thing? Come to think of it, that would make for a fascinating project — a catalogue of the faces of sex criminals, organized according to perversion.
When you first read about Mr Coppes’ dirty deeds, an obvious thing leaps out at you — he had sex with two different species of animals. It makes you realize, all in a flash, that the vast bulk of the bestialists you encounter in the news are relative monogamists, or monobestialists. Their thing is dogs, or horses, or sheep, and that’s what they end up getting in trouble for — that one thing. Is Mr Coppes the bestialist equivalent of bisexual? Do bestialists usually prefer one species of animal? Or is anything with fur and an orifice fair game? Is the choice of mate usually dictated by circumstance? Or do bestialists come to prefer certain species the same way, say, gentlemen prefer blondes?
Well, there is some reason to suspect this delicate-looking fellow does prefer blondes–the palomino soeaks to that. Oh dear. There are certainly questions to be answered here. My off-the-cuff response to the species favortism question is: any port in a storm. But I dare say the matter is more than hide-deep. Presumably there are levels of risk/resistance involved too as one jumps the species barrier in various directions. Hmmmmn. Boggling. Superb idea on the face catalog.
I wonder if Major social maladjustment plays a strong role with this kind of human behavior.
Greg, I’d say more than likely.
Too socially awkward to get a date? Get a dog.
EWWWWW.
Stories like this are why I never let me dog outside without her leash. It’s enough to give me nightmares.
Trespasser, bestialists, most certainly not a zoophile, just an opportunist bestialist…
The only bestialists you see in the news, are opportunists, because they do their acts in a public way.
There is one case a day per state of the US of A, and European country, of bestiality/zoophilia/zoosadism, though this is believed to be a small fraction compared to the hidden lifestyles of zoosexuals, daily ‘offending’ (if you like to call it that), worldwide. If you come to think of it, that’s an awful lot of zoosexuals, isn’t it? Barely none repeat the ‘offense’, because they all are prevented from owning another animal again, which is the law in most countries; so they are all new.
Most of these so called ‘bestialists’ (which could be ‘bestialist’, ‘zoophilia’, or ‘zoosadist’; the correct term is ‘zoosexuality’ in general), select only one species, because that’s what they’re attracted to / able to access.
To me, this man seems to be a desperate, coercive, and/or opportunist, who has decided to go for multiple species, and rape them (brutally or not), for self-satisfactional purposes, only.
Obviously he likes the feel from horses and dogs, too.
He may have been a plain and simple, fance-hopper (which is classified as bestiality), or he could have shown force/harm/cruelty towards the two different species of animal, he had sex with.
There may have been multiple reasons as to why he chose to have sex with those animals, or any animals at all.
If it was out of desperation or coercion, who’s to say he won’t turn to raping other species, or even humans?
I don’t think his eyes necessarily shone for those two species, selectively, but more to the fact he had an open opportunity to have sex with animals/something. That’s why he resorted to both, rather than a subject he actually ‘fancied’; which means he could always have also resorted to (but not necessarily ‘liked’) humans, whether it be by (brutal) rape or not.
He may have (being so close) had a ‘zoophilic’, yet ‘bestialist’ relationship with ‘next door’s animals’.
He may have just liked dogs and horses, bestialist or not.
Who’s to say the girl wasn’t telling the truth, or not, either?
I think it is quite easy to say, that someone who disgusts you, has had sex with an animal, as a lie to get others to be disgusted about you, isn’t it? Whether that be that be the unlikely case, or not, is a different matter.
Most zoosexuals pick only one species, and concentrate their lives around that.
However, zoophile communities often convince other members to try the other member’s animal.
Because the zoophile communities are full of horse and dog lovers, rather than any other species (perhaps the availability?), they tend to convince each other to experience other species, and this most often or not, results in the ‘dog’ and ‘horse’ bestialist/zoophile/zoosadist.
A true zoophile wouldn’t vary between species or persons (as in the subjected animals, not just humans) at that, because they have an emotional attachment to one, and hence are monozoophiles (however, like in human-human relationships, polygamy does exist (especially in cheating)).
There are a few zoophiles, that are near enough ‘true lovers’, and in a way, ‘are’, but they have two to several lovers. The less mates there are, the more true love exists. That’s why we don’t tend to call ‘polygamous’ ‘zoophilic’ relationships ‘bestialist’, because having more than one, may lead to all for sex, and only some for love, etc, hence ‘bestiality’ make take place, also. In some human traditions, and even in nature, this is considered ‘natural’ and ‘right’.
So for the record, this is what this man is:
“A fence-hopping, polygamous, multi-specific bestialist.”
…To be short.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Nothing wrong with beastiality. He should have just gotten his own dog/horse.
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Jailbait