I posted the second version of my guidelines in the hopes I would get feedback to further refine, instead I kept receiving the same concerns, rather than any suggestion on what needed to be changed.
1.- We don't want to be told what to do
Then in that case you agree with me, because I want the state to stop telling you don't have the freedom of practice, without any reason for it, but in any case the guidelines keep the practices of responsible zoophiles as they are, the only things that they change, address the concerns of non-zoo's, should they be ignored?
2.- It is ridiculous to believe you would think of regulating love
Then I guess laws requiring a minimum age are unfounded, I guess if I really love someone then I don't have to care if there was consent, or if it was dangerous.
Reasonable laws regulating sexual practices, are common already, we don't special legislation for gay sex, because it is practically identical to straight sex, but the animals we deal here are not legal persons, and therefore we require to acknowledge that, so that we don't end up with absurds trying to make the current legislation fit zoophilia.
3.- The current laws already cover it
No they don't, not a single law mentions sex with animals without banning it, in the best case scenario, we got a free for all due to an existing legal limbo, is that desirable? don't you want cases of abuse persecuted?
Even if they were examples of laws permitting and regulating practice, they wouldn't cross over their own borders, in any case we just create a zoophilia haven, where you actually have to travel in order to comply with law, the guidelines are supposed to get a consensus on what zoophiles want, if they were to get regulated, so that there is a backbone to defend and build upon, for anyone wanting new legislation.
4.- We already are self determined.
Are you? You hide your activities from law enforcement, you cannot go public about it, and there is an stigma that only grows stronger with you living in the shadows, and affects many people to the point of suicide, murder and incarceration.
You are as self determined as the Tibet.
5.- The zeta principles are enough
Then why no one is pushing them to make them actual laws? Could it be because they are poorly written? They use ambiguous concepts, they are redundant and they are oddly specific.
If your law is ambiguous then you create loopholes, loopholes to make abuse easier on a court of law.
6.- Forcing a present third party to be present, violates privacy
You all were pretty much unilateral on your misinterpreting of this point, that was my fault, so I had to edit it to make it clearer:
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.
Dog sex is immune to 5c1, since it isn't something many people haven't done already and measured the risks, this only is mandatory for something only very few have tried before, like fisting an elephant.
So it is only recommended for the rest of situations.
7.- The opposition won't change
Is that enough reason to stop trying? Is the opposition immortal? Are there no neutral or ignorant people? Aren't there reasonable people around, willing to have their believes reversed? It is merely a non-sequitor.
8.- You are suggesting there are abusers among us
Why? Is banning murder in China, suggesting that chinese are natural murderers? If you agree that animal rape is not okay, then why oppose a legislation that says exactly that?
Not only that, no one of us knows enough about each other, to know if someone is an abuser in secret, it is an scary thought, but it isn't different in any other social context. Sometimes the one who we trust more, the ones who we think we know really well, are the ones that come out committing terrible acts.
9.- I only intent to produce my partner happiness, that should be enough
Good for you, that still doesn't change the fact that we can't tell if you are lying, or that your good intentions were misguided, since we don't even know your definition of happiness, then it is merely an appeal to emotion; acts of inhumanity happen all the time with good intentions.
The law is mostly independent of intentions, when it comes to sexual crimes, it shouldn't be any different.
10.- You are not a zoophile
So...? Isn't that a good thing? I'm willing to go public and push legislation that I consulted with you, shouldn't that be the only important parts? If anything that makes even better publicity of you.
11.- We already know how to take care of ourselves
Then why is it that zoophiles are still being incarcerated? Even if you are very careful all of your life, all it takes is a single mistake for law enforcement to catch you, or worst, a zoophobe. Is that a life worth living? Being vigilant about your expressions of love or who is truly your friend.
By creating a system to stay out of the radar of law enforcement, then you open the door for criminals to use the same channels you use.
This basically argues: "Breaking the law is okay, as long as you don't get caught."
If zoophilia has nothing immoral about it, then it should not stay in the shadows, we certainly won't get it by tomorrow, but we will certainly never get it if we keep our inactions.
12.- You suggested we should remove the dog's knot
Since then I have learned more about the dog's anatomy and now I understand that there is no reason why we should pursue easy withdrawal over the anatomy. I know fully well, how a removal is inhumane and against what I was proposing.
So sex with a knot should be allowed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't search for humane alternatives for easy withdrawal.
13.- You created this without our input
The whole point of posting it here was to get your input, the whole structure of the second versions of the guidelines was inspired thanks to this community
14.- You don't care about us
You are right. I care for every single human independent on their opinions. Even murderers have rights, and yours are being taken away.
15.- You only care about your ego
Then why is it I decided to go here and not to the senate? Why is it that I decided to change several things in the guidelines on your own suggestions?
15.- Just go away
Read the rules and you will see a method to achieve it:
Keep in mind that not everyone feels the same way you do in regards to zoophilia, and that is irrespective of whether they are zoos or not. Please respect others and treat them as you wish to be treated. If you wish to complain about a user or the way the subreddit is run,
If you can demonstrate that your disapproval, is not about mere disagreement or hate, then you can get me banned.
All it takes is for you to list your reasons:
- Reasons why kkllee should leave:
1.
2.
3.
If I cannot find an inconsistency, then I leave on my own regard.
You're just a troll, can't you be doing something with your life somewhere else?
And not a single piece of substance, thanks for trying.
People aren't pushing for laws because.. uhm, well do you run the risk of your animals being euthanized just for loving them? No, you're not a zoophile so you can't comprehend the understanding? Well then.
What you are doing is pressing people into your views. I have seen people tell you what was fucked up with your "guidelines" and you just ran around the bush crying about how right you are and how mean everyone is for not letting you be helpful. People like you didn't make gay people safe. People like you don't make trans people safe. Your job as an ally is to amplify our voices, not smother us in your opinions of how things should be done. That is what is wrong with you doing what you are doing and that is why everyone is pissed the fuck off at you.
You run the risk anyway if things are kept the same way
Not a single person has addressed anything of substance in there except for semantics, I already made my point how section 5 does not constitute a violation of privacy.
No, I made a really damn fine point. You're electing to ignore it. You are a problem, this is why, accept it and move on or just keep being a blatant troll wasting our time.
And yet you decided to reply anyway, just point towards one point, one point inside of them, then there is actually substance instead of name calling.
You complain about us not giving substance, but you're still running around that tree. HMMM....
So you can't point anything wrong with the guidelines, but you still hate them and hate me, then I think we are done.
I did point something out, you elected to ignore it. I think you're starting to run a ditch around that tree. Trying to build a moat there?
I don't understand what that means, I guess you are saying what I'm doing is worthless, but I already argued against that in this post.
Not only that, the guidelines do not mention trying to convince the opposition of anything, that is better left when there is actually a court of law to discuss. As many of you have said, "it doesn't matter what they think", but that only applies if it is already legal, until then it does matter, because they hold the power, maybe not through logic, but definitely not through inaction.
What I am meaning is that you keep saying the same bologna over and over while ignoring what I have said to you. You just keep... spewing stuff that I have said nothing about. When you actually have an adult conversation surrounding my two initial points, we can move onto the rest. Until then, I'll just sit in my metaphorical chair, eating metaphorical popcorn, while you run metaphorical circles around a metaphorical tree.
Ok, then maybe it is my fault. Just list what I have decided to ignore, then you have proven your point, I will apologize to everyone, delete my posts and never come back. Like I said once, I will never lie, if you can demonstrate that isn't true, then it's my end.
This entire post: http://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/30zto8/on_responses_to_the_guidelines/cpxciq9
I don't see how I could have done anything different, I even asked the community if they wanted to see them, and many said they did.
Like I said, the whole conversation was based on what it's included here, no one touched any other subject, I talk about pet ownership, works of art, accountability, and yet nothing out of it.
Then who made them safer? Because if you answer "themselves", then obviously you are not acting the same way, in giving up and living in the shadows.
I guess you are saying that arrogant people are not responsible for gay rights, yet I did everything in my power to consult your opinion, I went out of my way, so that there is no room for misunderstanding, I went ahead and apologized for my comment on the dog's knot several times, and yet I failed.
Like I said, the risk is still there, you have learned to go around it, but it is unstable, it just doesn't have to be this way in a democracy.
So because you are a zoophile you understand so much more?
That's a good thing, because I was wondering if you by any chance, knew whether or not the suicide rates of zoophiles are greater. Do cases of abuses of zoophiles are underreported?
It does not matter if I didn't pass through the same struggles, I still have empathy, I still have reason.
I have done these battles before. I am queer and trans. The fact you think people like yourself got us to where we are today is fucking laughable. You are the punchline and we're not amused, so get off the stage. Your reason is flawed, you refuse to acknowledge it. You keep defending yourself, but you actually did nothing out of your way until I made you run yourself around a few more times. Here we are, back at square one, with you thinking you are rightrightright and we are being meanyheads.
You don't get to think of yourself as an ally. Allies are chosen by the community for what they do, not by people who think they're trying "hard enough" to understand. I see you trying to help, but you're standing on a slick soap box, buddy. Instead of constructing guidelines based on YOUR opinion, how about starting a consensus thread and basing things off of the general opinion? You know, instead of thinking to yourself, "Well I think this is right and I don't see why you people don't agree!!!"
By the way, it does matter if you did or didn't pass through similar struggles. It always matters in any battle for equal rights, zoophilia is no different, take a history lesson and come back to us when you've sobered up on what it's like to be on the receiving end of your ugly stick.
Suicide rates in minority groups are always higher, and let's be real, there's no such thing as statistics for this that are solid. If you're as smart as you think you, surely you could figure that out on your own.
Do you mean that I twisted the opinion of someone to fit my agenda? Do you want me to link you to the actual comment?
Having read your responses to criticism (much of which is resentful, but some of which is warranted), I think I see a compromise solution here.
When you complain about the lack of current laws, you are either ignoring or downplaying animal cruelty laws (included is an example from a state without a ban on sex with animals), which cover the major problems, including the following:
Are these laws completely adequate for the protection of animals? No, they are not, and it is a terrible injustice. But saying that sexual abuse should be held to a different standard than other forms of abuse seems ludicrous.
Also, some of your statements (about pushing for laws and going to the senate) seem to indicate you want a single federal law for the United States. That is simply impossible, constitutionally. The federal government is not granted constitutional power to make criminal laws that don't have to do with interstate commerce or federal jurisdictions (prisons, naval ships, etc.). To actually do this, it would have to be done state by state barring a constitutional amendment granting the federal government vastly more powers in criminal matters (which is politically impossible to do).
So, if you really want to do this, here's my advice:
Check the state statutes on both animal cruelty and sexual offenses to get an idea on acceptable language and particularly definitions. You may notice that the laws aren't all-encompassing, and that's just necessary to make the laws enforceable.
Check model legislation from the ALDF and the Animal Law Resource Center for other ideas on enforcement measures and what these organizations do to attempt to correct problems of vagueness in state and local laws.
Check pet-abuse.com for an extremely small list of cases to get some idea of the sorts of abuses such laws would seek to prevent as well as the injustices of the current system.
TL;DR, do some research and come back with something simpler that can be attached to existing laws.
My plan is to go to the council of Mexico city, and then if I win, push it to the Mexican senate. If I wanted anything to do with the United States I would first get the theocrats out, and mandate clean elections.
It may seem ludicrous to think we need to regulate differently, but this were created specially taking into account the concerns of non-zoo's, I do agree I need a better model on how to make it formal, but these weren't intended to be a final document, I posted them here to get more feedback.
I'm currently reading your links.
Bestiality is, to the best of my knowledge, legal in Mexico. I've looked up the federal criminal and penal codes there, and no such laws appear to exist (though there are some minor laws against animal cruelty and, oddly, laws against spreading STIs). Mexican law seems to see animal cruelty as a civil crime against property, in general. If there is some law in specific states against bestiality (perhaps the new laws in Mexico City passed in 2013), they are difficult to find. In the State of Mexico, for example, they have this vague law against sexual abuse:
Roughly translated, if you act sexually toward a minor, a person who can't understand or resist what is happening, an unwilling party, or do such things around a third party, you face 8 to 15 years in prison. But in any case, it's difficult to say that this is an issue that the Mexican government should be addressing right now, even if they can. They have so many other problems (corruption, drug trafficking, a struggling economy) that laws about general animal well-being are hard to see coming into place, or to see as applicable to the developed world for the most part. The United States and Western Europe, while they have their own problems, have much more case law regarding civil rights and animal cruelty, and the legal environment in these countries is very different from that of Mexico (and to an extent each other as well).
Your attempts to make zoophilia legally sound are a little odd coming from a country famed for certain debaucheries and legal backwardness (somewhat undeservedly, but there are problems to address). But a different perspective can be valuable, so long as you educate yourself both on your own legal situation and how lawmaking could work.
[deleted]