- Section 0: The definitions
0a. - Contingent organism: Is any living form with faculties such that, it is considered proper for a sexual practice to not be allowed to go on unbounded, for the reasons of empathy, responsibility and accountability.
0b. - Rational party Any living organism with the faculty to understand risk and rewards, be informed of risk vs. reward of a specific practice, the ability to evaluate those components against each other, having a clear grasp of both long and short term effects of his own actions, as well as possessing some way to communicate its intentions to the ones around them.
0c. - Non-rational party It is defined as the living organisms that complement all rational parties.
0d. - Zoophilia Is understood as the sexual attraction of a rational party towards a non rational party, specifically animals (animals are known to be contingent).
0e. - Zoophiliac practice Is defined as the set of actions, that cannot be understood any other way, but intercourse between the two parties as stated above.
0f. - Biological adult Any organism with at least the minimal age that is considered safe for a specific sexual practice, both mentally and physically.
0g. - Withdrawal To stop any and all intercourse of any specific party.
0h. - Classical work of art Any piece of art (original or replica) created before the 14th century.
- Section 1: The axioms
1a. - All organisms are assumed to be contingent, until proven contrary.
1b. - All organisms are assumed to be not-rational, until proven contrary.
1c. - All organisms are assumed to not be biological adults, until proven contrary.
1d. - All rational parties are contingent and accountable.
1e. - All non-rational parties are not accountable.
1f. - Intercourse can only be regulated between two contingent parties.
1g. - The welfare of the organisms in question, supersedes any sexual urge.
1h. - Failure from any rational party to comply with the mandatory portions of this guidelines, should have due process.
- Section 2: On the motivations
2a. - A rational party is always bounded by the laws that may be, regardless of species or gender.
2b. - It is understood that a rational party with a sense of responsibility and empathy, would want to avoid and reduce abuse, and also seek the welfare of the parties that may be, given any situation.
2c. - Furthermore, a rational party with a sense of accountability, would want cases of abuse to be persecuted, put on trial and the respective punishment be applied; therefore, there should be the instruments in place, for such processes to go on efficiently.
2d. - A responsible rational party would also want to avoid being unjustifiably persecuted on a legal sense, if their practices cannot be shown to be harmful.
2e. - It is expected for a non-rational to sometimes fail to comply with any set of principles, even when it has been trained to do so (act in unexpected manners).
2f. - It is also expected for rational parties (on the absence of a solid and universal guide), would sometimes fail to comply with 2b and 2c, even when their intentions are the opposite.
2g. - It is pursued that freedom of responsible zoophiliac practice (as delineated here), would bring a better outcome for every party involved (as opposed to criminalization), with a reasonable concern on the possible implications.
- Section 3: The basics
3a. - If two or more rational parties of different species engage in intercourse, and the two parties can give direct consent, then such actions are considered to fall under the same law system, as two people engaging in intercourse normally, by default (the laws may change on specific situations).
3b. - If at least one rational party engages in intercourse with at least one non-rational party, under any role, under any number of participants; then such practice is bound by the rest of the guidelines stated here, under zoophiliac practice.
3c. - Zoophilia by itself is not a crime, because it isn't a choice and is protected under freedom of thought.
3d. - All participants must be consenting, conscious, biological adults.
3e. - Rational parties are always responsible for the welfare or lack thereof, inflicted upon non-rational parties by their actions; this may fall under the justice system directly and/or the owner of the non-rational party.
3f. - If any risk reduction isn't mandatory, but it’s preferable, then it is always recommended.
3g. - All rational parties involved, must first be able to understand what has been stated in this document, and be informed of it, in order to proceed with any zoophiliac practice.
- Section 4: Unnecessary irreversible risks
4a. - Actions that place an unnecessary fatal risk (high chance of death), or other kind of harm that cannot be reversed easily, onto the non-rational parties, are not allowed (this includes mental health concerns).
4a1. - Certain actions fall under this definition for all parties without room for contingency, these are:
Present infection probability
High drowning, suffocation or crushing probability
Bleeding a dangerous amount
Insertion of the torso, head or body, either completely or partially, into any orifice
4a2. - The rational parties involved, are responsible to reduce such risks, such that the probability of any of the outcomes is no longer greater than the respective decided amount, either quantitatively or qualitatively.
4a3. - The list presented here is not exhaustive, so if another action falls inside the definition of 4a, then it can be considered part of the list, as long as there is at least a consensus on the parties involved, on the why it falls under that category, and what could be recommended to reduce such risks for all parties involved.
- Section 5: Imperative risk reduction
5a. - Penetration must not imply harm.
5a1. - The rational party is not allowed to go ahead with penetration, if the respective phallic genitals or toys are: too thick, too long, too fragile or too spiked; or if the respective orifices are: too tight, too sensitive or contain sharp teeth, for it to not produce harm to the non-rational party.
5a2. - If the harm associated, is exclusive to the rational party, then such party has the right to be aware of each respective risk, so it can make proper preparations.
5b. - It is preferable for each respective party to have a safe and easy way to withdrawal.
5b1. - As 5a2 says, in case the physiology of at least one of the parties impedes immediate withdrawal, then it is considered imperative for the rational party to be made aware of such a risk, so that it may take the proper preparations.
5b2. - If at least one non-rational party in intercourse, shows clear signs of pain, discomfort, unwillingness or lack of consciousness, then all rational parties participating must withdrawal immediately.
5c. - From 2f, it is preferable that a third rational party would act as an observer, in order to assist in case of emergency during the act (assist withdrawal).
5c1. - Situations with many unknowns, would require such assistance, in order to comply with sections 4 and 5.
5c2. - If the act goes wrong, the observer can only be held accountable, if he failed to do all of what was in his power to avoid harm in either party.
5c3. - It is preferable that the rational party under intercourse, should only select someone competent and trustworthy as an observer, if he/she is to do so (by obligation or not).
5c4. - The number of observers chosen is better left to the discretion of the rational party under intercourse, unless sections 4 or 5 require a minimum.
5d. - If a specific practice has been demonstrated to have long term negative effects for the non-rational party, then such practice is no longer permitted.
5d1. - The same way as 5a2, the rational party must be informed of such long term effects.
- Section 6: Information regarding zoophilia
6a. - Public discourse about zoophilia is protected by freedom of speech.
6a1. - Explicit depictions of zoophiliac practice, fall under the same jurisdiction as pornographic material, without further limitations.
6a2. - If the depiction corresponds to a classical work of art, then it is exempt from 6a1.
6a3. - It is understood that such free expression, should not be used as an instrument of proselytism, or any form of negative discrimination from any party.
6b. - Any rational party interested and able of practicing zoophilia, has the right for the pertinent objective associated information to be provided.
6b1. - The party in question has the obligation of understanding the information provided, whatever it may be.
6b2. - The rational party also has a right to a progressive and slow introduction to the practice, a right only he/she can renounce.
- Section 7: On ownership
7a. - Ownership is only allowed from a rational party towards a non-rational party, further rules may apply depending on the active laws.
7b. - If a rational party owns a non-rational party on a legal sense, then the non-rational party in question is called a pet and the rational party a pet owner.
7c. - Pet owners are always accountable for the welfare of his pet.
7d. - Any intercourse with a pet, must have the consent of the owner.
7e. - Any pet owner has the right to force a withdrawal on any intercourse, if he/she believes such intercourse is compromising the welfare of his pet.
7f. - If a rational party fails to consult or comply with the consent of the owner, or has compromised the welfare of his/her pet, then he/she is accountable to the pet owner.
7f1. - If the rational party in question is the pet owner himself, then he is accountable to the justice system.
7g. - If a pet of party A, has compromised the welfare of a pet of party B, then party A is accountable to party B.
- Section 8: On direct/indirect consent
8a. - Direct consent Is the linguistical expression for a desire to engage in intercourse.
8b. - Parties that cannot understand each other without ambiguity through language, cannot give direct consent.
8c. - Indirect consent Is understood as any non-linguistical behavior or set of behaviors, that given a context, cannot be interpreted any other way, but as a desire for intercourse with a specific party.
8d. - Any contingent party must be able to give at least indirect consent for intercourse to go forward.
8e. - All behaviors must be assumed to not be consent, until proven contrary.
- Section 9: On interventions
9a. - If a third party is witness of intercourse, then such party has the right to report a possible case of abuse.
9b. - In the case of ego dystonic zoophilia (it also includes 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 by medical professionals, and be protected under medic-patient secrecy.
9b1. - The focus of such therapies, either being of self-acceptance or reversal, is better left to the discretion of both medic and patient.
I decided to left out the possibility for inter species insemination, maybe I can add it later.
No, please just leave. There will be no "later". No one cares for you coming in here and imposing your "guidelines" on us. It's moronic.
Ok, make an argument whose conclusion is that I should leave, if I can't show an inconsistency then I will leave.
Your arguments are a rational appeal to irrational parties, whose arguments boil down to "ew, gross, dogfuckers, that's wrong." These reactions are deeply ingrained in most of society's ideologies. It's an early life lesson that dogs go with dogs, cats go with cats and birds go with birds and never intwain the two shall meet.
There's also the "fur-baby" component, where so many pet owners regard their pets in a maternal/paternal way which causes an emotional resonance between bestiality and pedophilia, where the idea is that they're so simple-minded and innocent and pure and my sweet baby Frou-frou would never have sex on his mind! How could you do that to poor baby Fido that's sickening!
These are not grounded, rational reactions. These stem from emotion and no amount of rational logos-based argumentation will sway the general public from these beliefs.
Rational arguments have their place. Most zoos have at least one person in their life they get real with about this, and with that person you're usually going to get the benefit of the doubt so that a window is opened for rational discourse, in which case great, nice scout's honour code you've got here, but to most people it won't matter if we swear on a bible that we'll never harm an animal, as it's emotionally ingrained in most people that consent is not at all possible for an animal and that no matter what you do in this context, it is rape.
The reason you are getting so much backlash is because you are showing up here out of the blue with no evident experience with what you are preaching about (you didn't know what a knot was?), no standing in our or any zoo community and acting like you know what we're up against and what we need to do and if we would just stop being so lazy we could do something to change this. Friend, if changes like this were made in a hurry because someone wrote a code of honour and wanted to make it law, slavery wouldn't have lasted long, women would have rights in India already and there would be a gay marriage every day of the week in Texas. Change takes time. These things don't start with a shout, they start with a growing whisper for safety's sake.
You come off as egotistical and arrogant in your manner when dealing with other people and it's very grating. You don't seem to spellcheck or proofread most of what you comment and it comes off as immature when you're trying to act like you know what's best for us. You are overall insulting in your suppositions.
Please go away now. Do not expect a further reply, I would much rather you go away now.
The exact same argument could be said of homosexual activity, yet their approval ratings are going up, it they can do it, why can't you?
Sure it make take a long time, but at no point did I ever suggest that would be the case.
Because society moved past "ew, buttfuckers, gross, let's lynch them" a long-ass time ago. I get you're 19 and you weren't around for the 80s, that's cool, but it still is just another way you don't know what you're talking about. Living through the AIDS crisis was fucking terrifying. Nobody came out of the closet because if you were Out, people were almost impossibly violent and cruel. There was very little open talk of our rights then, as it was frankly, dangerous to be branded as a gay or even an ally. Now it's 30 years later and we're finally achieving rights, but we still can't even marry across the country. It's all fine and good to talk about zoo rights on the internet, but to bring it forward in all parts of my life would be suicide in one or more ways. It's just. Not. Considered to be acceptable in any way. Do you realise that getting outed as a zoo is literally life-ruining? It will literally ruin your life. Like, pack your bags, drop all contact, now you're Mr. Jones from Nebraska ruined.
Zoophilia is decades behind homosexuality in these matters. I can appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, but you are way the fuck ahead of your time mate.
I won't be an accomplice in inaction, I won't be an accomplice in illegalities even if they are not justified. You don't have to disclose your identity, you merely have to guide me, since I'm willing to take the risk.
Anything you suggest to be added?
And a demonstrable lack of knowledge to boot.
Fuck no I don't want you speaking on my behalf, that's my entire goddamn point.
Do some research and come back, I'm not going to hold your hand while you play legislator.
So you don't want someone willing representing you, but you are knowledgeable but not willing to represent, seems that we are stuck, any suggestions?
I've addressed this already.
...
If you're really interested in changing the world, learn your shit first. I'm not investing myself in someone who doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't seem to care to fill the gaps in their knowledge through actual hard work and independent research. I've wasted enough time on this. I'm only embarassing myself continuing to talk to an optimistic brick wall at this point.
What do you want me to learn?
Hello?
If you are so eager in calling me an ignorant, then are you not? If not, then aren't you being arrogant in keeping that knowledge from me?
People don't treat other human beings of the same sex as their babies. People at large view dogs as infantile and this creates an incredible emotional abhorrence to zoophilia.
We are getting progress here. If we can attack that argument, then that's another argument less.
People don't want to hear about it. When will you learn this. If they lack the intelligence to believe in something purely based on emotion, facts will not change it.
You however, clearly lack the intelligence to know when your "help" isn't wanted. You also lack the intelligence to see how, this isnt going to help anything, and that the world isn't a fair place. A lot of us are fine with that, and take appropriate measures to ensure safety. On behalf of me and many others, Please fuck off.
And yet you lack the intelligence to infere that I won't budge. Oh look, you actually spoke on behalf of someone and you didn't die.
I want you standing for decriminalization, the same way you fight me.
If you wont budge thats your problem, but nobody here is standing with you
Are you sure? I already got an ally.
you have precisely one ally, out of 2150 subscribers to zoophilia, id say youre outmatched
I don't need to have the majority, I just need enough experienced people to legislate accordingly.
Good luck with that then.
I think this is very nicely done, and ideally, such guidelines can be applied to other more socially acceptable areas of animal care and welfare.
I did notice a few errors though in both grammar and phrasing, making some areas confusing, most noticeably "If the non rational party in question, shows clear signs of pain, discomfort, unwillingness or lack of consciousness, then the non-rational party must withdrawal immediately"
For clarity I also think that 'rational' and 'non rational' should be replaced with 'human' and 'animal'. As far as we know, currently only adult humans would fall under 'rational' so the broadness isn't needed. Non-rational can also be misinterpreted to apply to post-pubescent children, coma patients, and other unacceptable targets. I assume this isn't the intent, but it is something to watch out for.
Thanks for your input, I wrote them in that way, so that it covers other human species becoming rational, or extraterrestrial species trying to engage. I corrected the error you pointed to.
There is also the problem that humans are not, really, rational. :P
Well my definition says that they do not have to act on their rationality to be considered rational, they just have to have such faculties to be legally binded.
I think humans have post-hoc rationality only. We decide things intuitively, and then — milliseconds later, too fast to notice — try to rationalise why we decided what we decided.
[deleted]
Again, what's the point of this? The primary objection to zoophilia that I have encountered has been an emotional one and this is not likely to change anything. And furthermore, not many zoos are willing to lift their right hand and swear to live by these rules. It's commendable that you want to help us and we appreciate that sentiment, but we do not appreciate being told how to run our lives, no less our sex lives.
You really appear time and time again, but why? If this were to take effect, how does this affect how you do things now?
If we want decriminalization, then there comes a point where their emotional arguments run out, but if we don't have a blueprint to argue for, then they might as well keep things as they are.
You don't like being told how to run your life, but the state is clearly against that, but you don't plan on changing that do you?
Their emotional arguments are ingrained into their being, its what they do and what they think. Trust me, no amount of rational explanation is going to change someones mind who wants you to kill yourself because you love dogs as much as you do. What's the need for said laws, Every zoophile i have talked to, and I mean literally every single, last one of em, has had nothing but their mates interests in mind. The state chooses to make it illegal for us to do it in most places, but we choose to partake in it anyway, that is our assumption of risk. It's a tradeoff of a lifestyle for now.
Those are appeals to anecdotes, there are many ways why you still haven't encountered an irresponsible zoophile.
Your argument for it being ingrained on his minds it's a non-sequitor, you can apply it the same for decriminalization of apostasy or homosexuality.
We cannot be intimidated by them, to the point we stop fighting and we are left in the sidelines forever.
Well, disregarding that for the moment, lets talk about why this shouldnt be a thing anyway. If we're so against people telling us how to live our lives, then why on earth would you show up, and tell us how we should act, in order to appeal to another person who controls our lives. This makes zero sense and i think most of us would prefer if you stopped trying to do it.
Now, back to arguing against others. They dont give a damn how many fallacies they make. in their mind, they only equate it with animal rape and its best to avoid dealing with such people. Hiding isnt being intimidated, its the best method for working around the current situation.
A workaround is suboptimal, undesirable and unstable.
If you are against any kind of regulation, then you are sounding like an anarchist, at what point do you start to be legally binded on your sexual behaviors?
This doesn't tell you how to live, it tells you the only exceptions on specific and unusual behavior, which by the way, keep things just the way they are, but now you have legal assurance.
Regardless of whether its suboptimal or not, its the hand were dealt and we have to play with it. The world isn't fair to everyone, and personally, I don't give a shit. I value what I choose to do with what ive been given over anything given to me. Your "guidelines" are just that. Guidelines for how we should behave in order to be a "good zoophile". Thats exactly the entire fucking point of these, is for you to step on your little pedestal and try to tell us how to act in order to be accepted by society, and frankly, its all you've done since you stepped foot in the door of /r/zoophilia. I'm not against any kind of regulation, and I believe the government does have the right to tell people what to do to an extent, however, that extent does not apply to people's personal lives, and you are a being of much lesser influence than the government and have absolutely no right to come in here and preach to people about how they should act.
If I was trying to put myself on a pedestal, then I wouldn't have asked the community if they wanted to see the guidelines rewritten.
Hear at yourself, imagine if in the 40's, homosexuals were arguing the same way you are doing it here. If you are not actively opposed to criminalization, then you might as well not be opposed to it at all.
You have also selectively ignored many people's requests to not make guidelines or to stop trying to tell us how to act.
Gays in the 40s were in a similar place and largely stayed underground until the AIDS crisis forced them to speak out and stand up. The attitudes towards gay individuals has radically shifted only within the last 20-30 years. OF COURSE we would rather not be labeled a criminal by society....However, it is a societal change that is necessary, and a proposed guideline of how one group should act is probably the least productive way to do that. It promotes a situational view of an entire sexuality of diverse people. even if people decided to adopt your guidelines, it would only create a situation where people who follow them would be an acceptable zoophile.
If you really want to help zoophiles, be a friend, not a preacher.
I only decided to ignore them, because every single one of them has failed to present me with a coherent reason, why it would be better not to have them.
All you seem to be opposed, is people telling you how to act. Guess what, you don't have to practice zoophilia for that to be the case.
Is that a bad thing? Any societal acceptance of practice is good, even if it conditioned.
I personally don't care what society at large thinks about me, as long as I know im being a good person by my mate, moral compass and my close friends, then im 100% fine with the rest of the world thinking im a dog rapist.
The reasons for wanting you to stop is because you are being incomprehensibly crass, arrogant, and simultaneously flippant to a close-knit group of people by suggesting that they dont know how to act already. We are not opposed to social acceptance and many of us do desire that, however, many share the opinion that your methodology would not work in the slightest. Many would also contend, i imagine, that given your recent string in this subreddit, we wouldnt want it to anyway.
At no point did I suggest that any of you were irresponsible. I guess suggesting stuff is just being arrogant, and it is so disruptive, that you feel the need to try vanishing me, if you didn't want discussion, then you downvote it and go away, why do you want me to stop doing what I love?
And if anything, I'm a polarizing figure, not a hated one.
If you are okay with people thinking you are a rapist, then you have no right to respond whenever someones calls you that, or even sues you.
Your entire purpose here of suggesting guidlines is indirectly suggesting that we are irresponsible and dont know how to act. Suggestions aren't inherently arrogant. Yours are.
Why do you love making persecuted groups socially accepted? You're simply trying to insert yourself into groups and start trying to be an authority figure. Are you trying to inflate your own ego with this?
People can believe what they want about me, I and many others would consider them to be wrong, but I will take every precaution to ensure the safety of my lifestyle and my mate, thats simply the reality.
Ok, you just shot a lot of fallacies at me, it's not even worth it anymore.
Literally the only thing you do when you try to argue is elevate your status and try to shut down someone else's argument by pointing at it from above. Please leave us alone.
I love arguments, so if you want me to leave, you are gonna have to force me.
I pray that that can be arranged
Alias The Short Christmas Horse's Proposed Guidelines for the Intercourse Between Rational and Non-Rational Parties. v 1.0.0
Section 1 of 1: On Raping Things
Don't.
Seriously, just don't.
I feel like this just about covers it, no?
For reasons beyond me, you seem quite insistent on including aliens in these zoophilia guidelines, so why not just cover our bases as broadly as possible? Perhaps aliens have a different notion of biological adulthood as we do, or a less binary state of consciousness and unconsciousness, making these guidelines rather moot. And regardless, if we did encounter extraterrestrial life, I doubt that sexual relations would be our primary concern.
As for the guidelines as they relate to zoophilia, I must say that I'm still not on board with this. Having a third party witnessing the events is just a violation of basic privacy. Making these guidelines mandatory reading for all zoophiles is unnecessary when the majority of us are far more familiar with animals than you seem to be, and are far more concerned for their individual welfare. And for 7e, why is the pet owner only allowed to call things off for that reason and not any other?
Again, your sentiment here is appreciated, but it's wearing a bit thin. If we want a legitimate set of guidelines, we're capable of producing them for ourselves.
Then were are they? Not a single piece of legislation mentions zoophilia once without prohibiting it.
You are not forced for the third party to be present, it is merely preferable in case of emergency, and mandatory on unusual circumstances.
Different countries have widely different legislation, but that doesn't stop them on having a UN with proper legislation.
On your guidelines: What is rape? What do I do if someone else's rapes? Why is point two redundant?
Each relationship is different, and there therefore can be no overarching guidelines. There are no guidelines for gay sex that made it socially acceptable. Guidelines are not necessary. Please go away.
Understand, it's not about social acceptability, it's about proper persecution of abuse, and protection of responsible practitioners.
I'm trying to have legal protection for you! I'm trying to protect the animals you love!
You must be dense to assume that we by default, must not care about that enough to determine it ourselves. Proper protection of responsible practitioners in this day and age requires a certain level of secrecy. part of engaging in a sexual act with an animal in a responsible manner is acknowledging this. Legal protection is not providing evidence to go to court anyway. Protecting our animals and the lifestyle we love, is our NUMBER ONE PRIORITY AND YOUR GUIDELINES WILL NOT HELP THAT.
Can you guarantee that, caps lock man?
Then perhaps you should propose a guideline to persecute abuse instead.
We consider your guidelines to be utterly unnecessary. We should lobby for laws against abuse and the rest is governed by the guideline No punishment without law.
If they define abuse as sexual act, then what do you do?
We take the proper precautions to ensure that we remain safe. You simply do not understand and therefore it would be in both our interests and yours to not try to tell each other how to overcome each other's difficulties
Tell that to law enforcement, they have defined you as a criminal.
We obviously need some middle ground between unrestricted practice and criminalization, hence this.
The point is to not get noticed by law enforcement dipshit.
Yeah, because that always works out in the end doesn't it?
It does if you know what you're doing. Considering you're from outside the community I don't think you quite realize how obbsessively some of us can end up researching this. There have been, and will continue to be, many successful zoophiles out there. Law enforcement does not look that hard for zoophiles, and it generally takes a fair amount of mistakes to get caught.
Ok, what is the average age for the first intercourse? Are injuries during it common? Does the use of a condom reduces such risks? Is zoophilia something that can be linked genetically or epigenetically? Are cases of abuse greater or lower amongst zoophiles? Are cases of abuses amongst zoophiles underreported? Are suicides rates greater amongst zoophiles?
You could be a doctor on animal reproduction for all I care, those are the kinds of data that make substantial legislation, and scientists won't start working on it until there is a good incentive, and decriminalization is the greatest of all.
The current situation is unstable, all it would take is for a conservative to start persecuting the zoophile circles, and we end up with a legal and social disaster.
Since responsible zoophiles are so good at keeping themselves under the radar of the law, then why can't abusers just use the same techniques to get away wit their crimes?
Almost none of your questions are in relation to law enforcement here. Nobody researches many of the questions you asked, because not many care. What we do research, and what i was talking about, is taking steps to ensure safety. Avoiding being caught is one and very important. Learning how to do damage control is another, encryption, vpns, internet security. These are the kinds of things we research with regards to our safety.
Conservative prosecutors cant prosecute what they dont have evidence for, or what they dont see.
Those questions are relevant to law enforcement, because they tell us the consequences if we were to legalize.
If they do that without sufficient evidence that animals are always harmed, then why would they take your guidelines into consideration?
Then where do you suggest we start?
"Well since since they are so close minded in Saudi Arabia and they think homosexuality is a crime, then we should just let it pass, the homosexuals there should just avoid law enforcement altogether, is not like any homosexual in Saudi Arabia is abusive and deserve to be prosecuted by the legal system."
I suggest you propose guidelines for the intercourse between two gay people in saudi arabia.
Let me know how that goes.
Stop it with the false equivalence, the only reason gay relationships do not require special legislation, is because there is very little difference with a straight relation. Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't treat animal sex any different? Animal cannot sue, they cannot marry or pay taxes, they cannot buy or sell on their own, hell research shows they have a terrible sense of time, and you come here and say that I shouldn't change anything?
And why wouldn't I propose decriminalization of homosexuality in Saudi Arabia? are you trying to suggest I would be intimidated?
No, I am trying to suggest that such guidelines are useless for convincing anyone who is responsible for bigoted legislation.
If animal abuse is discovered, the state sues. If it's not discovered, nobody really can do anything about it either way.
I don't see how that's relevant.
If you want to change the law to get a better definition of abuse, that's something that would be reasonable.
You sound rather like you want to define what is not abuse and what should be legal. I just want it to be the other way around. Don't try to define what we can do, just try to define what we can't do and everything else is fine.
So just like that you give up towards the will of the state? Don't we live in a democracy? Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be, how else did the US or Mexico got founded?
The state will sue you even if you didn't rape the animal, and the dog cannot exactly testify for you.
It is relevant, because every one of those actions is essential to live under our legal system.
Ok, so you want a shift in perspective towards a positive rather than a negative one? Now even though that may work, there are a plethora of responsible practices, compared to irresponsible ones in my opinion, so it is simply more practical to keep the perspective as it is.
Maybe. But I want that the state must provide evidence that abuse has happened to prosecute. What is and isn't abuse may even be decided on a case to case basis, as long as the court is fair in its assessment. I don't see what more we need.
The only evidence they need is that intercourse happened at all, some horse lover in Indiana got arrested while giving a blowjob to his horse, while police where searching for an unrelated crime.
Exactly. We don't feel that we need a rigorous set of guidelines, and because of this, we haven't made one. We have the Zeta principles, which are ideal for us, because they don't try to get to specific. Each case is different, from species to species, person to person, and companion to companion. A set of guidelines such as yours is, in effect, delusional at best. I'll leave the rest of that particular argument to /u/YesIloveDogs.
Sexual relations without the explicit or implicit consent of all parties involved. Yes, this means animals do rape each other all the time; twisting the definitions won't change this aspect of their nature.
That doesn't seem to be a coherent question, but based on what I believe you meant to ask, you would report the instance to a figure of authority. Believe me, the world is already filled with people who are more than willing to take action against us.
Because it was employing satire in an attempt to get you to open your eyes to the fact that you're not on the same page as us. Clearly, that satire has been lost.
A set of rules to swear by will do nothing to combat the gross factor that rules most peoples decision making on this topic. Regardless, what makes you qualified enough to write out this set of rules in the first place? What's your background?
It's about making it so prosecuting abusers and protecting responsible practitioners, is made easier.
Since when do I need a background to propose something?
If you want me to take you seriously, you're gonna have to provide some information about your background. To me, this just screams that theres an ulterior motive going on here. Im not sure of your reasons why, or what you plan for the final outcome to be, but thats just my feelings at the moment. I wouldn't sign up to this because it makes me feel uneasy.
I think he's a teenager with a desire to change the world. I was a bit like him half a lifetime ago. If I'd had high speed internet at the time, I might have tried to do this with an entire legal system.
I have 19 and I don't want to change the world, I want to measure how good I am at defending a position, and get a legislation that is worth presenting, I'm doing this because I don't believe non-abusive loving relationships should be considered criminal, is that arrogant? is that merely like wanting to travel faster than light?
I never said it was a bad thing to want to change the world. Honestly though, I don't know how hard your stated goal is. It might be like going faster than light — humans are strange, unreasonable creatures. Look how hard the fight for gay rights is, and that's something that demonstrably doesn't hurt anyone, yet their fight is still ongoing.
Then we must center our efforts on nailing down what makes humans act in irrational ways, everything should be inside a unified model, then we can tackle it in it's roots.
[deleted]
Think about it, the fight for gay rights was not fought by dolphins, but by humans themselves, and the polls do show a shift towards a positive attitude, so not all is lost, we need to figure this out.
As much as they can be relentless in their non-sense, then so can we, we can only hope that natural selection would select our idea to stay, but if we don't even know how, then they will technically be the fittest in the marketplace of ideas.
You must be familiar with logos, ethos, and pathos.
Your pathos is non existent, which is fair enough, because an argument consisting solely of emotional appeal is hardly an argument. But considering you haven't included any compelling ethos either, you're only left with logos to stand on, and it's difficult to argue anything from a single point of traction. As for whether or not your logos even stands up to the situation, that's a different discussion, and it seems to be happening already throughout these comments.
You aren't required to have any sort of background to propose something, but when you disregard rhetoric, don't be surprised when people aren't taking you seriously.
You are wrong, my ethos is stated in section 2, I have argued many times how criminalization is unacceptable, and therefore we need some way to convince the powers may be, but the zeta principles were too broad to be enforceable, so this is the result, it covers any possible reasonable concern a non-zoo may have, I did try to establish common ground, while talking about my fetish.
The people here have failed to argue against a single point inside, they instead argue against being told what to do, I fail to see that as convincing.
I still fail to see any trace of ethos is section two, but criminalization, that was another point I wanted to address here. It just so happens to coincide with section two as well.
Or perhaps not. I don't know where you're from, but I feel that in the western world, we're much too focused on punishing behavior rather than correcting it. Sometimes punishment isn't the best course of corrective action.
You'll have to explain to me how you justify viewing these two as separate arguments. These guidelines, as far as I can see, are telling us what to do. Therefor, by arguing against being told what to do, we're arguing against the points inside which tell us what to do. But if you want to get specific, then believe me, there are plenty of instances to look at.
Having a third party witnessing the events is just a violation of basic privacy.
Making these guidelines mandatory reading for all zoophiles is unnecessary when the majority of us are far more familiar with animals than you seem to be, and are far more concerned for their individual welfare.
And for 7e, why is the pet owner only allowed to call things off for that reason and not any other?
I did notice a few errors though in both grammar and phrasing, making some areas confusing, most noticeably "If the non rational party in question, shows clear signs of pain, discomfort, unwillingness or lack of consciousness, then the non-rational party must withdrawal immediately"
For clarity I also think that 'rational' and 'non rational' should be replaced with 'human' and 'animal'.
And from the previous discussion on proposed guidelines...
I do have a gripe with twelfth, as has been mentioned previously.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I can go on if you'd like, but if you don't already see the point, then there must be no convincing you.
It is only recommended for normal circumstances and compulsive on unusual ones, having it with a dog is not unusual, but with an elephant...
How could you possibly already know my knowledge about animals and welfare? If anything you seem to brag about that as if you don't want to invite me to learn if anything.
What other reason?
Corrected that mistake, and that is the commentary of somebody else, who actually agrees with me.
That is a valid point, but it is a question of semantics, not a point of political disagreement.
All of the problems pointed in the first version, have been fixed in this version.
If there wasn't convincing me, then I would have still considered banning relationships with some animal with a knot, but now they are allowed.
I was making no claim in regards to whether or not you had amended anything; the point was to demonstrate that people have thoroughly disputed you on this, both in terms of specific points and in terms of the overlying principle.
You speak as though you already have the authority. In case there was any ambiguity, let me be clear; you have demonstrated a minimal knowledge of zoology, you have established no reputable standing in the zoophile community, you continue to show an almost comical misunderstanding of this community's intents and interests, your philosophical arguments are hardly sound regardless of the subject, and you hold no authority here.
The others can continue to work with you if they'd like, but I believe it's clear we've reached an impasse, and for now I'm going to take my leave.
Oh, I think one of your members has stated his intent, it very clearly shows how he does not desire legality, if you believe that I cannot change the mind of those here, then I shall leave, you all simply cannot discuss an outsider's perspective.
If you must thank anyone that this version of the guidelines was written, it's this community.
Christ, this again? After the reception you got last time, what on earth would posses you to post the same sort of topic again? It's starting to feel like very elaborate trolling at this point.
"Christ this again? After two posts of me not giving up, what on earth would posses you to comment again? It's starting to feel a very elaborate persecution at this point?"
Convinced?
Have you actually read any laws? You know that this simply not how they are made, right? Not even white papers are written or expressed in this mannor.
As was pointed out before, this pile of verbal idiocy isn't really coherent. It governs so many aspect that are not combined in law, for a reason, that it isn't a very useful guide. You apparently want to make it mandatory, who does that? Most importantly to me, It does not do anything to resolve issues of animal welfare, just covers fucking them.
Did you take my suggestion last time and discuss with your therapist your need for writing long lists of inappropriate rules for others to follow and then getting angry with them?
I was going to take the time to point out inconsistencies, but anyone who can write 6b1 and take it seriously isn't looking for clarity, consistency, or logic. Fundamentally your frame work provides nothing except pretentious real life unworkable rules.
Ok, so you know how laws are written, and yet you sit there and do nothing?
Yeah, you know what, I should just allow people who don't understand animal reproduction to have sex with them.
Wow, you really have zero clue. So, first, I've done lots including funding zoo rights and avocating for law changes, and yes you have made it very clear you do not understand how laws are written. I've sat where laws are made in this country and discussed how other countries make law to understand some of the complexities of what we are changing. None of what you have written will help that. Second,what do you mean YOU should allow? Anyhow, you see how much of a joke that line is? You think you can legislate someone's understanding.
Anyhow, so I guess it didn't go so well with the therapist then?
Oh, and you expect me to know that. Anyways, if anything these serve more of a backbone, more than a finished piece. I ask you again, if you didn't want me to create random legislation, then were should I have started?
Your own community doesn't seem to agree in your activism:
They do not desire legality as you and I do, they prefer to remain as criminals.
Do you think a senator shouldn't be obligated to understand the constitution? or a medic to understand the nervous system? Legislating in understanding is nothing new.
Stop taking quotes out of context, ive made it very clear that i would like to not be considered a criminal, however given the present day and age, thats not happening and i have to take steps to ensure the safety of my mate and i.
Then fight for legislation, don't stay in the shadows!
Why would we? It's very easy to live as a zoo at this point, just close your windows/barn doors.
If you come out and tell people you're zoo, or fight for pro-zoo legislation, then you out yourself and put zoophiles in the spotlight. We don't want that.
I want that. You don't have to expose yourself, you have to start somewhere.
Us as a community doesn't want this. And no, we don't have to do anything. The last thing I want is some arrogant ass telling everyone else about zoophiles and how we should go about having sex with our lovers.
You are right, you don't have to do anything, keep telling yourself that until you commit a mistake, and you get arrested. Keep telling yourself that, while you are not longer allowed to be with the animal you love. Keep telling yourself that when you see your friends around you stop contacting you, while your zoo friends are already arrested too.
Because you know what, who needs to be told how to have sex? If I rape my girlfriend, then anyone who opposes doesn't have enough expertise, they are just arrogant, who want to tell me what to do.
lol
Are you insinuating that we don't know how to properly treat our animals? My love of my life? My center of my world? That I'd just accidentally rape him?
And you don't have expertise by any means and that is one of the root problems. You suggested surgical alteration of a dogs knot in order to have sex last time you showed up around here. Not only would that be cruelty in itself, such a surgery does not exist. There are many flaws to the things you say and you simply come off as an ass. And instead of apologizing for your idiocy last time, you show up here again like it never happened.
Oh, so acknowledging my mistake doesn't count as an apology? Ok: "I'm sorry i suggested to remove the dog's knot. That is totally inhumane."
I'm sure however, you have plenty of expertise, tell me: what degree in what area do you have, you must have a thesis on animal reproduction, right?
No, see, you don't get it.
I mean first off acknowledging a mistake is not the same as apologising. It's missing two very important words.
More to the point, you've demonstrated a failure to have a pretty basic understanding of what you're talking about. Knots are pretty much zoophilia 101. Even horse guys know about knots. Then when you didn't know what you were talking about and someone raised issue, instead of gaining that knowledge you were missing you suggested in ignorance the worst, most inhumane possible solution in the name of upholding your original erroneous document.
I know I do not want that person speaking on my behalf as you are trying to.
Then speak for them, be their voice since you know so much more. Any reasonable zoo should be fighting for decriminalization, we are talking spending part of your life in jail.
Society doesn't give a shit how reasonable we are as long as we fuck animals. Yeah it sucks but we can't do anything about it without dooming our lifestyle. Grow up.
If I accept that, then I'm not longer human, I don't care how much I'm giving up, if I saved at least one person's life, then I didn't live in vain.
Save a person's life by being a good friend, not being a raging SJW
Name calling again, we are going backwards here, come on you need to try harder.
Its not name calling, you are in fact, attempting to be an SJW on our behalf, please fuck off and leave us alone
Oh, we are playing over here, you tell me to leave, and I say no, rinse and repeat.
There's no need to use "SJW" as a pejorative here, I think. I'm all for social justice, but I still think /u/kkllee needs to fuck off :P
Make an argument that says I should leave and then I will leave, here I can help you start:
Premise one:
I mostly meant it as the stereotypical flaming one. There are certainly issues, and those who should stand for them, but nobody likes those who are aggressive about it.
Agreed. It's one thing to support a group in their own fight, but quite another to show up as an uninvited outsider and say "why aren't you guys trying harder, here, I'll get you started."
What /u/kkllee is doing has nothing to do with zoophiles and everything to do with his own ego.
Precisely
That's ad homein, anything you like to add to the guidelines?
You cannot for any issue by yourself then? You think there aren't people out there who will try to ruin your life if you propose a certain reasonable legislation, standing up for anything always implies risk.
We don't need to stand up, our sexuality doesnt change who we are as a person. People simply don't have to know about it.
They don't have to, if we want things to stay as they are, with suicides, arrests, bullying.
Is this your idea of security? what sense does it make to conserve your life if you gotta watch your every move so as not to give away your cover.
Internet counseling just doesn't cut it.
You don't have to watch every move you make, but there are certain limits. Screaming from the rooftops "IM A DOG FUCKER, LOVE ME" is not going to do anything.
And at no point, did I ever suggest that.
Your idea is not that different, youre asking us to go public.
That is only in the long term, the only one who would go public would be me.
You cannot go public for a group you are not a part of. Stop clinging to this idealistic view you have. It's simply not going to work.
If I say, "Hey my name is x, and I want zoophilia to be legal." Then that is going public.
No, see, because I like my life and I don't want to have to pack my bags and move to Nebraska and live a quiet life to hide from my legacy as the dogfucker from North Dakota who made the news for voicing this shit in a court and started getting bricks through my windows and death threats on the hour. I have a family, too. Do you think they'd be safe from the backlash? I sure don't. What do you think would happen to my dog? He'd be put the fuck down.
Please do not misinterpret me as a tumblrina when I say this, but you need to check your fucking privilege and realize the implications of being vocal about this shit at this point in history. This is not a game.
Are you worried about me?
No, you said
and I was telling you to fuck right off.
Fighting doesn't mean exposing yourself, but being open to the ones who propose a solution and assisting them in whatever is possible.
Yes, it is always possible to abuse of someone on accident, look at schizophrenics, look at religious people who faith heal and truly believe heaven is preferable than seeing a doctor, look at the ones who taught their children they were inferior, because otherwise they may get lynched.
[deleted]
Fighting for legislation literally ruins our lives. You do not understand in the slightest.
Then how I am doing it right now, and my life hasn't been ruined?
Because youre online, where anonymity is your friend. In real life youlk face accusations of being a zoo. And youll likely face harder issues than that.
No YILD, my life hasn't been ruined because I was careful and I started in a safe place, so then I can work my way up and evaluate how far can I go. You are comfortable to stay in the shadows, where society cannot see you and they can tell all sorts of lies about you "If zoophilia is not immoral, then why don't zoophiles come out.", there is a reason why villains are associated with darkness.
If society cant see us, they cant hurt us.
They can't? Then why did gays even bothered coming out? what if we have a very high suicide rate amongst zoophiles? the only solution would be support, and the only way to give support is through social acceptance, something you seem to believe is impossible, so I guess there is no hope for them.
I'm not old enough to pretend im an expert in this, but i imagine in the 40's gays didn't come out.
And I guess they did the right thing, didn't they?
If it retained their safety yes. There's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and it wouldve been more dangerous to come out than to stay hidden then, just as it is for us now. What you cant get through your (apparently empty) head , is that, its not just our lifestyle on the line a lot of times. It can actually be our lives.
It doesn't have to be this way, I would take the burden on myself if it's necessary, if I die then that's my wish, I just need you to help me and then if I get killed, then you won't have to see me again it's win-win.
So what? Now you want to be a martyr for a group you're not even a part of. You're the stereotypical SJW on steroids. People aren't going to single you out. They will look at a group of people, ostracize us further and probably persecute us more. You're asking an entire group to uproot their lives, so that you can potentially be a martyr for them. How sweet.
How would their lives be compromised if they only know about me, if anything I could argue that I would be more like glue, to make the community stronger.
the community is already strong. you are only serving as a wedge to drive us apart. if you really care about us, go away.
Come on, you can't let fear take over you!
This is not fear, you are mistaken. I have less fear now than I have ever known before. I have better friends, I'm comfortable with myself for the first time in many many years. I'm happy to be a zoophile, that said, part of the zoo lifestyle is remaining anonymous for now. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, many of us have already done more things to advance social knowledge that are already more productive than your shitty guidelines.
Let's hope your friends don't get arrested or murdered, in case of hacking.
I can assure you my friends will not. They know the risks and take the precautions.
Then you have nothing to fight for, right? Do you only care about the security of the ones near to you?
I care about the security of each and every zoophile and im here to listen to their problems if they so desire. We as a community provide resources to help people with their personal security. We also tend to stick together like a bunch and it helps a lot of people out. I do not have anything to fight for. If I am comfortable with who I am and am a productive member of society, it does not matter to the world what I am. It does not matter to me what the world thinks of my sex life, because they do not need to know. Our private lives are called that for a reason. Not everyone needs to know I fuck dogs, it doesn't make any difference in the kind of person I am.
You have to stop your whole rhetoric "Is okay to be a criminal as long as you don't get caught." You are an obstacle towards any possibilities for legalization.
Only if you think anything is inherently criminal about zoophilic relationships. I dont, the rest of the world does, why fight against it? Take the proper precautions for the love life and be a good person. Its not that hard.
It's not about if it is hard or not, it's not hard to obtain and smoke weed, it's not even hard to grow it yourself, without getting caught. So we shouldn't even bother trying to decriminalize that?
Why fight against it? Because we can, that power is granted by us by democracy, if you don't fight for what you want, then you say to your opponents (your oppresors) "Yes, you are right."
We're not saying anything. I don't think its right, but the risks of fighting against it are too great. Again I dont expect you to understand this, so please, stop waving around your banner like you do. You have no idea what it's like to consider suicide as a result of your love. Speaking as someone who has, I can guarantee you that I am immeasurably better than I once was, simply by even knowing that others exist out there. I don't need society to accept me.
But others zoo's do! If we legalize thousands of suicides could be prevented! Isn't that worth the risk? you could save thousands of lives of zoo's you didn't even knew existed.
It's a societal change, its ingrained into society and your guidelines do nothing to combat that as multiple people have proven over and over. People commit suicide for many different reasons the world and it saddens me to know that some zoophiles do. That said, im not about to ask a generation of zoos to throw their lives away for the chance that change might happen in 20-30 years. It could potentially get very worse before anything gets better. What you're asking of people in here carries a lot of weight and im pretty sure that a lot of people wouldn't mind if you stopped telling us what to do.
I offered my own life and no-one else's, if you help me, then I will protect you if anything happens.
That is an offer you are unable to uphold. There is no reason for you to offer such a thing. Fight your own battles and stop asking us to join you. Your arrogance has gone far enough.
It won't until I go to the mexican senate and uphold it there, maybe start smaller, like the government of Mexico city.
its a societal problem, jesus fuck youre stupid. youll get murdered by a gang of people who think you're an animal fucker. not the government.
If so what? It won't be any different if we leave things as they are.
You don't understand how animal reproduction works. You came in here not even knowing what a dog's knot was. You have no fucking business telling a zoophile what they need to know about reproduction when they're some of the most knowledgeable people about it.
Ok, then test me. Ask me something about animal reproduction.
You've already failed.
Then test me again, come on, shot.
Go away. You're not welcome here, that much is obvious. You're just gonna get yourself banned.
Until then... Prepare for more discussion.
Kkllee are you a zoophile?
No I'm not.
Are you zoo-tolerant?
Yes, I mean I did write these things to push legalization.