These guidelines are created with the purposed of preventing abuse and uncertainty on the subject of zoophilia, they are not a finished document. When referring to both parties I talk about both the rational and the non-rational party. Biological adult, means an organism with at least the minimal age considered to be safe for a specific sexual practice. Macro-multicellular organism is defined as an multicellular organism, with such characteristics, that a sexual practice upon such organism from the part of the rational party, to be of some sort of contingency when it regards welfare; any organism outside of this class is free game (like amoebas). When the term non-rational party is used, it is understood to mean a macro-multicellular organism that lacks the capacity to reason their decisions the rational party is the same, but it can reason (compare risk vs reward) their decisions.
First. It is understood that the conservation of live and integrity of a macro-multicellular organism, outweighs our sexual urges. Therefore our practices should never result in some kind of physical or mental trauma, or kill one or both of the parties.
Second. Under first, the rational party has the right to be aware of any possible STI spread, and it is extremely recommended that they take the pertinent precautions, like testing for STI's on the non-rational party, and wearing the pertaining protections, on the respective orifices or genitals.
Third. Under first, it is understood that intercourse that implies a penetration either complete or partial from either party, that includes the head, the torso or the whole body, through any orifice, it's not permitted, due to the high risk of suffocation or accidental swallowing in the case of the mouth.
Fourth. It is understood that as long as the two parties of different species involved, can communicate with each other, they can understand the risks associated with the practice, they share a sense of responsibility and empathy, and both parties can be considered biological adults, then such a relationship could be understood as consenting adults, so no specials limitations beyond the existing or previous ones have to be applied (this may exclude second).
Fifth. In the case that one of the parties can consent like a responsible biological adult, but the second party cannot (non-rational party), then such relationships could be understood to fall under zoophilia, and therefore the next limitations apply.
Sixth. The rational party always has to be a consenting, biological adult.
Seventh. It is understood that the non rational party cannot be held accountable for abuse, in case it fails to comply with previous or later points. But such an incident can fall under the responsibility, of the possible owner of such party.
Eighth. In case of abuse from the part of the rational party (failing to comply with the guidelines), then such party must always be held accountable, either to the owner of the non rational party and/or to the justice system directly.
Ninth. Under first, it is understood that both parties are not allowed to go ahead with penetration, if the respective phallic genitals or toys are either too thick, long or spiked, or the respective orifices are too tight, sensitive or contain sharp teeth, for it to not produce harm to the non-rational party, if the harm is exclusive to the rational party, then such party has the right to be aware of each respective risk.
Tenth. Under first, it is understood that both parties cannot go ahead, if there is a big risk one of the parties can be crushed or suffocated, due to the weight difference between them.
Eleventh. Under first, third, eighth and tenth, it is important that non of the parties are ever on a situation, where one or both of them can drown easily (like a human underwater without a mask).
Twelfth. Under third, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh, the rational party is responsible for making sure that both him/her and the non rational party, can withdraw from the act at any moment, in a safe and easy manner. In case the physiology of at least one of the parties impedes immediate withdrawal, then it is considered imperative the rational party is made aware of such a risk, so that it make take the proper preparations, as long it does not contradict first.
Thirteenth. Under first, third, eighth, eleventh and twelfth, if the non rational party shows clear signs of pain or discomfort, then the rational must withdraw immediately.
Fourteenth. Under first, third, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth, in the case the rational party wants to withdraw, it is extremely recommended a third consenting rational party is present, in order to help the process (the same applies for thirteenth).
Fifteenth. Under first and eighth, it is understood that the parties are not allowed to go on without bounds on their actions, if it has been demonstrated that some of such practices, result on negative long term effects for the non rational party.
Sixteenth. (Just to be thorough) Under all of the above, in the case that descent is achieved, either purposely or accidentally, then the rational party, is always assumed to be responsible for such offspring and his wellbeing.
Seventeenth. Under seventh, if two non-rational parties of different or the same species are ever caught in intercourse, then no direct intervention should be taken, unless the species is endangered and it may die or get injured as a result (then it may be a good idea to intervene), or at least one of the parties is owned by a rational party (since the owner(s) are responsible for whatever the results of such actions may be, they therefore have the right to intervene, if the party believes harm or undesirable offspring would result). Such interventions have to respect first, second, third, fourth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, thirteen, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth, just replacing "rational party", with "rational party, owner of non rational party". If the owner of the non-rational party was victim of another non rational party that is owned by another rational party, then such individual must be held accountable (again under seventh).
Eighteenth. Under eighth, if a third party is a witness of intercourse between a rational and a non rational party, then such party has the right to report a possible case of abuse.
Nineteenth. Under all of the above, in the case of ego dystonic zoophilia (may also include attraction to another rational party of different species), meaning undesirable zoophilia from the part of the afflicted rational party, then such party has the right to seek help, and be protected under medic-patient secrecy; the focus of such therapies either being of self-acceptance or reversal, is left better under the discretion of both medic and patient.
Twentieth and final. Public discourse about zoophilia is protected the same as any other expression. Direct depictions of zoophilia are under the same jurisdictions as porn, and therefore the same laws apply (except for classical works of art). It is understood that the free expression, should not be used as an instrument of proselytism, or any form of negative discrimination from any party.
Sixteenth leaves a lot of gray areas and maybe I will revisit it later. These guidelines only cover one on one action, including more than two parties adds a lot of complexity, but maybe I am overestimating the problem.
Please leave your feedback below, remember this was written from the perspective of a non-zoophile.
I quickly skimmed over them and I don't really have complaints, though I don't quite believe in having a "rule book" for ones sexuality. Luckily, these are guidelines of which I agree upon. Im quite surprised a non-zoophile wrote these; seems to me that person is very secular and open-minded.
Why is having a sex rule book such a bad thing? btw I edited them to add two more points.
I wouldn't want to be told how to live my life based on ones rules. Though, I completely agree with the guide lines, a sexual rule books would most likely not completely reach out to all. Im not saying that you shouldn't care for the welfare of both in said action, im saying restrictions are sometimes bad.
Yeah, but if we want the zoophiles to be free to practice, they need a legal framework that respect the desires of welfare of both parties; we don't want anarchy.
I see what you mean. I was a little confused for some reason. I now agree with you.
Alright, but let's be real; If interspecies sexual activity is ever regulated, your forum-written list of rules isn't going to be the final word.
Your post comes off as preachy and controlling.
Yeah, because nothing says preachy like proposed and guidelines
Uh, yeah, pretty much.
Guidelines? Seriously. Stay out of people's business.
According to wikipedia: A guideline is a statement by which to determine a course of action. A guideline aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine or sound practice. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory. Guidelines are not binding and are not enforced.
If you wanted me to stay out of your business, then maybe you should have considered you would encounter people who disagree with you, on a site of free discussion.
I do not even understand your anger. I don't want dogs to be raped, neither do you. Why is the mere presence of an outside opinion suddenly seem so invasive to you?
Frankly, I don't give a damn anymore.
What part of my language ever said that I intended them to be a final word, or to be imposed upon? You really seem to be on the defensive here.
Curious if you have written up such a thing for heterosexual sex and why you feel that is not needed if not?
You also strongly remind me of a user who just left in a flounce with an 11 in his name. Crazy buggernut he often was.
To be completely honest your rules seem like a farce. Overly wordy in a way that makes them unbelievable. Poorly researched and thought out. Impractical in many areas and unduly restrictive of casual sex on some false moral premise. edit: way too many typos. :)
All I'm saying, is that the law should apply differently for intercourse of species, who can't reason their decision.
All I am saying is that there is already a law in place to prevent cruelty, which is pretty much all your 20 laws propose to do. You have assumed that non-verbal communication can't happen, that animals are unreasoning, that sex is in and of itself a damaging action to an animal. In short, you are judging animals in an anthropomorphic way.
I'm curious why you are so concerned with us, have you tried posting similar rules in the farmers subs where you would help many more animals to begin with? What about the pet owners who are pretty much oblivious to their animals distress? Thought up some rules for them?
Yes actually, I can post them if you want.
Curious how you were received there? Feel free to link em.
I'm sorry, I thought you meant if I was thinking on doing it. I am thinking of posting such a thing, I just though it would be better to start here, but I might change my mind, if I would find such non civil opinions.
Animals cannot reason the same as us, if you can demonstrate the contrary, you might as well be recognized with an equivalent to a Nobel prize.
At no point, did I state that non verbal communication with another species is impossible, I stated that it is insufficient.
Many animal cruelty laws define zoophilia as a crime, care to present a counterexample?
Thank you very much, I was never called secular or open minded, those are complements to me. :)
Im surprised. These are some really well put together guide lines.
Basically, don't be an asshole.
Got it.
"Asshole" is a very broad term.
Thus don't be an asshole covers all the issues ;)
It also cover many issues you might not disagree with, because the term asshole is broad, but not because it covers too much, but because people cannot agree on what it means.
Interesting... I think this list could be condensed and shortened somewhat (not taking away any of the meaning, just some of the redundancies, like the separation of drowning and crushing risks into different items). This is excellent for ideal cases, and for most practical ones as well.
One small quibble, however: the twelfth one is physically impossible in many cases with a male dog as the penetrating partner. The reason for this is that male canids have a gland at the base of the penis (we call it a "knot") which expands during sex and in effect ties the two lovers together for a little while during and after. This doesn't happen in all cases (and this is the reason to be careful the first time a rational party does this), but after that, it is very difficult for the two to separate usually. Of course, if that happens, except in weird extreme circumstances (some horrible porn) the canid clearly wants it to continue. The other party might not like it (though hopefully they understand that might happen beforehand), but it's too late after that. Also, you used "him" to describe the rational party (though that's the only place where gender seems to make an explicit appearance). I might phrase the twelfth like this, to cover that case:
"Twelfth. Under third, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh, the rational party is responsible for making sure that both they and the non rational party can withdraw from the act at any moment which would be possible within the non rational party's species, in a safe and easy manner."
P.S. This set of guidelines seems to be an expansion upon some of the Zeta principles. Those general rules seem to be well-regarded around here.
Ok I get it, I just like to be thorough like that.
I expanded nine and twelfth. In my opinion, if it's a possibility for the intercourse to make one of the parties not being able to withdraw (like your example), it violates twelfth.
Maybe think of a mechanism that overrides the penis getting stuck, like surgical removal of the knot, anal or vaginal sheaths for easy lubrication, or some kind of binding that prevents the expansion. Any alternative must not contradict what we have already established.
If the purpose of these guidelines is to prevent abuse, then how is surgically altering your dog doing anything to further that cause? Esepcially under the first principle you laid out, that no harm should come to animal partners. This is flagrantly contradictory to your own set of "rules".
They were possibilities, in the same line I said that it shouldn't compromise welfare themselves.
Honestly, as many people have said below, the knot is indeed just a part of sex with a male canine. Appropriate measures should be taken to engage in sexual activity in a safe and responsible manner, but surgically removing the knot, removing the sheath or binding the penis is neither of those. Not being able to disengage sexual contact immediately has nothing to do with abusive behavior, its simply a reality of being tied with a canine.
I never mentionerd removing the sheat, I suggested to have an special sheat on the rectum or vagina so withdrawl is not impossible, I also suggested some kind of binding of the knot, but you could argue that is abussive too, maybe make it so that the dog can only penetrate you to a certain lenght.
Why do you consider the inability to stop quickly abusive anyway?
It is simply something I consider innate, a human right perhaps. If you can guarantee that everytime when the knot makes the penis stuck, it won't result in any further harm, then I'm with you.
Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but what about priapism, penile fracture, or simply being unprepared for the feelings it may entail?
Well, dogs are pretty aware of their own bodies I would say, so being unprepared for it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also, being able to disengage quickly from sex isnt a right, it just happens to be something that is an option to human partners. When dogs mate naturally they stay tied for quite a bit and this isn't considered abuse.
Really? I am genuinely curious, do male dogs ever use their knots as a form of subversion?
When I said unprepared I meant the human, maybe we can reach a compromise from my side after all.
I repeat myself: what about priapism and penile fracture?
Priapism is the state of being erect for extended periods of time, unless youre feeding your dog viagra i dont think thats gonna happen, and unless youre riding your dog theres no way hes gonna break his penis.
I want to believe you, can you give me more security? priapism can be accidental and penile fracture does not even require for you to assume another posture, it just needs very vigorous thrusting, if a dog penis and a human anus (or vagina) combination, greatly increases such risks, then I am still unmoved.
In any case, priapism is not caused by human interference. anus does not increase risk of penile fracture. dogs have an actual bone in their penis, it'll hurt a lot more if he misses for us.
So the dog would make sure not to miss, and a dog isn't at any more risk if it's doing it with a human?
I am still curious, are there postures that are more safe than others?
It's something to work out but your blanket statements dont do you any good
What blanket statements?
in your guidelines you make a lot of statements that assume every scenario possible is abusive. such as #12 when you assume that because you cannot back out it is therefore always abusive.
That is what I'm trying to understand. But I am just curious here, does a dog force sex onto other dogs, does the knot play a role?
its purely a reaction to stimulation, not a weapon to force anything.
Ok fair enough, I shall edit the twelfth statement, anything else?
nope.
It has been edited. Thank you very much!
What are blanket statements.
Wow.... I stand by my crazy comment... let's cut things off the animal to make it fit your "laws"
You really seem to have missed the rest of the discussion, may I invite you to revisit?
No thanks, i've seen plenty.
I do not agree with those principles, they are too broad, and promote censorship instead of direct attack.
The only part I would like to borrow, is the part that says that information about zoophilia should be available but the practice should not be promoted as something superior or special.
Do you really want the act of Inter-special sex to be dead set scripted?
What is that, and why asking for non vague legislation a bad thing?
Sex involving two different species( I think I typed it wrong, my bad). Im not saying non-vague is bad, its just that I think that it should be up to the discretion of both parties.
Oh, I though you meant an actual proposed law, my bad.
It's not about it being set scripted, it's about reducing the possibilities for abuse, let's say you live on a place of the world where zoophilia is legal but sexual abuse isn't.
If you want to report a case of someone clearly raping a dog, then the law maybe vague enough, so that dog sex cannot be considered rape under any circumstances.
Now you propose a legislation that extends rape to dogs, but other zoophiles come and argue that cases of rape in animals is better left on the discretion of both parties, that proposing legislation would just make the practice slower and they start using slippery slope arguments, that end on a general criminalization of the practice.
The guidelines as they are (at least I consider), are not overly restrictive, and in fact cover the most common concerns of both zoophiles and non-zoophiles.
You misinterpreted, I don't want rape of animal to be legal, I guess I was thinking we lived in a perfect world where all were law abiding both emotionally and physically
I never said you wanted it to be legal, it was a hypotethical situation to demonstrate the importance of clear laws.
If you have a fear of over-regulation, then we can set up special prosecutors, that understand the difference between the spirit and the letter of this specific law.
What planet do you live on? 'cause here in the real world that just doesn't happen. Your rules serve not one purpose that isn't already better served by animal cruelty laws. The only real issue is to disengage the idea that sex is inherently cruel and beef up the cruelty laws because a lot of stuff that is unethical is done to animals as a matter of course. Sex is really small potatoes if you are seriously concerned with animal welfare.
The animal cruelty laws of many states of the union, ban zoophilia. So unless you specify which laws you are referring to, then you are not making a point.
I do agree however, in their points when they say zoophilia is not same as sexual abuse, that it is not unnatural, and that it may be beneficiary not just to the rational participant.
I've removed the NSFW tag, because critical thought is to a certain extent exempt from notions of classification.
I do have a gripe with twelfth, as has been mentioned previously. Assuming that the penetrating party is a male dog whose physiology results in a copulatory tie with both rational and other irrational parties, it does not seem appropriate to label such intercourse as impermissible on such grounds alone. While the rational party would be held accountable for any injuries that were to occur to either party, leaving the responsibility of mitigation of foreseeable negative impacts to said party, I do not see any consistent propensity for harm to occur if all other criteria are met. The copulatory tie is simply a reality of all canid/x intercourse, and canine parties grow accustomed to that as a reality of their sexual activity. Being with a rational party does not make it inherently abusive, and furthermore, suggesting that the knot be surgically removed is genital mutilation of the highest order of abuse, and absolutely inappropriate.
Now, a word on tact. What are you trying to achieve? While I'm sure you have the best of intentions and I understand and appreciate your efforts, it is more than a little callous and arrogant to step into a community of which you are not a part without so much as introducing yourself, and offload a sermon on how you believe it should be conducting itself, especially when it brings little to the table. A post like this would be more suited to a psychology community, as it approaches the topic objectively, but it comes off as condescending in a community that already treats animals with the utmost respect and care to the largest extent. It implies that it is in itself a revelation, or in any way contradictory to the already-held standards of most zoophiles here.
Very well said.
The last point is one of the greatest misunderstandings ever, perhaps. People think all zoophiles must be animal-abusers. In reality, I know some zoophiles who'd be my prime pick to leave an animal with to care for some time. Because I know they'd rather go hungry themselves than not feed enough, or they'd rather skip repairing their car and walk to work for the next month instead of skipping the hoof-care appointment.
My parents force me to get oil changes, and if I did "skip" a farrier appointment then the owner of the barn would charge me an extra $20 in addition to what the farrier charged. Plus I ate ALOT of frozen vegetables when I had my horse.
I should have read the guidelines better, I didn't notice the "surgically remove" part until you brought it up.
Being able to withdraw is a right of both parties, and I merely suggested some possible solutions to reach a compromise, I said that any such solutions should not compromise the welfare, right in the same sentence.
Why is it a requiremnt to be part of some community to be heard within it, and not be conisdered arrogant? Isn't the whole point of your community is to be open minded to other possibilities in sex? Suddenly when someone proposes a compromise to aminorate the worries of the non zoophiliacs, he is just being callous.
Take this into account: If I for whatever reason, have a desire to be tortured, should I follow the letter of the zeta principles and torture the animal, in the hopes it tortures me back?
While TV can talk for himself, your extremely poor understanding of the community, animal sexuality and interspecies sexuality is a good reason for you to be considered arrogant. You are preaching to people who are probably more aware than you yourself are. That's pretty arrogant. As for being part of the community, there is some requirement if you want to be taken seriously. Should we consider every crazy religious fanatic, the AR folks who want to kill animals because it is better to be dead than a pet, and so forth... You need to prove yourself before your words will be taken at face value.
As for your verbal twisting of the zeta principals.
I assume that you are taking the first line, about kindness I would add, and some how twisting it to mean do to others what you want have done to yourself. The fact that you would argue that "Do onto others" means something like that suggests you are just playing verbal games as opposed to seriously interested in a discourse. Particularly when you examine the third statement on animal's will and wellbeing...
In short, your ideas are not well thought out, haven't considered many obvious points, inflict a lot of suffering needlessly on persons who are zoosexual, don't really protect animals (your idea that surgery might be a solution to a rule you created is still whacked no matter how many times you said "or other solutions"), are grounded on principles and ethics which may not be agreed upon by everyone (I smell the judeo-christian beliefs in many of these), make it impossible to explore one's sexuality in any kind of timely or normal fashion, ignore the agency of the animal and I could go on....
edited for format
What is kindness? If you ask many philosophers, they will tell you that kindness isn't real, that we do everything on our best interests. Am I being kind if I sterilize my dog, so that no further accidental offspring is possible?
Points one, two and three are redundant. they could be summarized in my point one, no need to handle gray areas.
How can I be sure I know the animal's will? is it the way it looks at me? is it the mere fact it was erect?
Point twentieth exactly.
What does judeo-christian beliefs have to do with anything?
What is a fetish and why is it important to discourage it? Many will answer that zoophilia is a fetish. What is bestiality? a synonym?
6 and 7 are redundant and vague, what is animal sexual abuse? is it different from human sexual abuse? can an animal sexually abuse me? It would only seem fair.
Why is financial gain given an special place? is it any better if I sexually exploit animals without financial gain?
Also what is it with the word censor? doesn't that infringe the rights of free expression? The same rights that permit this forum to exist. It should say discourage instead.
If you insist I'm playing verbal games, then you have no idea how the legal system works, this principles would be a nightmare to enforce, everyone could get away with abuse.
Is surgery inherently bad? it isn't a solution to anything? you would seem to be against sterilization too. Tell me, have you studied dogs without their knots? If not, how can you be sure it wouldn't actually bring a bigger joy to the dog? You would actually want it to be done then, wouldn't you? You are the one who dogmatically holds, that the knot should not be removed under any circumstance.
And finally I like for you to point me towards your claim:
Who decides I have proven myself? You seem to be implying I have to practice zoophilia in order to understand it and discuss it.
OK, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your rambling defensiveness here has made me quite wary of your goals here. So, I'm going to answer your questions in this post where they are relevant (in my understanding) and then explain in one and two syllable words what is wrong with your set of rules.
This is a matter understanding an animal's body language, both from an understanding of its species in general and (hopefully) of the particular animal being approached. There isn't just one thing, like a look in the eye or an erect penis; rather, it's all of the animal's expressions. For example, if a male dog approaches me with pink tip showing, panting, wagging his tail in a friendly way, pawing at me and humping, all of that together tells me that they want sex.
The reason that principle exists is, in part, to prevent abuse from people who would see the animals merely as objects for their pleasure. In short, zoophilia is the feeling of being attracted to animals, while bestiality is the act of sex with an animal. It's not the fetish that is being discouraged so much as the people who bounce from one sexual extreme to the next to find thrills.
As I've said before, abuse is the willful or negligent causation of physical or psychological harm without a greater benefit. By that definition, it can be different from human sexual abuse, since they have different physical tolerances and psychological profiles, changing what sorts of behavior would be abusive (for example, slapping a horse on the rump vs. slapping a human on the rump). Also, an animal can sexually abuse a human (it's called reverse bestiality), but are difficult to hold liable for it since they don't have the same degree of moral agency as typical adults.
Again, this principle is about a specific kind of abuse of which zoos are sometimes accused and which we sometimes see in the animal porn industry, namely being "zoo for moolah". The thinking is that the profit motive introduces an extra incentive for abuse (drugging the animals, coercing people into having sex with them, etc.) Not really a special kind of abuse, just one for which zoos have to deal with the fallout, meaning it would be better to discourage it entirely if possible. And no, sexual exploitation without financial gain is not better, it's just rarer and easier to discourage.
Funny how you misread that word. It's "censure", and it means "express severe disapproval", which is pretty much what you suggested. An obscure word, but keep in mind this was translated from German by volunteers, so odd words choices are pretty likely.
Which is why no one is suggesting these principles be written, unmodified, into law. Your guidelines, on the other hand, are verbose and difficult to understand by a layperson, with many redundancies placed there for the sake of "clarity". It suffers the same problem of being difficult to enforce, with the added bonus of having so many terms that remain undefined.
Thanks for the strawman, I'll have fun burning it. No, surgery isn't inherently bad, as can be seen from tumor removal surgeries, among others. Also, zoos are against forced/mandatory sterilization of extreme kinds, and I'll admit the reasons for that are partly selfish. But you haven't even considered the compromise solution of vasectomies and tubal ligation, which are forms of sterilization without nearly the risks of health problems caused by an animal never going into puberty (in cases where spaying/neutering occurs in puppies).
By the way, the knot isn't just a separate, easily removed piece of anatomy like the testicles that we can just cut off without a major problem. It's literally a part of the penis, a sack that fills with blood when the dog gets excited. In every anatomical diagram of that part of the body I've seen (like the one shown here), there's no real way to remove it without either replacing it in some way or removing the entire penis, bone and all (another fun feature). And unlike neutering, where some argument can be made that it's for the health of the dog (I disagree, but there's some evidence for that), removal of the knot would only serve your warped ideological agenda, and no amount of insistence from you relieves you of the burden of proof for a complicated and likely unnecessary surgery.
Ah, you gave Mr. Strawman a wife. She won't miss her husband long. No, we aren't saying that zoos have some sort of decoder ring that allows us to understand animal welfare better than anyone else. We're happy to listen to vets, animal welfare activists, psychologists, and other experts whose evidence may have some bearing on our positions (or at least I am). Also, plenty of non-zoophiles understand our position, whether they support it or not (Peter Singer, Piers Beirne, Hani Miletski, etc.). I don't care as much about whether you become an ally to zoophiles as I do about your reasons for coming to your position. You are asked to prove not your loyalty, but your rationality and understanding of the subject before dictating on what terms you would be willing to agree with us. Also, not that it's relevant to your arguments, but it seems like all of your biggest posts prior to coming here involve minecraft and pokemon. Unless knowing about the mechanics of pokemon breeding has some profound parallel with zoophilia I am unaware, we need a better reason to listen to you than your professed desire to make this acceptable to more people.
Now, on to your guidelines. The main problem is that they try to cover every perceived problem with sex between humans and other species at the same time. They invent words which are useless (even at the start), they are too wordy to be useful, and they try to give these acts zero risk, which is not something we can do for any act. The worst part, though, is that these rules do work that is already done by other laws. In Vermont, for instance, almost any case of abuse as you define it is covered by humane cruelty laws and other laws against trespass and stealing. It simply is not needed in any way. And by the way, this stunt of mine to make this short and easy to read is to show you that your writing is also bad, in that it makes these issues far less clear than they could be, even making all the same points you tried to make. I know you are trying to help, and I applaud you for that, but I would ask you to think harder and more clearly about what you say before you say it. You have a right to write this list, but we have a right to tell you why we think its wrong.
Ok, thank you very much! Finally someone explains why the knot can't be removed!
It isn't a strawman if I started the sentence with You seem... or if I ask rhetorical questions, I did commit a strawman when I said you hold dogmatically that the knot cannot be removed, to that I owe my ignorance, and I apologize (since my guidelines do not cover the knot specifically, then all I got to do, is to come up with a humane way to avoid the thing from preventing withdrawal).
I did not come up with that point arbitrarily, it is because I am concerned with three issues: priapism, penile fracture, and negative emotions from an unprepared party.
Why is inventing new terms to fit new situations bad? You say that they are too wordy to be useful but that seems to be a neologism in of itself, that I can't quite understand.
I phrased it in such a way, so that it may also cover possible intercourse with extraterrestrial species, so as to make it future proof.
Yes, they try to cover every perceived problem, because that was the whole point; we simply don't have clear guidelines, the laws you just cited don't mention sex or zoophilia once, you could argue that a possible rape is by inclusion protected, but you first have to find the corresponding paragraphs and then do a logic step to charge. My guidelines saves up a step and therefore makes the justice system more efficient and therefore the responsible zoophiles are better protected too. Besides, I know you want zoophiles the freedom to practice, pushing such guidelines forward, sets a precedent to get the conversation going and remove the taboo.
The way that you explain the zeta principles, make it seem like they were a product of the time, that they lack generalization or that they fail under nuance.
Now, you seem to say that I am not worth being listened to, not because I have a different opinion, but because I lack expertise on at least one of the fields you mentioned, that's fine, you are not the only one here, but remember, no one is forcing you to accept what was clearly stated to be an opinion, I never proposed myself as someone with expertise.
BTW, you didn't define abuse anywhere before this post.
You know, you remind me a lot of the user Crazymanman, or what his name was: Not a zoo, showing potential for smartness and novel ways of thinking, very enthusiastic about general principals and grant schemes, but also slightly ... off in more than one way. Probably INTJ personality. - Perhaps that is just my paranoia speaking, being unfamiliar with people coming in as outsiders and not just attacking.
Why off? First I wonder what the motivation is, and second because there are e.g. the Zeta Principles/Rules/Guidelines already to achieve exactly that. Thorough work would have uncovered that in research for the purpose, not start with a grant scheme from scratch. Those rules are also much shorter, and cover proselytizing, animal welfare as trumping issue, etc. The golden rule itself, as a well known concept from Ethics, also serves quite well. And third, well, I don't want to be mean, but you come here telling us? Some balls. I am not going through it thoroughly, because this is your baby, and I am neither subscribing to nor supporting it - but don't be discouraged by me, you may propose whatever you like, it's a free country.
Some mere remarks then:
I would talk about a human, and a non-human party. Rationality is a concept, yes, but also in practical terms humans often are not rational. In addition, the level of rationality in e.g. dolphins is disputed. Crows and apes can be very rational animals when they calculate trade-offs and devise tool-using strategies to achieve as much food as possible for incentive. You would only get dragged into such discussions.
To be honest, why not let the cat out of the bag, and focus on guidelines for sex between a human and other mammalians? With non-mammalians sex can be achieved (everything is a sex toy if you try hard enough, if I may say so), but they are ...ehm so different to mammals imho that either you can't really tell if they'd consent, sex is almost impractical or the size issue is almost immediately on the table, or the question is if that is still sex in that sense at all (what is sex? Is rubbing my penis on a tree sex with the tree or mere masturbation? Does that tree consent? Does it sense me as sexual partner or as merely being there against it? Now substitute crocodile or Komodo dragon and try again for size).
The STI thing will get a snicker from the zoos. While there are zoonosis, generally speaking you can't get an STI (HIV, HPV, warts, herpes, syphilis...) from an animal. It is almost perfectly safe to have intercourse with your single mammalian partner (your bitch, or your mare that nobody else has intercourse with). As if we don't have experiences to have learned that from.
Point three funnily enough now rules out common artificial insemination practices in mares and cows, where the complete arm of the vet tech is inserted into the mares or cows vagina to guide the semen tube.
Sixth makes it problematic when an adolescent has sex (the 'age of maturity' afaik still spans 14 to 21 around the world for humans). Which I don't see why. 16 is an age a lot of humans have sex at already with one another. Is the cow now to tell the 16 yo to come back in two years? She's only 7 herself perhaps. A better line in the sand might be a formulation of "the age at which typically sexual activity starts within 90% of that species (for internal intercourse between species members)" or something like that.
As a horse-lover, I flatly reject point ten.
Item 12 shows again a bit of a lack of experience: If the horse is about to flare, or the dog knotted you, the human cannot withdraw any longer but is in for the whole ride. Withdrawing would be the option generally leading to more danger and injuries.
point 16 is again a bit silly: Zoophile intercourse does not lead to offspring with a human. Period.
20th is an undue limitation of works of art, such as Leda and the Swan, Europa and the bull (yeah, a whole continent is named after a bull-fucking woman. Worse, she's on lots of the European emblems and some of the coins there at the moment - sometimes even with the bull), depictions of cave drawings showing zoophile acts, ancient Greek and Roman mosaics (google Rome's Romulus and Remus) that exist in abundance etc. pp. pp. That strikes me again as weirdly limited on your thinking. Not every depiction of fauns is pornography or proselytising. The Christian/"Western" world loves to default itself as the natural and first way how everything should be as much as every world view does. But this almost looks like a cookie to conservative voters: Yes, yes, they can discuss it in academic circles, surely, as a modern society we wouldn't limit research on helping these people. But also surely, we can't have depictions of naked horses! What if a child walks to school and sees a naked horse on a Marlboro-advertisement? We mustn't let it see naked horses at such a young age, in order to make sure the child grows up to make their own choices. /s On the other hand, zoophilia could be supported by non-pornographic symbols. You just made it legal and protected to wear the zeta symbol under free speech (which it actually is, but nobody dares for fear of lynching IRL). But then you worry that a proudly displayed but simple zeta in a circle could 'recruit' (proselytize) people 'into it'.
A horse lover is in danger of producing severe harm to his rectum (or vagina), that means more ER visits and injuries that may inhibit further intercourse, why is being concerned with his welfare such a bad thing?
Withdrawal is a right, the same way you have safe words in bdsm practices, if the physiology is such that it inhibits such right, then all I'm saying is to search for an alternative.
Of course classical works of art are exempt.
About 16, can you guarantee it for the rest of history? wouldn't you prefer to be prepared?
I though I was specific with rule 3, is basically to avoid practices such as half swallowing, or head insertion on the rectum or vagina (it can suffocate or produce infections).
I never said you were inexperienced with STI prevention on animals, I said that it should be the case that everyone has enough information so as to no contract one, or spread the sickness to third parties; the animal kingdom is so big, there are simply too many ways to get infected. We cannot possibly be nuanced about such an issue; it is an issue of public health and the animal is not going to pay you the doctor, so we should prepare for cases of ignorant people.
I never said you can be convinced to be zoophiliac, all I said is that it shouldn't be held up as something superior, just like heterosexual sex, just like the zeta principles hold.
The zeta principles are too broad, it would be extremely difficult to prosecute an abuser.
Don't feel like I am going against the grain for you, the fact that I make so many remarks shows that I like dwelling on your ideas and think them worthy of a good tire-kicking because they seem of quality. How much worse would it be, if I had rolled my eyes and instead clicked away to /r/funny! You wouldn't have the comment written, but I would have judged your proposal total shit and less worth my time than a silly cat picture.
Let me answer all your posts in this one here:
I was merely rejecting the crushing formulation, since it could be used to keep me away from horses. I don't see how the 'massive imbalance' in our body mass could be equalized. Then again, nobody suggests all the little girls riding at the stable are in such danger too. It reeks a bit of imprisoning me "for my protection". It is too specific, and in this case here unnecessary, thanks. Apart from that, yes, if you take something too large into you, there is a risk of injury. It's not wrong to be concerned there, but most people do figure that already, it can be alleviated fine with training yourself up to it, and even if there are residual risks (being kicked in the kneecaps, or fall of and break my neck) I rather gladly take those than seize this activity because a life without horses is not worth living. Besides that was not the point, I reject an 'inherent crushing danger' rule. Let me be crushed with a horse fucking me then, there are worse kinds of deaths. For example one without horses.
You can have your withdrawal at any time right once you managed to explain this to a horny stallion who wants to shot his cum into you now. Good luck. Then again, also here I rather take the alternative to wave it and commit to this ride in full instead of not do it (i.e. search for an alternative - come on).
Why are modern works of art not exempt? And it is not of course, if you didn't write it down. I can't see your intentions, as well as they may be, nor can the police force who'd act on such laws or guidelines or whatever. It only counts when it is specifically and precisely written down.
If we don't intervene with genetic engineering, the gaps between the species (i.e. the unlikelihood of offspring) will only widen with time. If you fuck a mammal right now until forever, there will be no offspring, unless it happens to be a human too. Then there's a chance. If you start to genetically engineer some kind of centaur-organism e.g., which has genes of you and your favourite mare, you will find yourself in a lot more hot water than who pays alimony. Who does this organism belong to? Is it property like the mare? How ethical is it to adjust the resulting intelligence on a slide from horse <-> human? How much are you responsible for every flaw (from red/green blindness to Moonshine syndrome).
Again, from what you wrote in three, if read like a lawyer would read it, sticking the arm in for insemination purposes is now illegal. You wrote it that way.
For STIs I once again assure you that all sex solely between humans and mammals at least has such a low risk of spreading disease, it is almost not worth bothering. The problem is it really reminds me of another anti-argument where people try to outlaw zoophile activities because of 'public health risks': Oh, the diseases I could spread from a horse vagina into the human population! They say. But nobody is bothered by millions of dog owners currently being licked on their TV couches by their dogs with zero protection (fun fact: A lot of cat owners are infected by their cats with toxoplasmosis, it alters the brain and turns people into the crazy cat ladies). After that hyperbole: I guess we agree, I could just use a condom to be safe-r.
*zoophile (imho, but perhaps the adjective is build with the -iac)
I didn't state that you cannot have sex if there is an ambivalence, I said that there shouldn't be a big risk of crushing and suffocation, in your case, a present third party will do for both that, and withdrawal.
I don't understand your argument when you say:
Never did I refer to the possible hybrid, as a property of anyone. And again, I did leave a lot of gray areas on that point, so it is worth revisiting.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough on point three, I'm glad you made me aware.
I guess I was overly paranoid with the whole STI risk thing, I shall adjust it.
I did the pertinent modifications, how do you like them know?
BTW, If a modern work of art replicates a previously existing classical work of art, then it is also exempt, only modern and originals are to be kept private.
I now proposed a more precise definition of rational party, thanks for your time. Still though, I understand proselytism as holding the practice as something superior, if you have a better verb please let me know.
Oh, in that case you and me we simply understood the word slightly different. No, that is ok to say that one thing is not to be promoted as superior to the other in these regards. Or as people say - whatever floats your boat. If you like to fuck peanutbutter sandwiches, I am not going to judge. ;)
I actually like to fuck inflatable toys, peanut butter is just too sticky.
really?
Because in that case I am interested if you know a good store for inflatable horses like that. The ones I can find are either Chinese wholesale, or ridiculously expensive.
I actually I am fairly poor, so I only buy from either the shitty selection at walmart or from some dude at the park
BTW, did you place that link to turn me on?
Nope, I am interested in buying a large inflatable horse.
And you think I'm not! (heavy breathing)
Put it up the flagpole and see who salutes (upvotes vs downvotes).
I'm sorry, didn't I just did that?
Its just an idiom in English, your at 56% upvoted, while it looks a little bit low, it actually means that their is a discussion. While I do not have the exact stats (mods probably do especially if they have an analytics tool), probably at the 99% percentile for most discussion in less then a day (on any r/zoophilia post).
Thank you very much, I did edit my post to address some problems pointed in them, care to take a look?
Pretty good (I upvoted the topic). Some suggestions are to reduce the number of rules to ten with some of the rules having subpoints, like 1A, 1B ect. Another that could be addressed is if these "guidelines" are voluntary or just strongly suggested, or "mandatory" (meaning one can be arrested if they break them) or simply are an ideal "gold standard".
I don't know what you mean here, a biological adult is defined as an organism with at least the minimum age, that is considered safe for a specific sexual practice, so if "your body is ready" and your mind is too, then you are allowed under these guidelines to freely practice (this point goes both sides).
I will consider rewriting them to place them on a different structure, but at this point I'm not sure if I want to go the mandatory or voluntary way.
The non-zoophiles I know, won't accept anything lower than a mandatory penal rule.
This is what I mean to say in my last comment: Pretty good (I upvoted the topic). Some suggestions are to reduce the number of rules to ten with some of the rules having subpoints, like 1A, 1B ect. Another that could be addressed is if these "guidelines" are voluntary or just strongly suggested, or "mandatory" (meaning one can be arrested if they break them) or simply are an ideal "gold standard".
Why did you just repeat yourself, I already addressed what you said. I don't want to force anything, that's why they are called guidelines (look up the definition), however if we want to push for freedom to practice, then many would like for them to be enforced under penalties.
I just wrote the same thing, so as not to confuse people reading my edited comments.
Ok...
Take what everyone said with a grain of salt. These are YOUR guidelines, other people might not agree with you.
Thank you very much, I am thinking that when I rewrite them, I also could add some sort of basis, on how to determine the will of the non-rational party.