It puzzles me that they could approve of something that is likely to lead to children with serious health problems before they could approve of something that does no harm to an animal.
danpetman 4 points on 2014-09-25 01:54:25
Thing is, it's 100% possible to have incestuous sex without there being any increased risk of birth defects. If you use contraception, there's no children to have those defects in the first place. Also, an increased risk of birth defects alone is not grounds to prevent consenting adults having sex, otherwise people with certain genetic disorders wouldn't be allowed to have sex with anyone, regardless of relation.
All that said, I think that making bestiality illegal is pretty silly and has no basis in logical thinking. Most people are just incapable of getting past the consent argument when it comes to sex with animals (although they conveniently ignore it when it comes to a host of other human-animal interactions) but when it comes to incest between consenting adults, that argument simply isn't there, so they have no basis for objection. Still, this decision would tend to indicate a more logical and pragmatic approach to ethics than the typical "eww, gross" and generic moral outrage that you'd typically see in relation to such subjects, so maybe there's hope for zoophiles in Germany after all.
PawwsiesCanines! 2 points on 2014-09-25 02:39:20
Oh yes, that is absolutely true. Let me make myself clear, I am 100% behind making incest legal. I'm just pointing out that them saying “Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo" is hypocritical considering that bestiality was criminalized.
You make a great point in saying that zoophiles in Germany might have a better chance, let's hope ZETA uses this decision as a foothold.
danpetman 3 points on 2014-09-25 02:51:10
Sadly, from what I can tell in the article, the government doesn't actually intend to listen to the ethics committee on this matter, so sibling incest will remain illegal. Looks like my hopes were a little premature; you can always rely on politicians to make the choice that's popular rather than the choice that's correct.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-25 18:56:37
[deleted]
PawwsiesCanines! 1 point on 2014-09-26 05:34:32
That's a shame. I don't think a rational thought ever goes through some people's heads.
danpetman 1 point on 2014-09-26 13:27:13
I don't think some people actually know HOW to have rational thoughts. Critical thinking skills aren't taught nearly enough to kids. So many of them are raised on "it's right because I say it is" and similar ideas; never being encouraged to think for themselves and never given the tools to determine if things are true or not.
PawwsiesCanines! 1 point on 2014-09-27 17:29:19
Being taught critical thinking skills in school is really a roll of the dice, it depends on the teacher you are assigned to and if they really care about their student's future or not.
[deleted] 2 points on 2014-09-28 23:53:12
How can you say this with a straight face? Just like incest done at the wrong time, bestiality done the wrong way can absolutely lead to harm to an animal. Pretty often people approach bestiality with no ethics in mind at all, there are countless examples, which suggests in fact this could be "likely" (love these weasel words) as well.
PawwsiesCanines! 1 point on 2014-09-29 20:40:30
If you will read the rest of my comments, you will see that I clarified that I am 100% in support of legalizing incest. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the act of having sex with someone related to you.
I am not saying that bestiality cannot lead to harm to an animal. If the animal is not willing or not capable of having sex with someone, it will absolutely harm the animal. However, a willing relationship will not harm the animal.
All I was trying to do with this post is point out the hypocrisy of legalizing incest while bestiality was made illegal. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. It would also be nice if you could stop being so hostile in your replies, you come off as very rude.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-29 22:35:25
I just think it's a pretty loaded comparison that implied a little more than you bargained for. It wasn't intended as hostile.
Myoki 1 point on 2014-09-25 03:06:51
As an experienced zoosexual, I don't at first glance understand how incest can be compared to zoophilia.
The common man STILL doesn't believe animals can "consent", and I believe in Germany falls under the "Crime against nature" law, as rape. It's going cross-species, and there's simply not enough people convinced on how an animal can consent, or what constitutes "harm" in that case.
Whereas it's a lot easier for people (and the law in this case) to say "yes, two consenting, human, adult siblings are in an intimate relationship, and that should not be illegal." Namely because the only truly "taboo" thing in that sentence is that they're siblings.
I don't find the pushing of legalized incest to be odd in the slightest; that feels like a progressive step in the right direction. Do I think that affects zoophiles at all? Not in the least.
PawwsiesCanines! 2 points on 2014-09-26 05:30:24
At first glance, no. But it is certainly a step in the right direction to see groups are becoming more accepting of sexual taboos, and that is why I bring this up.
It relates to zoophilia because this shows people might start getting past the notion of "this is gross and therefore should be outlawed". But as you said, consent is still a big problem in your average person's eyes.
Myoki 1 point on 2014-09-26 20:42:48
Mmm, I can see where you're coming from, yeah.
Still, it'll take a miracle, or a breakthrough in inter-species communication for people to start seeing animals as anything more than the 'dumb beasts' they've been familiar with for centuries.
Here's to hoping, I suppose~
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 6 points on 2014-09-25 06:33:29
At least we still have the rationality of the Danish animal ethics council in our favour. I'm sure we'll get on the right side of the Germans eventually - I think I'll write up some sort of generic letter about zoo rights and have it stickied here, so any of you willing to participate can send it to groups/councils that really ought to see our side - watch this space.
Edit: I don't believe that incest should be illegal, nor do I believe it's immoral, and while I don't think it relates beyond association to zoophilia, it's important to realise that increased tolerance of sexuality and sexual activity is bound to be positive for us. That is provided we're not thrown under the bus by the intrafamiliar (?) community to-be as we were by the LGBT community.
PawwsiesCanines! 1 point on 2014-09-26 05:40:22
intrafamiliar (?) community to-be
Who all do you mean by this? The idea of allied communities is an important prospect.
Edit: I know we're talking about people in incestuous relationships, but who else?
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 2 points on 2014-09-26 06:33:54
Those in incestuous relationships and those curious about them, mainly. It was just an example to fill the analogy, so it was to be taken with a grain of salt. ;)
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-29 01:44:46
so any of you willing to participate can send it to groups/councils that really ought to see our side
Could you, like, not do that, thanks?
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 3 points on 2014-09-29 04:07:37
Only if you tell me why I shouldn't. :P
Edit: I decided earlier not to do it anyway. Figured it would seem more sincere if I wrote to them myself and simply posted their replies here, because God knows nobody listens to those generic add name here letters.
[deleted] 0 points on 2014-09-29 04:57:31
Only if you tell me why I shouldn't
Because for this subject there's no such thing as good publicity.
Because where I live there is no apparent active interest in zoophilia, none on the horizon, the last thing it needs would be for someone local to run with your idea and generate some.
Because a defense of dogfucking isn't worth much to anyone coming from a dogfucker, anyway.
Because you're forcing me to hate you
Figured it would seem more sincere
So you want it to stick... Well then, don't forget to sign your name!
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 3 points on 2014-09-29 05:54:23
Your hostility isn't justified. I'm also not able to force you to hate me. If you do, don't vindicate yourself by claiming that it's my doing. I always act in accordance with what I believe to be best for the zoo community - do you really think I have no better use for my time than to send emails to those who'd undoubtedly despise me?
Anything I or others send would only be in response to a piece of anti-zoo leaning media; you are correct that it would be foolish to stir up a fuss when none has been previously instigated, and thus it should be clear that any locale with neither positive nor negative zoo exposure (such as yours) would not be targeted anyway.
What's more, a logical and objective defence for dogfucking is no less valid from a zoo than a non-zoo, and it's fallacious to suggest it is.
I don't want to make an enemy of you, and indeed I have no reason to consider you as one. Please, be rational, and don't make one of me.
Edited for clarity.
[deleted] 0 points on 2014-09-29 07:48:40
I always act in accordance with what I believe to be best for the zoo community
Of course! That's what they all say. And I'm supposed to just believe in your judgment, right?
People have done unspeakable things 'for the good of the zoo community'. Which happens to have been a complete trainwreck, but I digress.
Go forth and represent me, cherished self-appointed leaders!
Anything I or others send would only be in response to a piece of anti-zoo leaning media
It's not as bad with those limits clearly defined but still not a good idea and you can bet someone will take it too far. Leave it alone, please.
What's more, a logical and objective defence for dogfucking is no less valid from a zoo than a non-zoo, and it's fallacious to suggest it is.
It's absolutely frightening to hear that kind of ignorance of how PR goes from people making attempts at PR. Not the first time!!!
This 'hostility' is not directed at you specifically but at anyone getting on a soapbox and amplifying my doubts exactly in this way. It's also an opinion I know I'm not alone in holding, in fact it's definitely not an original, but everyone's too tired or complacent to come and say it. Zoo activist people sure do get around, though! Right to your doorstep.
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 3 points on 2014-09-29 08:28:23
I will hold off for the time being, if only because lecturing those holding irrational and ill-considered opinions usually causes more harm than good.
You have your way, but I may have more respect for you if you were to drop the mocking sarcasm. Your opinions are clearly well-considered, but you don't need to be unpleasant while you express them, especially not to those to whom you've never spoken. Civility is possible in debate, even if you resent those you oppose.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-29 09:03:36
I can no longer have any respect for those typicals who would engage in zoo activism. Not long ago I had no strong feelings but that was because I hadn't considered it deeply enough and its possible implications to me, animals I own and would have liked to own (as well as their own!). Now I find it hard to forget their arrogance.
You maintain this zoo reddit impartially, which is perfect (in fact, better than some others who take on 'zoo' in their URL and impose themselves in other ways), for zoos and people looking up zoophilia by themselves. But when it crosses into activism-PR, you take on another role.
I'm sorry in the sense that some of this wasn't meant for you personally. I addressed a post or two to you elsewhere but not under this name.
danpetman 2 points on 2014-09-29 11:40:57
Not trying to throw my hat into the ring here or anything, just an honest question, but could you explain your comment that people "have done unspeakable things 'for the good of the zoo community'. Which happens to have been a complete trainwreck"? I'm not aware of any such stuff (which isn't to say that it didn't happen, of course).
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-29 15:06:24
For the first part, there've been types who've enforced their idea(lism)s through outings and holding communities hostage; older guys could recall these tales more in depth for you. The second, you have to look at the histories/origins - and/or current state/policies - of beastforum.com, zetaforum.com, zoophilesforum.com, zoobb.com. If you talk to others there's a 50% chance they'd blame it all on Doug Spink, but to an objective observer they were/are all a bunch of self-appointed craptastic leaders with terrible ideas on how to run things, easily perpetuated because everyone's standards tend to be based on "at least we're not beastforum", which is like saying, "at least I'm not Hitler". You might find some old threads on those forums where they haven't swept them under the rug, old members who recall, and a few things on google here and there.
danpetman 2 points on 2014-09-29 15:31:36
I'm a bit confused how outing people could be considered "for the good of the zoo community" by anyone. Who did that, and when? As for those various forums, Beastforum is and always has been a commercial enterprise. It's always been about selling porn and collecting user-uploaded content, so I'd hesitate to call it part of the zoo community per se. You seem to be a bit cryptic about the other sites, too. I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to be seeing as far as their "current state/policies," or what Doug Spink has to do with anything. They all just seem like low-traffic zoo-themed forums, similar to a hundred other seldom-visited boards on various topics across the web. I'd hardly call low posting numbers "a trainwreck," especially in the context of the zoo community as a whole. I'm just trying to understand your comments here, since they seem pretty impassioned, but I'm not seeing anything to get worked up about.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-29 21:59:13
I'm a bit confused how outing people could be considered "for the good of the zoo community" by anyone
Even today you'll find the occasional standout damning the 'zoo pledge' and implying 'true zoos' should help out 'bestialists' because that would legitimize 'true zoos' in the public's eye.
It's always been about selling porn and collecting user-uploaded content, so I'd hesitate to call it part of the zoo community per se.
Pretty much every zoo has been exposed to that site or spent time on it. Despite being overblown it's still the largest and longest-running forum and has influenced everyone for over 10 years. A number of 'real' zoophiles choose to remain on it (that's not always a point to knock them on though) and it's the main portal for newbies. Now, turn on the news...
or what Doug Spink has to do with anything
He was part of their histories. Now invoking his name is taboo. Here's a few tidbits from his POV (warning, don't link this among zoos, it'll cost you points, and take with heavy grains of salt): http://cultureghost.net/viewforum.php?f=27
You seem to be a bit cryptic about the other sites, too. I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to be seeing as far as their "current state/policies," [...] They all just seem like low-traffic zoo-themed forums, similar to a hundred other seldom-visited boards on various topics across the web
That might be what they seem like now at first glance. zetaforum was the biggest beastforum alternative. It ended up being one blunder after another. Since its death much of the userbase moved onto zoophilesforum and zoobb. (People on) zoobb had some decent ideas but buried themselves in obscurity and terrible modding. Now zoophilesforum is seemingly the second-biggest. They tend to sweep things under the rug, so it looks cleaner than it is, but it's full of kindergartener thinking, setup and history, and these are the places that end up implicitly and intentionally representing zoophiles. Only so many words here.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-30 20:33:12
In case you needed a more positive spin on that: in contrast to those, this zoo reddit is straightforward and looks fine to me (so far). I'm just here to say: don't fuck it up, lol
[deleted] 2 points on 2014-09-25 18:55:05
Yeah, I posted somewhere that OBVIOUSLY there is an INVERSE slippery slope at work: As soon as you ban sex with animals, brothers and sister will marry each other!!!
Now we should broadcast that for a while in the wake of this newsstory, and see some conservative heads explode!! :)
/r/zoophilia archive
It puzzles me that they could approve of something that is likely to lead to children with serious health problems before they could approve of something that does no harm to an animal.
Thing is, it's 100% possible to have incestuous sex without there being any increased risk of birth defects. If you use contraception, there's no children to have those defects in the first place. Also, an increased risk of birth defects alone is not grounds to prevent consenting adults having sex, otherwise people with certain genetic disorders wouldn't be allowed to have sex with anyone, regardless of relation.
All that said, I think that making bestiality illegal is pretty silly and has no basis in logical thinking. Most people are just incapable of getting past the consent argument when it comes to sex with animals (although they conveniently ignore it when it comes to a host of other human-animal interactions) but when it comes to incest between consenting adults, that argument simply isn't there, so they have no basis for objection. Still, this decision would tend to indicate a more logical and pragmatic approach to ethics than the typical "eww, gross" and generic moral outrage that you'd typically see in relation to such subjects, so maybe there's hope for zoophiles in Germany after all.
Oh yes, that is absolutely true. Let me make myself clear, I am 100% behind making incest legal. I'm just pointing out that them saying “Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo" is hypocritical considering that bestiality was criminalized.
You make a great point in saying that zoophiles in Germany might have a better chance, let's hope ZETA uses this decision as a foothold.
Sadly, from what I can tell in the article, the government doesn't actually intend to listen to the ethics committee on this matter, so sibling incest will remain illegal. Looks like my hopes were a little premature; you can always rely on politicians to make the choice that's popular rather than the choice that's correct.
[deleted]
That's a shame. I don't think a rational thought ever goes through some people's heads.
I don't think some people actually know HOW to have rational thoughts. Critical thinking skills aren't taught nearly enough to kids. So many of them are raised on "it's right because I say it is" and similar ideas; never being encouraged to think for themselves and never given the tools to determine if things are true or not.
Being taught critical thinking skills in school is really a roll of the dice, it depends on the teacher you are assigned to and if they really care about their student's future or not.
How can you say this with a straight face? Just like incest done at the wrong time, bestiality done the wrong way can absolutely lead to harm to an animal. Pretty often people approach bestiality with no ethics in mind at all, there are countless examples, which suggests in fact this could be "likely" (love these weasel words) as well.
If you will read the rest of my comments, you will see that I clarified that I am 100% in support of legalizing incest. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the act of having sex with someone related to you.
I am not saying that bestiality cannot lead to harm to an animal. If the animal is not willing or not capable of having sex with someone, it will absolutely harm the animal. However, a willing relationship will not harm the animal.
All I was trying to do with this post is point out the hypocrisy of legalizing incest while bestiality was made illegal. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. It would also be nice if you could stop being so hostile in your replies, you come off as very rude.
I just think it's a pretty loaded comparison that implied a little more than you bargained for. It wasn't intended as hostile.
As an experienced zoosexual, I don't at first glance understand how incest can be compared to zoophilia.
The common man STILL doesn't believe animals can "consent", and I believe in Germany falls under the "Crime against nature" law, as rape. It's going cross-species, and there's simply not enough people convinced on how an animal can consent, or what constitutes "harm" in that case.
Whereas it's a lot easier for people (and the law in this case) to say "yes, two consenting, human, adult siblings are in an intimate relationship, and that should not be illegal." Namely because the only truly "taboo" thing in that sentence is that they're siblings.
I don't find the pushing of legalized incest to be odd in the slightest; that feels like a progressive step in the right direction. Do I think that affects zoophiles at all? Not in the least.
At first glance, no. But it is certainly a step in the right direction to see groups are becoming more accepting of sexual taboos, and that is why I bring this up.
It relates to zoophilia because this shows people might start getting past the notion of "this is gross and therefore should be outlawed". But as you said, consent is still a big problem in your average person's eyes.
Mmm, I can see where you're coming from, yeah.
Still, it'll take a miracle, or a breakthrough in inter-species communication for people to start seeing animals as anything more than the 'dumb beasts' they've been familiar with for centuries.
Here's to hoping, I suppose~
At least we still have the rationality of the Danish animal ethics council in our favour. I'm sure we'll get on the right side of the Germans eventually - I think I'll write up some sort of generic letter about zoo rights and have it stickied here, so any of you willing to participate can send it to groups/councils that really ought to see our side - watch this space.
Edit: I don't believe that incest should be illegal, nor do I believe it's immoral, and while I don't think it relates beyond association to zoophilia, it's important to realise that increased tolerance of sexuality and sexual activity is bound to be positive for us. That is provided we're not thrown under the bus by the intrafamiliar (?) community to-be as we were by the LGBT community.
Who all do you mean by this? The idea of allied communities is an important prospect.
Edit: I know we're talking about people in incestuous relationships, but who else?
Those in incestuous relationships and those curious about them, mainly. It was just an example to fill the analogy, so it was to be taken with a grain of salt. ;)
Could you, like, not do that, thanks?
Only if you tell me why I shouldn't. :P
Edit: I decided earlier not to do it anyway. Figured it would seem more sincere if I wrote to them myself and simply posted their replies here, because God knows nobody listens to those generic add name here letters.
Because for this subject there's no such thing as good publicity.
Because where I live there is no apparent active interest in zoophilia, none on the horizon, the last thing it needs would be for someone local to run with your idea and generate some.
Because a defense of dogfucking isn't worth much to anyone coming from a dogfucker, anyway.
Because you're forcing me to hate you
So you want it to stick... Well then, don't forget to sign your name!
Your hostility isn't justified. I'm also not able to force you to hate me. If you do, don't vindicate yourself by claiming that it's my doing. I always act in accordance with what I believe to be best for the zoo community - do you really think I have no better use for my time than to send emails to those who'd undoubtedly despise me?
Anything I or others send would only be in response to a piece of anti-zoo leaning media; you are correct that it would be foolish to stir up a fuss when none has been previously instigated, and thus it should be clear that any locale with neither positive nor negative zoo exposure (such as yours) would not be targeted anyway.
What's more, a logical and objective defence for dogfucking is no less valid from a zoo than a non-zoo, and it's fallacious to suggest it is.
I don't want to make an enemy of you, and indeed I have no reason to consider you as one. Please, be rational, and don't make one of me.
Edited for clarity.
Of course! That's what they all say. And I'm supposed to just believe in your judgment, right?
People have done unspeakable things 'for the good of the zoo community'. Which happens to have been a complete trainwreck, but I digress.
Go forth and represent me, cherished self-appointed leaders!
It's not as bad with those limits clearly defined but still not a good idea and you can bet someone will take it too far. Leave it alone, please.
It's absolutely frightening to hear that kind of ignorance of how PR goes from people making attempts at PR. Not the first time!!!
This 'hostility' is not directed at you specifically but at anyone getting on a soapbox and amplifying my doubts exactly in this way. It's also an opinion I know I'm not alone in holding, in fact it's definitely not an original, but everyone's too tired or complacent to come and say it. Zoo activist people sure do get around, though! Right to your doorstep.
I will hold off for the time being, if only because lecturing those holding irrational and ill-considered opinions usually causes more harm than good.
You have your way, but I may have more respect for you if you were to drop the mocking sarcasm. Your opinions are clearly well-considered, but you don't need to be unpleasant while you express them, especially not to those to whom you've never spoken. Civility is possible in debate, even if you resent those you oppose.
I can no longer have any respect for those typicals who would engage in zoo activism. Not long ago I had no strong feelings but that was because I hadn't considered it deeply enough and its possible implications to me, animals I own and would have liked to own (as well as their own!). Now I find it hard to forget their arrogance.
You maintain this zoo reddit impartially, which is perfect (in fact, better than some others who take on 'zoo' in their URL and impose themselves in other ways), for zoos and people looking up zoophilia by themselves. But when it crosses into activism-PR, you take on another role.
I'm sorry in the sense that some of this wasn't meant for you personally. I addressed a post or two to you elsewhere but not under this name.
Not trying to throw my hat into the ring here or anything, just an honest question, but could you explain your comment that people "have done unspeakable things 'for the good of the zoo community'. Which happens to have been a complete trainwreck"? I'm not aware of any such stuff (which isn't to say that it didn't happen, of course).
For the first part, there've been types who've enforced their idea(lism)s through outings and holding communities hostage; older guys could recall these tales more in depth for you. The second, you have to look at the histories/origins - and/or current state/policies - of beastforum.com, zetaforum.com, zoophilesforum.com, zoobb.com. If you talk to others there's a 50% chance they'd blame it all on Doug Spink, but to an objective observer they were/are all a bunch of self-appointed craptastic leaders with terrible ideas on how to run things, easily perpetuated because everyone's standards tend to be based on "at least we're not beastforum", which is like saying, "at least I'm not Hitler". You might find some old threads on those forums where they haven't swept them under the rug, old members who recall, and a few things on google here and there.
I'm a bit confused how outing people could be considered "for the good of the zoo community" by anyone. Who did that, and when? As for those various forums, Beastforum is and always has been a commercial enterprise. It's always been about selling porn and collecting user-uploaded content, so I'd hesitate to call it part of the zoo community per se. You seem to be a bit cryptic about the other sites, too. I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to be seeing as far as their "current state/policies," or what Doug Spink has to do with anything. They all just seem like low-traffic zoo-themed forums, similar to a hundred other seldom-visited boards on various topics across the web. I'd hardly call low posting numbers "a trainwreck," especially in the context of the zoo community as a whole. I'm just trying to understand your comments here, since they seem pretty impassioned, but I'm not seeing anything to get worked up about.
Even today you'll find the occasional standout damning the 'zoo pledge' and implying 'true zoos' should help out 'bestialists' because that would legitimize 'true zoos' in the public's eye.
Pretty much every zoo has been exposed to that site or spent time on it. Despite being overblown it's still the largest and longest-running forum and has influenced everyone for over 10 years. A number of 'real' zoophiles choose to remain on it (that's not always a point to knock them on though) and it's the main portal for newbies. Now, turn on the news...
He was part of their histories. Now invoking his name is taboo. Here's a few tidbits from his POV (warning, don't link this among zoos, it'll cost you points, and take with heavy grains of salt): http://cultureghost.net/viewforum.php?f=27
That might be what they seem like now at first glance. zetaforum was the biggest beastforum alternative. It ended up being one blunder after another. Since its death much of the userbase moved onto zoophilesforum and zoobb. (People on) zoobb had some decent ideas but buried themselves in obscurity and terrible modding. Now zoophilesforum is seemingly the second-biggest. They tend to sweep things under the rug, so it looks cleaner than it is, but it's full of kindergartener thinking, setup and history, and these are the places that end up implicitly and intentionally representing zoophiles. Only so many words here.
In case you needed a more positive spin on that: in contrast to those, this zoo reddit is straightforward and looks fine to me (so far). I'm just here to say: don't fuck it up, lol
Yeah, I posted somewhere that OBVIOUSLY there is an INVERSE slippery slope at work: As soon as you ban sex with animals, brothers and sister will marry each other!!!
Now we should broadcast that for a while in the wake of this newsstory, and see some conservative heads explode!! :)