Berlin: Zoophile Rights Day 2014 in Potsdamer Platz (demotix.com)
submitted 2015-01-20 23:49:23 by electricfoxx
SunTzuSaidThat Equines 3 points on 2015-01-21 00:03:50

Those guys (and gals?) have balls of steel for being so public.

My (probably misguided) misgivings about the day and protest aside, I love the "make love not meat" sign and the ZRD banner design. Great stuff.

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 5 points on 2015-01-21 03:17:03

I dont get the make love not meat sign. I mean, I get it, but to me it says you cant be a zoo and also eat meat. I wonder what his opinion of me would be if he knew I eat cheap chicken...?

SunTzuSaidThat Equines 2 points on 2015-01-21 05:02:41

I don't think that was the point, honestly.

I like it because it was a spin on the "make love not war" protest slogan that has floated around for decades. But like you said I can see how it can be taken as a slight.

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 1 point on 2015-01-22 02:23:02

I suppose the other point I can see it making is when it effectively says 'make meat' he is talking about the process of artificial insemination for the meat industry. It does sound a lot less of a dig against meat eaters when perceived this way.

phew! I got some flak from that post!

PonySmoocher Equines! 1 point on 2015-01-21 08:03:19

I like the sign, too. It's a smart pointer to hypocrisy and at the same time plays, as /u/SunTzu uhm said, with known slogans. The other one sign says liberte, egalite, zoosexualite. I guess that's saying how can it be a free and progressive society if the majority starts to ban the minority just on their personal feelings of disgust?

While i don't want to hand out an anything-goes permit, your comment shows that one must accept at some point how there are inevitable clashes. I'd love to not be responsible for any death at all. I have zero control over a cat that decides it can make it over the street in front of me. I greatly reduced my meat consumption as a consequence for me in this regard, but e.g. I drink milk. But I am not judging cheap chicken in any way - we are all sinners... And that's why the antis need to lose their stupid "we are normal" position. ;)

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 1 point on 2015-01-22 02:20:11

I hope there arent going to be full blown clashes over meat eating. I hope people arent going to be splitting hairs over what it means to be a zoo otherwise it'll be a case of "if you eat meat you obviously dont love animals so cant be a 'true zoophile' ". Am I going to have to call myself a... caninephile or something like that because I only really care about dogs?

PonySmoocher Equines! 2 points on 2015-01-22 11:38:55

I eat meat sometimes too. I greatly reduced my consumption when I moved out from my parents house ages ago. I can see why some care about it, but ultimately it shouldn't split us. Even the true zoo vegetarians wear leather or some drink milk etc. A vegan? Hey, he still breaths the air that could have benefited a magnificent deer in the untouched woods if we humans didn't exist. We come from nature and live in it. People discussing on the internet often don't make it there, but at some point you come to the conclusion that life is full of contradictions, and some unresolvable. Such a discussion will thus never end and never go anywhere. All I am still trying for myself is to not be a dick. Since I hope you don't bath your dish in cowblood and flick pieces of steak over to the vegan table in disrespect that this once was an animal, you know... relax.

Although I can really recommend well cooked and spiced tofu or deep fried vegetable/cheese dishes as alternatives to natural meat. You should try those simply because you'd miss out on something. I hope they will soon introduce artificial meat. If you "clone" animal cells in the laboratory and grow an artificial piece of muscle, cut it up, it is just like a normal steak when cooked, but the cow is still alive. That would somewhat solve the discussion actually.

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 1 point on 2015-01-22 17:59:03

I am totally in favour of artificial or cloned meat. I cant see any downsides to it apart from the resulting decreased use of classic meat infrastructure leading to a few problems regarding employment etc.

hard to relax when its me against four :P but yeah i realise people are going to have differing views on this and for the time being we can stick together. Do you think this could change within a larger group of zoos and more allies for both sides? We'll find out in ten years i guess.

PonySmoocher Equines! 1 point on 2015-01-22 18:11:48

Really, just don't be a dick, that's the best you can do. And let's hope for the cloned meat, that would be great for everyone...

although - question is how e.g. cows will develop after that. Draft horses lost their "reason" to exist to the tractor, and it didn't do their numbers well :(

For the humans or infrastructure I don't feel bad, the current agricultural beef farms are more or less pure industry supply chains. Going to "endless" meat that starts on one side of a manufacturing house as cells, and falling out as ready "cloned" steaks from the other side is almost only one step up from how meat is produced now. They'll need about the same number of workers as an automatized stable needs now, and the fields around it will provide the nutrition for the substrate the cells grow in.

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 2 points on 2015-01-22 18:34:36

Really, just don't be a dick, that's the best you can do.

Wait, is this aimed at me or just a general statement?

PonySmoocher Equines! 2 points on 2015-01-22 19:19:25

...that's the best one can do.

You are not a dick. I think you are a nice guy from the fleeting impression I have.

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 2 points on 2015-01-22 19:32:07

heh, you had me questioning myself for a second, i didnt think id written anything dickish!

but yeah thats something everyone should live by really.

zoozooz 1 point on 2015-01-23 09:04:02

A vegan? Hey, he still breaths the air that could have benefited a magnificent deer in the untouched woods if we humans didn't exist.

My problem with these statements is that I don't really know what I'm supposed to get out of them. Is it "Because some field mice and rabbits might be accidentally killed when harvesting crops and vegetables I eat, I might as well support the industry that is set up for the sole reason of fattening and killing animals"? That's not how people think, or is it?

[deleted] 1 point on 2015-01-23 09:05:15

[deleted]

PonySmoocher Equines! 1 point on 2015-01-23 10:00:59

My take-away has long been what I am trying to illustrate: In such discussions it simply depends on where you put the boundaries. Most people put them such that they serve themselves, or such as the world is at the moment as they are used to that state of things as 'normal' with no facts indicating that this is the 'normal normal', or the 'best normal'.

So a vegan could tell me off, as I still eat a little meat now and then. But then - hey, I too have a right to be alive, which necessarily in some way infringes on other beings, as at a bare minimum I take up a little space where someone else could stand.

Then again, that's not handing out the anything-goes card, or giving in to fatalism. As I said, don't be a dick. If someone should start to grow such a belly that his back hurts, it is quite reasonable to say that he eats too much by any standard. And e.g. cutting the meat from the diet then for a year or so would only be beneficial and fairer to all beings else. Or ostentatious waste of meat like for food fights I'd find very wrong also, and it should be obvious why.

But eating a steak now and then, I am not going to tell you off. I screwed up enough during my time on Earth, I am hardly any saint, I am just trying to be good as sheepish me can do and sometimes I fail...

zoozooz 1 point on 2015-01-21 19:16:38

I find it confusing how people can have romantic feelings for some animals and at the same time kill others. A bit like this: http://cdn.onegreenplanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10//2014/08/paweltitle.jpg

If you imagine all the animals you directly paid for to be killed on one big pile, how do you feel about that? Do you think "nice, that's exactly what I want my money to go to"?

That maybe sounded more accusatory than I meant it to be.

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 1 point on 2015-01-22 02:03:07

yeah it sucks, but theres nothing else I can do if i want to keep eating meat. I could just stop - probably not gonna happen, i like the taste and its a good source of protein. I could buy free range - I dont want to spend that amount of percent from my paycheck on food.

I purposely dont think about the shitty conditions theyre raised in because it disgusts me. Ignorance is bliss in my case. How do I feel about the animals? I mostly dont care, because I never knew the animal personally and I dont have an emotional attachment to that species. You wont find me eating dog meat anytime soon.

To me theres a massive difference between food animals and pets/partners.

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 1 point on 2015-01-21 21:21:49

For what it's worth, I had a hard time realising that not all zoophiles were vegetarians. Obviously I have some difficulty with being attracted to a species that most people are sure needs meat, but given that horse flesh got into the UK under the name "beef"… well, meat feels like cannibalism to me, even though I can consciously realise that it doesn't feel that way to meat eaters.

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied. 1 point on 2015-01-22 02:08:37

I dont get why just because I love dogs that means I instantly have to love all animals.

I can see how you'd be wary of eating horse meat beef if you had a connection with horses. I would be the same if we found out 'beef' was actually dog meat. thankfully thats not happened (yet...).

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 1 point on 2015-01-22 19:17:53

That's the conclusion I ended up at once I was able to acknowledge meat-eating zoos.

I started that way because, for me, the entire argument about consent implicitly requires that the species in question is sentient (if they're not sentient, why does it even matter?) I also believe that all sentient life deserves protection against needless death.

Of course, as time has passed, I've realised I have no idea what "sentient" really means, so while meat is still totally icky to me, I can understand why most people are more… complicated?

ThrowwwayGurl 4 points on 2015-01-21 00:20:49

For some reason I want to cringe and hide.

electricfoxx 3 points on 2015-01-21 00:26:52

I'm quite introverted. LGBT pride parades don't appeal to me either. I'm fine with being bisexual. I just couldn't do something like that.

Tundrovyy-Volk Canidae 3 points on 2015-01-21 09:28:57

While I recognise their bravery, I can't shake the notion that it's misguided and misplaced. Despite the laws being as they are, it's usually quite simple (if not easy, there is a difference) for a zoo to carve out their lifestyle with the animals they love and live it undisturbed. I fear that bringing our sexuality into the spotlight will only jeopardise what little we have. We are meek and few by nature; why squander our obscurity?

demsweetdoggykisses Username Explains It All 3 points on 2015-01-21 11:55:40

I came in to say something to this effect. I don't really think zoophilia is going to gain any major benefits from becoming more "mainstream" or whatever the goal of the rally might be.

Some (most) people are just never going to really get zoophilia, and showing it as an organization with kitschy logos of human figures holding hands with some figure with a tail is going to make more people concerned than empathetic, at least in my opinion.

I say this because I know for a fact many people view zoophilia as something akin to pedophilia, and while I don't make this equation at all, I do know if I saw a pedophilia rally with symbols and banners of big people holding hands with little people, I would lose my shit at the blatant "malevolence" and want to drive a truck into the crowd. So I can only imagine how some observers might feel about this attempt at a public display. It certainly raises awareness, but that might not be the best thing yet.

PonySmoocher Equines! 3 points on 2015-01-21 17:20:36

It's never the right time...

Yearningmice Equus 3 points on 2015-01-21 20:05:51

You assume that we could ever reach those people. Gays are still being killed for being gay.

Hiding is only good for you and me. It does nothing for those, like most of us, who are going to try kill themselves because they are hated.

How else are we going to get air time on TV? Change anything? Is it worth changing? To be honest, the law changes in Europe have very little to do with being out or not. If we do not speak we cede the ground to our enemy and they have proven to be able to say ANYTHING to further their cause.

Tundrovyy-Volk Canidae 1 point on 2015-01-21 20:29:18

It does nothing for those, like most of us, who are going to try kill themselves because they are hated.

There's a reason zoophiles have online communities - the internet is a self-esteem godsend. If we were living before it, I'd understand your point, but considering how often we get posts of young zoos thanking us for pulling them back from the edge with our mere existence, I think what we have at the moment is enough.

Yearningmice Equus 3 points on 2015-01-21 22:37:47

Have you talked to them... most are lucky to have found us, and they don't find us by googling, but by coming across those of us who are out.

If you never heard of zoophilia, and google "beastiality" then you ain't going to find most of us. This is why, as the blacks, trans and gays say representation is so important. No one knows of online communities who isn't in one. Almost none are google search enabled and when you do search almost none appear in the listings without knowing what you are looking for.

To say we're off the hook because "the internet" is like saying. We have really good libraries, they could have always searched the card catalogue and found out that the scientific opinion of zoophilia is changing...

The internet is around and zoos are still killing themselves, if you believe otherwise you are operating under a false impression. You could have just said

Tundrovyy-Volk Canidae 2 points on 2015-01-21 23:15:06

It won't stay the way it is though, we should be extending our reach in some way. The first zoos I talked to certainly weren't here. I can't think of a way we can bring about greater exposure online, but I don't see why there can't be a way to do it. The risks involved in doing real-world protests are simply too great in my opinion. If we could do something in the real world that took advantage of our meekness rather than resulting in fighting an uphill two-front war, I'd be interested, but as far as traditional demonstrations go I just don't think they're worth the potential gain.

PonySmoocher Equines! 2 points on 2015-01-22 11:12:41

The last "protest" of this kind went well...

PonySmoocher Equines! 3 points on 2015-01-21 17:17:41

What else could be screwed up, please? Could they make it double-illegal? Double-ban the porn? Will I need to double-hide from then on?

Tundrovyy-Volk Canidae 5 points on 2015-01-21 20:23:08

I fear notoriety. Due to our obscurity, we can make very good use of the power of denial; people will assume many things about us and our animals before they think we we are zoophiles and they are our mates. If we're forced into the public eye, the backlash could be anything but beneficial, and zoos will have to not only hide who they are but manage their perception as well, which is more oppressive and altogether more difficult. I picture widely-judged zoo stereotypes, calls of "that's so zoo!" from every immature schoolyard asshole.

We are not at rock bottom, and I don't want to live to see what that really is.

PonySmoocher Equines! 2 points on 2015-01-21 20:59:47

It is well argued, but I simply disagree from my viewpoint. I don't have more arguments, and what you say also makes sense. But from my perspective, I think we are at rock bottom. And I don't fear that level of notoriety. The day every man walking a dog out is a suspected dogfucker will be the day our society became truly disfunctional by fear, panic and phobia of everything. That guy breathing over there? An AIRSEXUAL OMG...

No but srsly, I understand and respect your argument. It is good, but I experienced one of the most sane governments (lol!) in the world to pull the floor away from underneath me just so. My view is simple there isn't anything to lose left from that experience.

[deleted] 1 point on 2015-01-22 03:57:39

[deleted]

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 2 points on 2015-01-21 21:26:43

I understand your fear. I share it, even, as I'd been hoping to move somewhere where it was legal, but that now looks unlikely.

The thing is, I foresee it being impossible to remain in denial. Universal surveillance, gaze-tracking cameras, thermal imaging to tell if you're aroused when you're looking at a non-human. It's already doable, if perhaps expensive, but given Moore's law and "protect the kids" — someone will do it. If we can't show the world we're good people by then, we're screwed.

Tundrovyy-Volk Canidae 1 point on 2015-01-21 21:59:22

Maybe that's true, but I tend to believe that if we remain unobtrusive as we are by nature, surveillance may simply pass us by until we do something against the governing entity. As was seen in many former states (the DDR comes to mind), widespread state surveillance was used largely to hold power where the stakeholders wanted it. Thus, the government may know you're fucking an animal, but since we'll be seen as insignificant and unpopular, it probably won't concern itself with your prosecution until you say something against it, and then you'll find yourself in prison on bestiality charges.

Edit: it's also worth saying that work we do on the internet can be as valid as rights work in real life, and I think we'll see that even more in coming years.

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 1 point on 2015-01-21 22:34:00

Those are both totally reasonable points.

PonySmoocher Equines! 2 points on 2015-01-22 11:16:01

surveillance may simply pass us by until we do something against the governing entity

That is security by obscurity. If you google that, you'll find masses of people telling you that this never works.

zoozooz 2 points on 2015-01-21 22:42:36

I'm not sure. In germany we have people like http://www.allianz-gegen-zoophilie.eu/index.php?page=kampagne.php google translation who seem to be mostly a reply to the ZETA association here, so it's maybe true.

But looking at Spain, I don't think they have something like that there. If you look at who the press says is behind the law, it's [this COPPA organization](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coppaprevencion.com ) who still are happy to claim that zoos like to rape children and beat women.

Even if we keep being invisible to the public, there is always the occasional sexual animal abuser who gets caught and reported in the press and anti zoo groups will keep presenting those cases as "the zoophiles".

E.g. in germany we had some guy walking around and injuring horses' genitals lately. Allegedly he called himself a "Zoophilist". I still don't think that's a german word and it should be a "Zoophiler", but that's just me. Anyway, people keep posting stuff like this where they first repeat what the press says and then "inform" about zoophilia, in this case saying that zoophiles are animal abusers and sadistic and they have a high risk of assaulting humans too.

I say we shouldn't leave the entire field to these people.

And if you think about it: How hard can it actually be to argue against people who are constantly wrong and misrepresenting their sources?

For example in germany there was an animal welfare officer (a political function) named Madeleine Martin who in 2012 lobbied for making sex with animals illegal. She literally said "By now there are animal brothels in germany". To this day there is no evidence of any animal brothel in germany. Should we say "okay, she made that up, but that's okay, because who cares?" or should we keep asking why it's okay for politicians to not only make arguments that make no sense at all, but to even make up their "facts"?

PonySmoocher Equines! 1 point on 2015-01-22 11:19:33

Zoophilist

I have only seen that coming from the uninformed antis. The correct word is "Zoophiler", as you say. Every time I see "Zoophilist", I realize they hate something they can't even spell correctly, which gives proof how much they know of it. Know what I hate? Communisticians! They ruined Russia forever!! Also they rape children.